Almost drew my weapon today!

peter nap · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

I'm going to take a different tack than most commenters so far. I think that you seriously overreacted.

Point #1--The vast majority of rape, child abuse (BOTH sexual and otherwise), and similar crimes are committed by someone the victim knows. Sources vary somewhat, but check any source that you care to, and you will see that the stereotypical "stranger danger" is vastly overblown.

Despite this, however, more and more people are becoming more and more hysterical about perfectly harmless activities. As this headline says, "Father-of-three branded a 'pervert' - for photographing his own children in public park."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035315/Father-branded-pervert--photographing-children-public-park.html#ixzz0mPNe8Dp7

Point #2--A young child is unlikely to be a reliable source of information when he's excited or alarmed. Possible questions to ask in such a circumstance--Where are the people located? Are they standing directly in front of the children? Are they taking pictures from a car parked by the side of the road? Are they merely taking pictures of the property in general? Etc., etc.

A report like your son gave certainly should be checked out, but it is not necessarily something to get excited over.

I think you're missing the point.
It really doesn't matter if the trespasser is a child molester or a burglar or a deranged ax murderer...or for that matter, just someone poking their nose where it doesn't belong, it needs to be looked into.

If he doesn't have his gun when he looks into it, he's unlikely to be able to get it if he needs it.

TFred · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

I'm going to take a different tack than most commenters so far. I think that you seriously overreacted.

Point #1--The vast majority of rape, child abuse (BOTH sexual and otherwise), and similar crimes are committed by someone the victim knows. Sources vary somewhat, but check any source that you care to, and you will see that the stereotypical "stranger danger" is vastly overblown.

Try telling your "vast majority" story to the parents of the Lisk/Silva girls, who were abducted, raped, murdered and dumped by a total stranger here in the 90s. Having lived through that nightmare (second only to the DC snipers in generating fear and concern among the population), I will tell you that it is never inappropriate to immediately assert control over a stranger in your yard. Never.

Now I'm not saying you should go running in, weapon drawn, full tactical mode, blah blah, but I think the OP acted quite appropriately.

TFred

Pagan · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

I'm going to take a different tack than most commenters so far. I think that you seriously overreacted.

Point #1--The vast majority of rape, child abuse (BOTH sexual and otherwise), and similar crimes are committed by someone the victim knows. Sources vary somewhat, but check any source that you care to, and you will see that the stereotypical "stranger danger" is vastly overblown.

Despite this, however, more and more people are becoming more and more hysterical about perfectly harmless activities. As this headline says, "Father-of-three branded a 'pervert' - for photographing his own children in public park."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035315/Father-branded-pervert--photographing-children-public-park.html#ixzz0mPNe8Dp7

Point #2--A young child is unlikely to be a reliable source of information when he's excited or alarmed. Possible questions to ask in such a circumstance--Where are the people located? Are they standing directly in front of the children? Are they taking pictures from a car parked by the side of the road? Are they merely taking pictures of the property in general? Etc., etc.

A report like your son gave certainly should be checked out, but it is not necessarily something to get excited over.

So according to your logic, I should teach my children that having stangers show up at our house and start taking pictures of them is OK and that neighbors and friends should be watched more carefully? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Also, had I not be excercising at the time, my gun would have already been on my person in an OC fashion, and my attire would have been the same as well. So either way, ANYBODY coming to my property announced or otherwise would have been met by a partially clothed, armed man, only difference would be thatI would have had a friendlier tone of voice upon first contact.

My response was level headed and direct, IMO. Also, Mike, later sent my wife an e-mail apologizing for scaring my children, and said he under stood my reaction.

Pagan · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

I'm going to take a different tack than most commenters so far. I think that you seriously overreacted.

Point #1--The vast majority of rape, child abuse (BOTH sexual and otherwise), and similar crimes are committed by someone the victim knows. Sources vary somewhat, but check any source that you care to, and you will see that the stereotypical "stranger danger" is vastly overblown.

Despite this, however, more and more people are becoming more and more hysterical about perfectly harmless activities. As this headline says, "Father-of-three branded a 'pervert' - for photographing his own children in public park."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035315/Father-branded-pervert--photographing-children-public-park.html#ixzz0mPNe8Dp7

Point #2--A young child is unlikely to be a reliable source of information when he's excited or alarmed. Possible questions to ask in such a circumstance--Where are the people located? Are they standing directly in front of the children? Are they taking pictures from a car parked by the side of the road? Are they merely taking pictures of the property in general? Etc., etc.

A report like your son gave certainly should be checked out, but it is not necessarily something to get excited over.

So according to your logic, I should teach my children that having stangers show up at our house and start taking pictures of them is OK and that neighbors and friends should be watched more carefully? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Also, had I not be excercising at the time, my gun would have already been on my person in an OC fashion, and my attire would have been the same as well. So either way, ANYBODY coming to my property announced or otherwise would have been met by a partially clothed, armed man, only difference would be thatI would have had a friendlier tone of voice upon first contact.

My response was level headed and direct, IMO. Also, Mike, later sent my wife an e-mail apologizing for scaring my children, and said he under stood my reaction.

darthmord · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

One of the reasons for this sort of thing is the diminishing respect and reverence shown towards private property over the past 50+ years. When I was growing up, you just didn't onto someone's property without permission. It was understood.

But during the 60's this respect for property turned into something else - property was considered by many to be no longer sacrosanct. We see this today in developments where kids think nothing of crossing your lawn to get somewhere or actually stopping and playing on your property. And it's because their parents are the product of the kids of the 60's.

In 1999, my wife and I wanted to have a house built on a particular lot in our development. She was concerned because there were train tracks approximately 300 yards away and wanted to know how loud the train was. So one day while in the neighborhood, I saw a man tending his lawn across from the lot we wanted. I walked over to his side of the street and asked him if I could come up on his driveway and talk to him. This is called respect. In passing, I happened to mention this to someone at my work and that guy thought I was crazy to have asked permission (he lived in Maryland and about my age). Obviously he was not raised as I was.

So now we find FEMA people, and others, thinking nothing of wandering onto someone's property for whatever reason and then acting put out when faced with the owner and his gun.

I get on anyone's case if they are wandering through my yard w/o having gotten permission to do so first.

Had a Norfolk City Codes inspector wandering around my back yard. I got all over his case. I gave him a clear warning that unless he could produce a clear, legal, and valid reason for trespass, the police were going to be his best friends shortly.

He actually had the nerve to tell me he could do whatever he wanted. :shock:At any rate, I told him to beat feet. I grew up in the country and we respected each other's property rights. He told me "Sir, in the Big City we do things a little differently here".

He gave up tryingto impress me when I told him he could have a say in the matter once he started paying my mortgage and that if he was unwilling to, I would happily show him the street.

SouthernBoy · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

darthmord wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

One of the reasons for this sort of thing is the diminishing respect and reverence shown towards private property over the past 50+ years. When I was growing up, you just didn't onto someone's property without permission. It was understood.

But during the 60's this respect for property turned into something else - property was considered by many to be no longer sacrosanct. We see this today in developments where kids think nothing of crossing your lawn to get somewhere or actually stopping and playing on your property. And it's because their parents are the product of the kids of the 60's.

In 1999, my wife and I wanted to have a house built on a particular lot in our development. She was concerned because there were train tracks approximately 300 yards away and wanted to know how loud the train was. So one day while in the neighborhood, I saw a man tending his lawn across from the lot we wanted. I walked over to his side of the street and asked him if I could come up on his driveway and talk to him. This is called respect. In passing, I happened to mention this to someone at my work and that guy thought I was crazy to have asked permission (he lived in Maryland and about my age). Obviously he was not raised as I was.

So now we find FEMA people, and others, thinking nothing of wandering onto someone's property for whatever reason and then acting put out when faced with the owner and his gun.

Click to expand...

I get on anyone's case if they are wandering through my yard w/o having gotten permission to do so first.

Had a Norfolk City Codes inspector wandering around my back yard. I got all over his case. I gave him a clear warning that unless he could produce a clear, legal, and valid reason for trespass, the police were going to be his best friends shortly.

He actually had the nerve to tell me he could do whatever he wanted. :shock:At any rate, I told him to beat feet. I grew up in the country and we respected each other's property rights. He told me "Sir, in the Big City we do things a little differently here".

He gave up tryingto impress me when I told him he could have a say in the matter once he started paying my mortgage and that if he was unwilling to, I would happily show him the street.

What a nerve on his part for saying this.

I mentioned that when I grew up, we respected other people's property. This stemmed from how I was raised. We were taught from our earliest remembrances that children learned to respect people by first learning to respect the things people owned. This is so simple to me. Children learn tangible things before they learn abstract concepts and ideas. It's instinct. So we quickly learned that property was to be held in high esteem and to respect it and therefore its owner.

The sad thing is what I wrote about regarding the move away from respecting property was and is a deliberate plan. The ultimate goal of the radical agenda of the people is to do away with privately owned property and one way to instill this idea is to teach the young that reverence of property is somehow anti-humanistic.

I could go on with this and spend far more time and effort but I will stop here.

wylde007 · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

The sad thing is what I wrote about regarding the move away from respecting property was and is a deliberate plan. The ultimate goal of the radical agenda of the people is to do away with privately owned property and one way to instill this idea is to teach the young that reverence of property is somehow anti-humanistic.

It is one of the ten planks of Marxism. And one of the ones which most violates our most fundamental rights to life, liberty and PROPERTY (as it was originally intended to be written).

NovaCop · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

I don't understand how you "almost drew" your weapon in this situation? Yes, grab a gun, put it on your hip or in your waistband and go investigate what your 5 year old has just said, but to "almost draw" in this situation is unnecessary. Keep in mind that VA does not have a castle doctrine. Also keep in mind that those people are not fully committing a crime as of yet. In order to get the trespassing charge, they would have to remain on your property after you told them to leave (or if you had enough no trespassing signs posted on your property to fight in court there was no way for them to enter without seeing one) (18.2-119). They could have been solicitors, new neighbors, or hell, someone who just broke down and wanted your help. There was no reason for you to assume they are armed and dangerous. Another poster on this thread said they point a gun at anyone who comes onto their property. Pointing a weapon at someone just for walking into your yard would most likely result in you getting charged under 18.2-282 (you are not defending yourself, especially not arising to the level of lethal force). Just because you are on your own property doesn't mean you can't get a brandishing charge. I can recall a case of someone pulling a shot gun on a magazine salesman in my jurisdiction a few years ago and was charged with brandishing. The case was nolle prossed after the victim no longer wanted to prosecute (he was from out of state and did not want to have to travel). Now if there was more circumstances then maybe it would be wise to draw down on them.

Actually when I was young, myself and some neighborhood kids were sled riding behind our friend's house on a hillside. His next door neighbor yelled out to us that we needed to leave because he owned the property. Our friend's parents talked to him and told him that they owned the property and to pretty much mind his own business (this was a very large area beyond his fence line). This resulted in him pointing a shotgun at us the next time we sled rode. He was convicted and got some jail time. I was too young to recall the exact charges and this did not occur in Virginia, but in a state with similar gun laws to VA.

So just be careful when you chose to draw on someone. Make sure it is a situation that dictates you protecting yourself or someone else and an area you would feel comfortable taking the shot. I also agree with the other posters about the lack of respect for others' personal property.

wylde007 · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

There was no reason for you to assume they are armed and dangerous.

Applying your logic (and the cites presented by others in the thread) there was no reason to assume they weren't.

mdinnie · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

I think the title of the post was catchy and the content revealed that he really didn't "almost draw". Maybe "almost thought I might have to draw" would be more accurate but not as good.
It was still a good post with a lot of good comments.
Pagan acted reasonably and NovaCop's accurate post illustrates that. No weapon was actually drawn because the situation didn't call for it.
I hope I don't regret posting, I rarely do it.

peter nap · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

I don't understand how you "almost drew" your weapon in this situation? Yes, grab a gun, put it on your hip or in your waistband and go investigate what your 5 year old has just said, but to "almost draw" in this situation is unnecessary. Keep in mind that VA does not have a castle doctrine. Also keep in mind that those people are not fully committing a crime as of yet. In order to get the trespassing charge, they would have to remain on your property after you told them to leave (or if you had enough no trespassing signs posted on your property to fight in court there was no way for them to enter without seeing one) (18.2-119). They could have been solicitors, new neighbors, or hell, someone who just broke down and wanted your help. There was no reason for you to assume they are armed and dangerous. Another poster on this thread said they point a gun at anyone who comes onto their property. Pointing a weapon at someone just for walking into your yard would most likely result in you getting charged under 18.2-282 (you are not defending yourself, especially not arising to the level of lethal force). Just because you are on your own property doesn't mean you can't get a brandishing charge. I can recall a case of someone pulling a shot gun on a magazine salesman in my jurisdiction a few years ago and was charged with brandishing. The case was nolle prossed after the victim no longer wanted to prosecute (he was from out of state and did not want to have to travel). Now if there was more circumstances then maybe it would be wise to draw down on them.

Actually when I was young, myself and some neighborhood kids were sled riding behind our friend's house on a hillside. His next door neighbor yelled out to us that we needed to leave because he owned the property. Our friend's parents talked to him and told him that they owned the property and to pretty much mind his own business (this was a very large area beyond his fence line). This resulted in him pointing a shotgun at us the next time we sled rode. He was convicted and got some jail time. I was too young to recall the exact charges and this did not occur in Virginia, but in a state with similar gun laws to VA.

So just be careful when you chose to draw on someone. Make sure it is a situation that dictates you protecting yourself or someone else and an area you would feel comfortable taking the shot. I also agree with the other posters about the lack of respect for others' personal property.

That from one of the limber wristed wonder boys that wave their "Duty Weapons" every time someone says BOO.:X

Pagan · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

snip I don't understand how you "almost drew" your weapon in this situation? Yes, grab a gun, put it on your hip or in your waistband and go investigate what your 5 year old has just said, but to "almost draw" in this situation is unnecessary. Keep in mind that VA does not have a castle doctrine. Also keep in mind that those people are not fully committing a crime as of yet. In order to get the trespassing charge, they would have to remain on your property after you told them to leave (or if you had enough no trespassing signs posted on your property to fight in court there was no way for them to enter without seeing one) (18.2-119). They could have been solicitors, new neighbors, or hell, someone who just broke down and wanted your help. snip

First of all, my property is rural and my front door is clearly visible, new neighbors would go to a door and knock OR ask the kids where their parents are. Second, someone having car trouble would certainly go to a door and knock first, NOT go all the way around my home and fence and start taking pictures. You protect your family how you see fit dude, but mess with my family or come creeping around my land without making a reasonable effort to contact me, especially strangers, and you get what you get, depending on your actions once I make contact with you, thus my hand never touched my gun, because their actions were not deemed byME to be threatening.

I don't get "new" neighbors without being aware of it, there are no apartments or town houses or any kind of mass housingwith common areas or anything like that within 5 miles of my home. You don't just accidently end up in my back yard taking pictures. My 6 year old was explicit enough to say, 1 he did not know them 2 they were taking pictures, and 3, he said THEY, meaning more than one.

TFred · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

[...] Keep in mind that VA does not have a castle doctrine.

One of the most common pieces of advice you hear around these forums is to never ask legal advice from a police officer... and this goes a long way toward showing us why.

I suggest you go read through some of user's posts on this matter, starting here with the thread on HB 854. He is an attorney, and from what I have read from him, he is confident that someone defending themselves in their home or on their property is in a much better position with the law as it is now, unless they were to do a really good job at writing a specific statute to codify a castle doctrine.

Here's your start: Virginia's Castle Doctrine is based on this section of code, (and the next) but it requires a bit more research after that as well...

Just because there isn't a law about it doesn't mean we don't have one. Kind of like Open Carry, in a way.

TFred

Infidel · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Do not click on this link unless you're brave:what:

http://thebosh.com/upload/2008/06/19/when_thongs_attack_some_people_see_dollar_signs/thong%20man.jpg

Your cheating on Grapshot!:shock:

Tomahawk · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

TFred wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

[...] Keep in mind that VA does not have a castle doctrine.

Click to expand...

One of the most common pieces of advice you hear around these forums is to never ask legal advice from a police officer... and this goes a long way toward showing us why.

I suggest you go read through some of user's posts on this matter, starting here with the thread on HB 854. He is an attorney, and from what I have read from him, he is confident that someone defending themselves in their home or on their property is in a much better position with the law as it is now, unless they were to do a really good job at writing a specific statute to codify a castle doctrine.

Here's your start: Virginia's Castle Doctrine is based on this section of code, (and the next) but it requires a bit more research after that as well...

Just because there isn't a law about it doesn't mean we don't have one. Kind of like Open Carry, in a way.

TFred

+1.

But NovaCop's post is a good insight into what you would face if you find yourself in this situation and the police get involved. Even if the law is on your side ultimately, you can still have a government-caused bad day.

TFred · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

TFred wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

[...] Keep in mind that VA does not have a castle doctrine.

Click to expand...

One of the most common pieces of advice you hear around these forums is to never ask legal advice from a police officer... and this goes a long way toward showing us why.

I suggest you go read through some of user's posts on this matter, starting here with the thread on HB 854. He is an attorney, and from what I have read from him, he is confident that someone defending themselves in their home or on their property is in a much better position with the law as it is now, unless they were to do a really good job at writing a specific statute to codify a castle doctrine.

Here's your start: Virginia's Castle Doctrine is based on this section of code, (and the next) but it requires a bit more research after that as well...

Just because there isn't a law about it doesn't mean we don't have one. Kind of like Open Carry, in a way.

TFred

Click to expand...

+1.

But NovaCop's post is a good insight into what you would face if you find yourself in this situation and the police get involved. Even if the law is on your side ultimately, you can still have a government-caused bad day.

You are absolutely correct, and if most or even a good portion of LEOs are similarly ignorant of the law in this matter, it should be enough to chill every law abiding citizens to their very core.

Maybe we should start a fund to raise money to pay User and some of his colleagues to hold seminars for our LEOs! The pain and suffering saved by victims forced to defend themselves could be very well worth the money donated!

TFred

VaLiberty · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

TFred wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

But NovaCop's post is a good insight into what you would face if you find yourself in this situation and the police get involved. Even if the law is on your side ultimately, you can still have a government-caused bad day.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, and if most or even a good portion of LEOs are similarly ignorant of the law in this matter, it should be enough to chill every law abiding citizens to their very core.

Maybe we should start a fund to raise money to pay User and some of his colleagues to hold seminars for our LEOs! The pain and suffering saved by victims forced to defend themselves could be very well worth the money donated!

TFred

The job of police is not to protect nor serve, it is to build a case for prosecution.

TFred · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

VaLiberty wrote:

TFred wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

But NovaCop's post is a good insight into what you would face if you find yourself in this situation and the police get involved. Even if the law is on your side ultimately, you can still have a government-caused bad day.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, and if most or even a good portion of LEOs are similarly ignorant of the law in this matter, it should be enough to chill every law abiding citizens to their very core.

Maybe we should start a fund to raise money to pay User and some of his colleagues to hold seminars for our LEOs! The pain and suffering saved by victims forced to defend themselves could be very well worth the money donated!

TFred

Click to expand...

The job of police is not to protect nor serve, it is to build a case for prosecution.

Recent court cases on such matters would seem to support your statement, but I very much expect them to know who the correct people are to be prosecuting!

TFred

NovaCop · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

peter nap wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

I don't understand how you "almost drew" your weapon in this situation? Yes, grab a gun, put it on your hip or in your waistband and go investigate what your 5 year old has just said, but to "almost draw" in this situation is unnecessary. Keep in mind that VA does not have a castle doctrine. Also keep in mind that those people are not fully committing a crime as of yet. In order to get the trespassing charge, they would have to remain on your property after you told them to leave (or if you had enough no trespassing signs posted on your property to fight in court there was no way for them to enter without seeing one) (18.2-119). They could have been solicitors, new neighbors, or hell, someone who just broke down and wanted your help. There was no reason for you to assume they are armed and dangerous. Another poster on this thread said they point a gun at anyone who comes onto their property. Pointing a weapon at someone just for walking into your yard would most likely result in you getting charged under 18.2-282 (you are not defending yourself, especially not arising to the level of lethal force). Just because you are on your own property doesn't mean you can't get a brandishing charge. I can recall a case of someone pulling a shot gun on a magazine salesman in my jurisdiction a few years ago and was charged with brandishing. The case was nolle prossed after the victim no longer wanted to prosecute (he was from out of state and did not want to have to travel). Now if there was more circumstances then maybe it would be wise to draw down on them.

Actually when I was young, myself and some neighborhood kids were sled riding behind our friend's house on a hillside. His next door neighbor yelled out to us that we needed to leave because he owned the property. Our friend's parents talked to him and told him that they owned the property and to pretty much mind his own business (this was a very large area beyond his fence line). This resulted in him pointing a shotgun at us the next time we sled rode. He was convicted and got some jail time. I was too young to recall the exact charges and this did not occur in Virginia, but in a state with similar gun laws to VA.

So just be careful when you chose to draw on someone. Make sure it is a situation that dictates you protecting yourself or someone else and an area you would feel comfortable taking the shot. I also agree with the other posters about the lack of respect for others' personal property.

Click to expand...

That from one of the limber wristed wonder boys that wave their "Duty Weapons" every time someone says BOO.:X

Mr. Nap,

Why the personal attack? I can assure you I'm not limp wristed nor do I "wave my duty weapon when someone says boo". What would make you say that? Is it because I added my opinion on the matter, which wasn't against OC, but just stating I don't believe drawing down on someone would be appropriate for this situation? Do I need to be all for OC and feel like a badass carrying a gun and pulling it out one people to gain your approval? I can assure you I have been in situations you can only hope you are never in. I only draw when need be. I would never "almost draw" on someone who walked onto my property...maybe that's just an OC mentality?

Why don't we stop with the internet tough guy posts?

NovaCop · Apr 28, 2010

imported post

TFred wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

TFred wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

[...] Keep in mind that VA does not have a castle doctrine.

Click to expand...

One of the most common pieces of advice you hear around these forums is to never ask legal advice from a police officer... and this goes a long way toward showing us why.

I suggest you go read through some of user's posts on this matter, starting here with the thread on HB 854. He is an attorney, and from what I have read from him, he is confident that someone defending themselves in their home or on their property is in a much better position with the law as it is now, unless they were to do a really good job at writing a specific statute to codify a castle doctrine.

Here's your start: Virginia's Castle Doctrine is based on this section of code, (and the next) but it requires a bit more research after that as well...

Just because there isn't a law about it doesn't mean we don't have one. Kind of like Open Carry, in a way.

TFred

Click to expand...

+1.

But NovaCop's post is a good insight into what you would face if you find yourself in this situation and the police get involved. Even if the law is on your side ultimately, you can still have a government-caused bad day.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, and if most or even a good portion of LEOs are similarly ignorant of the law in this matter, it should be enough to chill every law abiding citizens to their very core.

Maybe we should start a fund to raise money to pay User and some of his colleagues to hold seminars for our LEOs! The pain and suffering saved by victims forced to defend themselves could be very well worth the money donated!

TFred

Well TFred, I will tell you that LEO's gain legal training in the academy by very experienced attorneys. They also undergo regular legal training and updates by attorneys usually from the Commonwealth Attorney's office. I also know most officers on their own time take time to update their legal knowledge from other resources. I'm sorry but I don't support an internet lawyer (who I cannot confirm is one although I'm not denying he isn't) that from what I remember, isn't certified in VA, to give me a seminar?

Also what you all forget- When you are arrested, you are then taken before a magistrate. A magistrate (who is experienced in law) determines if the arrest is legal and meets the requirements of the code section. At that point the case is forwarded to the Commonwealth Attorney who then proceeds with the prosecution if they feel it meets all of the requirements and presents it to a judge or jury.

So what you are saying is that a seminar should be given to all VA magistrates? Commonwealth Attorney? Judges? If the citizen is "law abiding", then all of those "checks and balances" will equal him not being charged or being found not guilty.

I am not against someone shooting someone in self defense. I mentioned in my previous post about more circumstances. Nothing makes me happier than to hear someone shoot an armed robber. I am saying that in this situation, it would not justify such force. Nothing in what was posted comes close to following under HB 854.

Almost drew my weapon today!

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

New member