People are getting scared

I live in a sparsely populated rural/agricultural county in Va. I am an NRA certified firearms instructor and teach, among other things, Concealed Handgun Permit classes.

Recently, the county cut the Sheriff's budget. Again. The Sheriff is down to having only two deputies on the road at any given time and only one on graveyard shift. The department is assisted by VSP, but their budget is limited, so they can only assist so much. Besides, VSP is not allowed to assist county sheriffs offices with misdemeanor crimes.

I'm getting a lot more requests for information on my classes, especially from ladies. I truly believe people are getting scared because of the lack of law enforcement.

Most citizens do not know that Va. does not observe the Castle Doctrine. Most do not even know what the Castle Doctrine is. When they find out they do not have the legal right to defend their property against thieves, they become very concerned. Request for information on In Home Self Defense classes and Va. Firearms Law classes have risen also. Some people are even asking where they can learn what to do and how to prepare to survive in the event the country goes to "SHTF" syndrome.

People are getting scared.

And how much do you take in fees from these scared people?

Doug Huffman said:

And how much do you take in fees from these scared people?

Click to expand...

Doug, I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect your intent is sarcasm. I'm sorry if I offended you or caused you to think I'm taking advantage of people. I am not deliberately taking advantage of people's fear any more than a grocer would take advantage of people's hunger.
My intent was simply to share my observations of people's actions and reactions to the current local situation.

Again, I apologize for irritating you.

Doug Huffman said:

And how much do you take in fees from these scared people?

Click to expand...

And to whom do you donate YOUR paycheck?

As an instructor I have invested many thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of time in my own training, equipment and class materials, etc. The range where the classes are held charges me a fee for each student as well. I travel widely (for nothing) to give these classes.

People value what they pay for. I don't know of any instructor who will not make arrangements with those who truly cannot pay the fees. I've done it myself. But people who have the money to buy guns, ammunition, large SUVs and so forth actually can spare the small amount I need to be able to continue offering instruction.

I make my living otherwise, and I don't usually even break even. So spare me your self righteous attitude.

Floyd, it's a sad (and scary) situation, but apparently it's the wake up call that many people needed.

Yes, I know all that. My NRA Training Counselor taught me that and I learned well -

Yes, I know all that. My NRA Training Counselor taught me that and I learned well - and quit.

Two cops on at a time or two hundred, any effect they have (if any) is purely indirect.

• Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
• Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
• Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

When your life is in danger RIGHT NOW, protect YOURSELF or don't get protected AT ALL.

They could double the number of deputies and the odds are, if you're not able to defend yourself, they're just going take your description of your assailant at best, or draw a chalk outline around you at worst.

Deanimator said:

Two cops on at a time or two hundred, any effect they have (if any) is purely indirect.

• Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
• Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
• Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

When your life is in danger RIGHT NOW, protect YOURSELF or don't get protected AT ALL.

They could double the number of deputies and the odds are, if you're not able to defend yourself, they're just going take your description of your assailant at best, or draw a chalk outline around you at worst.

Click to expand...

You got THAT right!

I don't think we need castle doctrine in VA. Using lethal force to protect property is not acceptable to me, unless the taking of said property jeopardizes your life.

We have decent SD laws in VA.

simmonsjoe, you obviously have little or no idea what the "castle doctrine" means.

Here is some good information:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. The name appears to have its origin in the English common law rules protecting a person's home and the phrase “one's home is one's castle. ”

MamaLiberty said:

simmonsjoe, you obviously have little or no idea what the "castle doctrine" means.

Here is some good information:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. The name appears to have its origin in the English common law rules protecting a person's home and the phrase “one's home is one's castle. ”

Click to expand...

Here in Ohio, that extends to your vehicle when you're in it. We think that carjacking should be dangerous for the carjacker too.

simmonsjoe said:

I don't think we need castle doctrine in VA. Using lethal force to protect property is not acceptable to me, unless the taking of said property jeopardizes your life.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think a thieve's life is worth my property. I

In Texas, the Castle Doctrine also protected one from civil liabilities if their actions were found to be justified and if Im correct, the law is the same way here in Kentucky.

You obviously don't know what VA law is.

MamaLiberty said:

simmonsjoe, you obviously have little or no idea what the "castle doctrine" means.

Here is some good information:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. The name appears to have its origin in the English common law rules protecting a person's home and the phrase “one's home is one's castle. ”

Click to expand...

I know exactly what castle doctrine is. Do some homework on VA law before you make such assumptions!
Castle Doctrine bill in VA

flb_78 said:

I disagree. I don't think a [highlight]thieve's[/highlight] life is worth my property. I

In Texas, the Castle Doctrine also protected one from civil liabilities if their actions were found to be justified and if Im correct, the law is the same way here in Kentucky.

Click to expand...

Protection from civil liability is NOT part of castle doctrine. It is it's own separate issue.

Spelling is 'thief's'

simmonsjoe said:

Protection from civil liability is NOT part of castle doctrine. It is it's own separate issue.'

Click to expand...

I was just saying that's how the Texas law was written. Im sure every state writes their's differently.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...thwest/stories/032807dntexcastle.241e482.html

The new law will also provide civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in any of the circumstances spelled out in the bill. Police and prosecutors can still press charges if they feel deadly force was illegally used, legislative sponsors said.

Click to expand...

Gotta love Texas self defense laws

Here is the actual text of the law.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm

Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
Chapter 9

Click to expand...

Also, if someone tries to sue you for using justified deadly force, you can sue them back for the court costs.

SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER
EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative
defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff
all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was
lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

Click to expand...

Deanimator said:

Two cops on at a time or two hundred, any effect they have (if any) is purely indirect.

Click to expand...

Oh, no, you're atually a little off base on that...

The number of LEOs "on the beat" actually DO have a measurable correlation to violent crime. The more cops, the more crime...

There are nearly 5 times as many sworn LEOs in the USA today than there were in 1950. The population has doubled in that same time. The violent crime rate has nearly tripled. These are national averages...

Regionally, however, the majority of the nation has seen significant decreases in violent crime since 2007. In the regions with major decreases in violent crime, there have also been tremendous INCREASES in the issuance of CC permits.

However, cities and states that are not "shall issue" or otherwise restrict or prohibit carry have seen increases in violent crime that are practically a mirror image increase to the decreases in carry-friendly areas.

The increases in violent crime in "victim disarmament zones" has, in fact, more than offset the decreases in violent crime in carry-friendly jurisdictions. These "victim disarmament zones" have also had higher-than-average increases in LEO numbers.

You do the math...

More guns in the hands of LACs = less crime....

But more cops + fewer guns in the hands of LACs = WAY more crime...

And of course, in areas that have seen above-average in LE personnel, there has also been an above-average increase in police brutality, civil rights violation cases, and excessive force lawsuits. Unfortunately, these cases are usually not included in the Federal UCR as "violent crime" because most of these police-committed instances of violence do not result in criminal charges being files against the offending officers--most end in civil suits or are completely thrown out and the officers "get a pass". So actually, the violent crime statistics for carry-unfriendly jurisdictions are lower than the reality of the situation, because they don't count the thousands of annual incidents of bad shootings, beat-downs, excessive force, false arrest (kidnapping), and general abuse of power by LEOs...


Of course, we must remember that correlation DOES NOT equal causation. Statistics are like poodles. If you treat them nice enough, you can make them jump through flaming hoops...

simmonsjoe said:

Using lethal force to protect property is not acceptable to me, unless the taking of said property jeopardizes your life.

Click to expand...

I disagree. In fact, the whole idea of duty to retreat disgusts me.

If criminals want the ability to rob homes without threat of death, they can rob a liberal/democrat's home.

Jack House said:

simmonsjoe said:

I don't think we need castle doctrine in VA. Using lethal force to protect property is not acceptable to me, unless the taking of said property jeopardizes your life.

We have decent SD laws in VA.

Click to expand...

I disagree. In fact, the whole idea of duty to retreat disgusts me.

If criminals want the ability to rob homes without threat of death, they can rob a liberal/democrat's home.

Click to expand...

This has absolutely nothing to do with Duty to Retreat.

One of the reasons the VA Castle Doctrine failed to pass is that it's "Stand Your Ground" clause was weaker than current case law!

An Ohio poster mentioned how their SYG right extends to their cars. Whoopty doo. VA Case Law allows you to SYG virtually ANYWHERE YOUR PRESENCE IS LAWFUL. (as long as you did not start the conflict.)

some confussion

castle doctrine, generally applies to your abode! in some states, it also applies to your car, if your in it.

stand your ground, is a stronger legal precept, and allows you to defend your self, anywhere you may lawfully be!

they look alike, but are different.

the real problem exists in states that still have "duty to retreat", this is an unconscionable,
and immoral restriction of our right to self defense!

if your state has duty to retreat, bust you A55 to get that changed to stand your ground!