• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

VCDL's LOOK AT THE CASTLE DOCTRINE FOR VIRGINIA

ed

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
4,841
Location
Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
VCDL's LOOK AT THE CASTLE DOCTRINE FOR VIRGINIA

The "Castle Doctrine" debate continues to heat up around the country and also here in Virginia. The Castle Doctrine basically says that a person has the right to defend themselves while in their own home (castle) and provides them special protections should they have to exercise that right.


Virginia's self-defense laws are based on common law developed in case law over the last several hundred years. We have pretty good coverage for self-defense here in Virginia currently (many states who celebrated getting a Castle Doctrine law were not so lucky and desperately needed to improve their laws).


Here is a summary of the current self-defense law in Virginia:


Virginia is a stand-your-ground state. But not just in your "castle," but EVERYWHERE you might be. As long as you are not "part of the problem," you can stand your ground and defend yourself. If you end up killing your assailant, it is considered a "justifiable homicide." If you are part of the problem, say you yelled an expletive at someone who cut you off in traffic, and you are attacked, then you must retreat as far as you can, indicate you have given up the fight, and only if the assailant keeps up the attack, may you defend yourself. In that case if the assailant dies, it is considered an "excusable homicide." Also, you can only use deadly force to protect yourself or others when you reasonably fear death OR grievous bodily injury. You CANNOT use deadly force to protect property or against a trespasser.


You might wonder why you have to retreat if you are part of the problem. That's to prevent someone intentionally murdering someone else and claiming self-defense. Let's say that John wanted to murder Jim. John could get a gun, keep it hidden and antagonize the hell out of Jim to the point that Jim might pickup something to attack John out of frustration or anger. John could then shoot Jim claiming "self-defense" since Jim had come at him with a baseball bat.


Problem is that John had intentionally set up Jim to be murdered. By requiring the co-aggressor to retreat, the Commonwealth is trying to eliminate such a scenario.


The push is to change the above into an actual hard-coded law. And that can be very tricky.


Previous attempts to pass a Castle Doctrine bill have mostly centered around protecting someone in a dwelling from being sued if they have to defend themselves. The problem is that no one is being sued for such a thing. Why? Because lawyers would generally do that on contingency, most likely will lose the case under Virginia law, and they will then lose their investment. So there is no monetary incentive for lawyers to "ambulance chase" legitimate self-defense cases.


An all-encompassing Castle Doctrine bill has been hashed around by the battery of lawyers who volunteer their time to VCDL. The bottom line is that it is hard to draft such a bill in a way that doesn't goof up our current legal protections. In that case we are better to do nothing than to make current law worse.


Senator-elect Dick Black has been working with VCDL to draft a solid Castle Doctrine bill for the last couple of weeks. After much time spent going back and forth, Dick and I concluded that the best way to do a Castle Doctrine bill correctly is as follows:


1. Draft a solid bill and put it on the VCDL website
2. Encourage prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, Delegates, Senators, and any other legal professional to look at the bill and try to shoot holes in it
3. Correct the daft for any found deficiencies and repost to the VCDL website
4. In the fall of 2012, prepare the final, fully vetted bill to be drafted by Legislative Services and pre-filed for the 2013 General Assembly session


There are going to be some Castle Doctrine bills put in by others. VCDL will support them, or stay neutral, as long as the bills do no harm. If they do have the potential to harm our current protections, then we will oppose them.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Ed;

A clarification if I may.

"Virginia is a stand-your-ground state. But not just in your "castle," but EVERYWHERE you might be."

Everywhere you may LEGALLY be.


The old universal truth, "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind. Good post and something user points out in his seminars. Virginia's approach to the use of deadly force is one of the better in the nation. I suspect the major problem with Castle Doctrine law is the fact that it is limited by one's dwelling and does not follow them as they go about their daily activities, regardless of where they are (as long as they are there legally). So passing a Castle Doctrine bill could negatively impact one's stance when using deadly force elsewhere.

INAL, so I do not know this for certain by any means. But you're right. Arriving at a good and effective Castle bill in our state will probably be difficult.

Again, good post.... thanks.
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Ed;

A clarification if I may.

"Virginia is a stand-your-ground state. But not just in your "castle," but EVERYWHERE you might be."

Everywhere you may LEGALLY be.


The old universal truth, "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind. Good post and something user points out in his seminars. Virginia's approach to the use of deadly force is one of the better in the nation. I suspect the major problem with Castle Doctrine law is the fact that it is limited by one's dwelling and does not follow them as they go about their daily activities, regardless of where they are (as long as they are there legally). So passing a Castle Doctrine bill could negatively impact one's stance when using deadly force elsewhere.

INAL, so I do not know this for certain by any means. But you're right. Arriving at a good and effective Castle bill in our state will probably be difficult.

Again, good post.... thanks.

I'm not going to comment much about this now for several reasons SB....but you're right.

The problem with the way it is in Va. right now is that without it being codified, you are pretty certain to be charged directly or a Grand Jury is probably going to return a true bill, unless the circumstances are extreme.

Just being charged, even if you're not convicted, can destroy someone.

It needs to be written in the Code, preferably in crayon, so even Virginia Magistrates and Police officers can understand it.

I wouldn't be happy with any proposal right now unless Dan Hawes puts his seal of approval on it.
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
The problem with the way it is in Va. right now is that without it being codified, you are pretty certain to be charged directly or a Grand Jury is probably going to return a true bill, unless the circumstances are extreme.

Just being charged, even if you're not convicted, can destroy someone.

I would not have thought this to be the case here in Virginia. I would have guessed the opposite in cases where it appeared obvious that the victim has to use deadly force. If what you stated here is true, and I have no reason to doubt you would present information otherwise, then some sort of Castle Doctrine law that would cover you regardless of where you happened to be (legally of course) does seem to be preferable to virtually automatically having to go to court.

Opens a new perspective for me at least.
 

AJG

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
130
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
Sb4

Doesnt look like you will have the opportunity to vett it though all the scrutiny that you would like to Ed...

2012 VA GA Session will see this...

SB 4 Castle doctrine; self-defense and defense of others.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
I reckon I can stop working on this issue, then. I published the final revision of the statute folks asked me to write today. I was wondering why these guys kind of got quiet all of a sudden. I guess I got my point across.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I reckon I can stop working on this issue, then. I published the final revision of the statute folks asked me to write today. I was wondering why these guys kind of got quiet all of a sudden. I guess I got my point across.


I'm not going to comment much about this now for several reasons SB....but you're right

That's reason #1

I'll be honest, I don't care if Black plagiarizes excerpts from the dead sea scrolls, I'm not supporting it unless it gets the User Seal. This is a potentially bad move by VCDL. One of several I've already seen, and the session hasn't even started yet.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Ed, again, not to comment much yet, there seems to be a lot of duplication of effort and a little intellectual thievery going on with the crop of Castle Doctrine bills and proposals this year.

This is a very delicate area that can cause a great deal of harm if handled poorly.

Just remember, neither Al Gore or Kirby Birch invented the internet!
 
Last edited:

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
The old universal truth, "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind. Good post and something user points out in his seminars. Virginia's approach to the use of deadly force is one of the better in the nation. I suspect the major problem with Castle Doctrine law is the fact that it is limited by one's dwelling and does not follow them as they go about their daily activities, regardless of where they are (as long as they are there legally). So passing a Castle Doctrine bill could negatively impact one's stance when using deadly force elsewhere.
But why would that be?

If the current state of the common law is that you can stand your ground anywhere you can legally be, and a castle doctrine bill is passed clarifying that only within your home, how does that change anything outside the home? The law would only apply to the specific circumstances stated in that law.

A law restricting what you can do in one place doesn't impose the same restriction in other places not covered, nor does it mean that there aren't other applicable restrictions elsewhere. So why would a law protecting you in one place change protections you already have elsewhere?
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
"Expressio unius alterius exclusio est."

"The expression of one thing is the exclusion of others not expressed." A canon of judicial "construction" or "interpretation". It used to drive me nuts when I would say something to the former spousal unit who would then make all sorts of assumptions about what I didn't say. But there's the trick that the courts use to make the law mean something it doesn't say. If you specify one thing in a statute that a judge can find is similar to something else, then the judge can take the opportunity to say that the something else that used to be ok is now prohibited on the theory that the legislature said so by not saying anything about it.

Part of the trick to being effective as an attorney is to understand that it's humans running the system; that humans do what they do; not trying to make sense of it, and not letting it make you crazy.

Thank you for the expressions of support, by the way; I am humbled and grateful for your confidence.
 
Last edited:

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
"The expression of one thing is the exclusion of others not expressed." A canon of judicial "construction" or "interpretation". It used to drive me nuts when I would say something to the former spousal unit who would then make all sorts of assumptions about what I didn't say. But there's the trick that the courts use to make the law mean something it doesn't say. If you specify one thing in a statute that a judge can find is similar to something else, then the judge can take the opportunity to say that the something else that used to be ok is now prohibited on the theory that the legislature said so by not saying anything about it.

Part of the trick to being effective as an attorney is to understand that it's humans running the system; that humans do what they do; not trying to make sense of it, and not letting it make you crazy.

Thank you for the expressions of support, by the way; I am humbled and grateful for your confidence.

Then couldn't that easily be solved by having the bill state something to the effect of "This section does not apply to any use of force that happens outside of the home"?

And, since self defense is (by my understanding) an affirmative defense, wouldn't that legal doctrine mean that the inclusion of one affirmative defense by statute would preclude all other affirmative defenses? (After all, expressing one affirmative defense would be the exclusion of others not expressed, right?)
 

coondog22554

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
62
Location
Stafford, VA, ,
Doesnt look like you will have the opportunity to vett it though all the scrutiny that you would like to Ed...

2012 VA GA Session will see this...

SB 4 Castle doctrine; self-defense and defense of others.

Along with...

HB 14 Persons acting in defense of property; civil immunity provided for an occupant of dwelling, etc.

HB 47 Persons acting in defense of property; civil immunity provided for an occupant of dwelling, etc.

HB 48 Castle doctrine; self-defense and defense of others.

Larry
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Along with...

HB 14 Persons acting in defense of property; civil immunity provided for an occupant of dwelling, etc.

HB 47 Persons acting in defense of property; civil immunity provided for an occupant of dwelling, etc.

HB 48 Castle doctrine; self-defense and defense of others.

Larry

Yep and, that's not the only interesting trend this year. I'm getting an end of the world size popcorn now.

Make sure you group them in the right categories though.
14 and 47 only provide civil immunity. They are pretty much useless.
 
Last edited:

coondog22554

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
62
Location
Stafford, VA, ,
Yep and, that's not the only interesting trend this year. I'm getting an end of the world size popcorn now.

Make sure you group them in the right categories though.
14 and 47 only provide civil immunity. They are pretty much useless.

Ah...you are correct!
---------------------
HB48 and SB4 are identical and read as...

§ 18.2-91.1. Use of physical force, including deadly force, against an intruder; justified self-defense.

Any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when (i) the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling and has committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling and (ii) the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury.

Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, as provided in this section shall be immune from civil liability for injuries or death of the other person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling that results from the use of such force.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Ah...you are correct!
---------------------
HB48 and SB4 are identical and read as...

§ 18.2-91.1. Use of physical force, including deadly force, against an intruder; justified self-defense.

Any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when (i) the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling and has committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling and (ii) the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury.

Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, as provided in this section shall be immune from civil liability for injuries or death of the other person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling that results from the use of such force.


"when (i) the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling and has committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling"

Ah, a fly in the ointment. Someone entering at night meets the one-of-five felony criteria which can be answered with deadly force (burglary in this case). If you must wait until an overt act has been committed against you or yours, it could be too late.

I hope user jumps in on this one because it is from him I learned this little tidbit and if I got this wrong, please do correct me.
 

mk4

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Messages
548
Location
VA
Dan's proposed bill-to-be (?) beats all of these, hands down. I hope it gets sponsored and considered.
 
Top