Roanoke Intruder Shot and Killed Overnight

[jmelvin]

ROANOKE, Va. - A resident shot and killed a suspected robber at a Roanoke apartment complex Thursday night. ...Police believe the incident started as an attempted home invasion robbery.

I'll be interested to see what Roanoke police will do to the resident who apparently was forced into a tragic choice by the intruder, given that Roanoke PD hasn't always been particularly friendly to folks who carry and use firearms for defense.


http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/sus...ent/-/20128466/21715622/-/11nh14/-/index.html

http://www.wset.com/story/23299317/...-kills-intruder-police-not-filing-charges-yet

 

[peter nap]

I'll be interested to see what Roanoke police will do to the resident who apparently was forced into a tragic choice by the intruder, given that Roanoke PD hasn't always been particularly friendly to folks who carry and use firearms for defense.

Yep....it needs to be watched closely!

 

[Grapeshot]

Indeed and it shall be.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Impossible to say that it was a thief (remember David Carradine's drug-fueled home invasion) ...

But it should be the law of the land that one gets to shoot anyone on his property w/o warning and w/o cause needed.

Sure some like Carradine would be shot and killed occasionally but I guess that's the way it goes.

 

[Grapeshot]

Impossible to say that it was a thief (remember David Carradine's drug-fueled home invasion) ...

But it should be the law of the land that one gets to shoot anyone on his property w/o warning and w/o cause needed.

Sure some like Carradine would be shot and killed occasionally but I guess that's the way it goes.

You break into a home in VA. after dark and there is the presumption that you mean to cause bodily harm - hence lethal force will likely be found to be justified.

No thank you on open season on trespassers....especially w/o cause.

David Carradine was not shot and killed. His death was found to be an "accident" - suffocation.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20289267,00.html

 

[davidmcbeth]

David Carradine was not shot and killed. His death was found to be an "accident" - suffocation.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20289267,00.html

But David was previously on drugs, broke into someone's house, cutting himself, and the cops just followed the trail of blood to his house and arrested him.

Circa 1972...

 

[Grapeshot]

Returning to the point of the thread - will be looking for more detail and follow-up information.

 

[Citizen]

You break into a home in VA. after dark and there is the presumption that you mean to cause bodily harm - hence lethal force will likely be found to be justified.

Cite, please.

 

[peter nap]

Cite, please.

That was User's interpretation several months ago.
If you have something to counter it....

CITE it!

 

[half_life1052]

Is this sufficient?

Cite, please.

Defense of habitation and justifiable self-defense overlap in the "castle doctrine" which states that one
may, without retreating, use force, to include deadly force if necessary, to keep aggressors out of his own
house. This part of the castle doctrine is one aspect of defense of habitation. . . . [T]he justification exists
in the curtilage as well as the castle. Roger D. Groot, Criminal Offenses and Defenses in Virginia 114 (3rd ed.
1994). The defense of habitation and the castle doctrine have not been raised in this case. Alexander v.
Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 771, 780, 508 S.E.2d 912, ___ (1999).

 

[skidmark]

Impossible to say that it was a thief (remember David Carradine's drug-fueled home invasion) ...

But it should be the law of the land that one gets to shoot anyone on his property w/o warning and w/o cause needed.

Sure some like Carradine would be shot and killed occasionally but I guess that's the way it goes.

This post needs to be reported to the moderators/administrator for advocating recklessness and advocating illegal behavior. The poster might be an appropriate candidate for evaluation by the MH authorities in his state as a possible threat to others.

stay safe.

 

[Grapeshot]

You break into a home in VA. after dark and there is the presumption that you mean to cause bodily harm - hence lethal force will likely be found to be justified.--snipped--QUOTE]

Cite, please.

That was User's interpretation several months ago.
If you have something to counter it....

CITE it!

Defense of habitation and justifiable self-defense overlap in the "castle doctrine" which states that one
may, without retreating, use force, to include deadly force if necessary, to keep aggressors out of his own
house. This part of the castle doctrine is one aspect of defense of habitation. . . . [T]he justification exists
in the curtilage as well as the castle. Roger D. Groot, Criminal Offenses and Defenses in Virginia 114 (3rd ed.
1994). The defense of habitation and the castle doctrine have not been raised in this case. Alexander v.
Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 771, 780, 508 S.E.2d 912, ___ (1999).

Citizen is gaming me. The condition is well known in Virginia and his been pointed out by User many times.
Here is a little history though for the less informed: https://www.google.com/search?q=va+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I choose to emphasize that if the CA did bring charges that the homeowner would "likely be found to be justified."

 

[Grapeshot]

Impossible to say that it was a thief (remember David Carradine's drug-fueled home invasion) ...

But it should be the law of the land that one gets to shoot anyone on his property w/o warning and w/o cause needed.

Sure some like Carradine would be shot and killed occasionally but I guess that's the way it goes.

--snipped--
No thank you on open season on trespassers....especially w/o cause.

This post needs to be reported to the moderators/administrator for advocating recklessness and advocating illegal behavior. The poster might be an appropriate candidate for evaluation by the MH authorities in his state as a possible threat to others.
stay safe.

I was perhaps remiss in downplaying the severity of McBeth's remarks with my "No thank you" above.

Reevaluation, even with tongue in cheek consideration (which was not so shown,) is over the top and cannot be accepted or condoned on OCDO. Words and the impression that they leave are important. We do NOT advocate breaking the law. Period. Exclamation point!

 

[davidmcbeth]

I was perhaps remiss in downplaying the severity of McBeth's remarks with my "No thank you" above.

Reevaluation, even with tongue in cheek consideration (which was not so shown,) is over the top and cannot be accepted or condoned on OCDO. Words and the impression that they leave are important. We do NOT advocate breaking the law. Period. Exclamation point!

I suggest folks reevaluate the posting ... see the word SHOULD ... expressing a desire as to how the law should be, not is...at least in the state involved.

Louisiana allows or used to allow just that (have not looked up the law in LA lately) - that a person could shoot someone w/o cause other than just being on their property.

So its nothing new or novel folks ... Grape had it right the 1st time

 

[davidmcbeth]

This post needs to be reported to the moderators/administrator for advocating recklessness and advocating illegal behavior. The poster might be an appropriate candidate for evaluation by the MH authorities in his state as a possible threat to others.

stay safe.

Just advocating new laws to aid homeowners when they defend their family ... sorry, but your post is the offensive one here.

Thanks for playing though !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

ps I'm sure the homeowner would now support such a law ~ he probably has already spent a couple of thousand on lawyers by now

 

[peter nap]

I suggest folks reevaluate the posting ... see the word SHOULD ... expressing a desire as to how the law should be, not is...at least in the state involved.

Louisiana allows or used to allow just that (have not looked up the law in LA lately) - that a person could shoot someone w/o cause other than just being on their property.

So its nothing new or novel folks ... Grape had it right the 1st time

No David, he got it right the second time. Killing someone is a pretty serious thing. I get a little disgusted at some here and especially you, who think it's some rite of manhood, or is as simple as a Saturday night barfight.

When you're not getting all the facts wrong you're quoting some other state's law.

This is Virginia! Shooting someone just for being on the wrong side of a property line is not OK and hopefully never will be!

There are some shadowy spots we need to clear up in the Commonwealth but I think we can do it without input from up North.

 

[davidmcbeth]

No David, he got it right the second time. Killing someone is a pretty serious thing. I get a little disgusted at some here and especially you, who think it's some rite of manhood, or is as simple as a Saturday night barfight.

When you're not getting all the facts wrong you're quoting some other state's law.

This is Virginia! Shooting someone just for being on the wrong side of a property line is not OK and hopefully never will be!

There are some shadowy spots we need to clear up in the Commonwealth but I think we can do it without input from up North.

Again, I advocate laws to ease the burden of homeowners in defending their family. You find this disgusting, that's fine ~ you are entitled to your opinion. I would have zero issues shooting an intruder in my house ~ I would sleep well and sound. If we had laws like I propose then I assure you, home burglaries would plummet.

Killing is really not that serious~its defensive ... murder, on the other hand, is quite serious. They are different. You should learn the difference. Especially if you are going to carry a gun around. If you think that you cannot kill then why carry?

Don't support the right to shoot someone just for being on your land?
Then why in your house?
Oh, you have to wait until they cross the threshold of your entry door?
Or the threshold of the room you are in in the house (because just crossing the threshold may not mean you are in mortal danger ~ you might be 2 floors away)?

See why the law allowing the shooting of folks on your land is better? Its a line being infinitely thin - a known and well established line.

 

[Grapeshot]

Again, I advocate laws to ease the burden of homeowners in defending their family. You find this disgusting, that's fine ~ you are entitled to your opinion. I would have zero issues shooting an intruder in my house ~ I would sleep well and sound. If we had laws like I propose then I assure you, home burglaries would plummet.

Killing is really not that serious~its defensive ... murder, on the other hand, is quite serious. They are different. You should learn the difference. Especially if you are going to carry a gun around. If you think that you cannot kill then why carry?

David - unfortuneately the more you say, the worse it gets.

Primary definition of "should" aux.v. Past tense of shall 1. Used to express obligation or duty. Therefore you were advocating "that one gets to shoot anyone on his property w/o warning and w/o cause needed." Totall unacceptable on OCDO and a violation of the rules.

Taking another human being's life is extremely serious.

You obviously do not know Virginia's laws either. Intentionally taking a lfe (homicide) and murder are essentually the same. If charged and prosecuted, there will be no "not guilty" verdict possible. The only decisions favorable to you would be "justified" or "excuseable" homicide.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Justifiable+or+Excusable+Homicide

http://www.virginia1774.org/Page5.html

 

[Citizen]

Citizen is gaming me.

The condition is well known in Virginia and his been pointed out by User many times.


Here is a little history though for the less informed: https://www.google.com/search?q=va+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Well, Mr. Moderator-Who-Thinks-He's-Above-The-Rules, I've got a newsflash for you. I personally have no information about the presumption of bodily harm after dark angle. So, I would appreciate an actual cite for my own education.

And, you're way off base with the condition being well-known in VA. I didn't even know about castle doctrine at all before I got connected up with gun rights. Meaning, there may be new readers who view your post and won't know.

Be that as it may, the forum rules don't say to cite "unless the condition is well known".

And, your website link sucks. That's not a cite. That's a "find your own cite."

The fact of the matter is, you can't cite.

Thanks a lot for the useless, off-base, conclusion-jumping attack, ***hole.

 

[Citizen]

Can anybody cite case(s) where the judiciary articulated a common-law principle whereby if your home is intruded after dark, the law presumes a threat of bodily harm justifying lethal force without further acts by the intruder?