Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Teen Charged With Second-Degree Murder for Allegedly Killing Man Who Attacked His Mom
KFOR ^ | MARCH 9, 2016 | K. QUERRY

Posted on 03/09/2016 3:16:40 PM PST by nickcarraway

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: Jeff Head

Granted I did not search case law but I looked at 3 different websites (google Virginia self defense) summarizing VA self defense laws. All 3 specifically stated that being physically assaulted is not sufficient grounds to kill. The link I posted says someone has to be unconscious or unresisting before hands and feet can be considered deadly weapons. This, combined with the arrest lead me to believe VA case law says being beaten does not cross the line where you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else.


21 posted on 03/09/2016 4:02:24 PM PST by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Sounds like a great case for jury nullification.


22 posted on 03/09/2016 4:04:16 PM PST by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Even though “beating” in a certain manner can instantly kill... and you betcha too that these aren’t rules binding on the fuzz either.

Yep I somehow doubt VA law forces cops to respond proportionally.

23 posted on 03/09/2016 4:06:07 PM PST by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Does this case have to go to a Grand Jury now?


24 posted on 03/09/2016 4:06:07 PM PST by Farmer Dean (168 grains of instant conflict resolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Could it be because of the past tense “attacked” as opposed to attacking the mother?


25 posted on 03/09/2016 4:19:16 PM PST by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder

Holy crap. Where’s a big retarded dude with a lawnmower blade when ya need one? /s


26 posted on 03/09/2016 4:22:02 PM PST by CopperTop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Interesting. Any comments from VA residents?

“Pearce said under Virginia law all homicides are considered second-degree murder.

“When the investigation is concluded the Commonwealth’s Attorney can do everything from raising it to a more serious charge, lessening it to a less severe count or dismissing it all together,” Pearce added.”

http://wtvr.com/2016/03/09/son-shoots-moms-boyfriend/#


27 posted on 03/09/2016 4:26:12 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HANG THE EXPENSE

“What state is Spotsylvania located in.That will explain why there is a charge.Aint happening in the south unless its a lib prosecutor.”

Click on the provided link.


28 posted on 03/09/2016 4:31:58 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

yes but disparity of force arguments are in the kids’/moms’ favor. you can use more force than the attcker if you are weaker, surprise attacked, disabled, injured, a group versus one, and you don’t have to take the first blow.


29 posted on 03/09/2016 4:53:57 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder

I guess that makes self defense moot, then. If you’re unconscious you won’t be able to use any force, deadly or otherwise, to defend yourself.


30 posted on 03/09/2016 5:02:14 PM PST by Eagles6 ( Valley Forge Redux. If not now, when? If not here, where? If not us then who?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Why he was even charged? Didn’t his mother back up his story?


31 posted on 03/09/2016 5:12:39 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Not knowing all the circumstances, I will weigh in with this (and keep in mind that state laws vary):

From the North Dakota Century Code:

12.1-05-04. Defense of others.

A person is justified in using force upon another person in order to defend anyone else if:

1. The person defended would be justified in defending himself; and

2. The person coming to the defense has not, by provocation or otherwise, forfeited the right of self-defense.

32 posted on 03/09/2016 7:49:35 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
The rest of the last post:

12.1-05-07. Limits on the use of force - Excessive force - Deadly force.

1. An individual is not justified in using more force than is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.

2. Deadly force is justified in the following instances:

a. When it is expressly authorized by law or occurs in the lawful conduct of war.

b. When used in lawful self-defense, or in lawful defense of others, if such force is necessary to protect the actor or anyone else against death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a felony involving violence. The use of deadly force is not justified if it can be avoided, with safety to the actor and others, by retreat or other conduct involving minimal interference with the freedom of the individual menaced. An individual seeking to protect another individual must, before using deadly force, try to cause the other individual to retreat, or otherwise comply with the requirements of this provision, if safety can be obtained thereby.

However, the duty to retreat or avoid force does not apply under the following circumstances:

(1) A public servant justified in using force in the performance of the public servant's duties or an individual justified in using force in assisting the public servant need not desist from the public servant's or individual's efforts because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the other individual against whom the public servant's or individual's action is directed;

and

(2) An individual is not required to retreat within or from that individual's dwelling or place of work or from an occupied motor home or travel trailer as defined in section 39-01-01, unless the individual was the original aggressor or is assailed by another individual who the individual knows also dwells or works there or who is lawfully in the motor home or travel trailer.

33 posted on 03/09/2016 7:59:54 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson