Va. House OKs use of deadly force against home intruders

hamptonroads.com ^ | February 8, 2011 | Bill Sizemore

[Angelus]

The House of Delegates gave preliminary approval Monday to a bill authorizing the use of deadly force against an intruder who enters a home and threatens to injure the occupant.

The bill, HB1573, introduced by Del. Bill Cleaveland, R-Botetourt County, would put the so-called "castle doctrine" into state law. It would allow a home's occupant to use "any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force," if an intruder commits an overt act toward the occupant that he reasonably believes would put him in imminent danger of bodily injury.

The bill makes the occupant immune from a lawsuit for any resulting injuries or death.

Del. Joe Morrissey, D-Richmond, objected that the measure would allow a disproportionate response to a minor provocation such as a hand slap.

A similar bill was passed by the House last year but died in a Senate committee.

[Angelus]

Its About time. I hope this bill is successful.

[maine yankee]

My rights come from Devine Providence.

I didn’t need their approval.

[kbennkc]

Not that good of a law. I do not like the overt act requirement. There should be a presumption the homeowner had just cause for deadly force, if the entry was made uninvited, tumultuously or by stealth.

[muawiyah]

We are pretty close to New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island.

Let's say you make a mistake here in Virginia and kill somebody's relative over something "better handled in other ways" ~ with lawsuits foreclosed that forces you into making use of those guys in the business of killing people.

If it's just a couple of hours drive down here to do a job, they'll do it.

Although we don't have active mafioso here, there are also the posses in DC and Richmond, but they're a little chancy to deal with ~ and not all that smart.

Jus' sayin' putting these things outside the realm of lawsuits is probably not at all a good idea.

[Lurker]

You need to look up the definition of the word “force”.

[muawiyah]

Hmm ~ "force" ~ can mean mostly anything you want. Look up Lawyers in the yellow pages. They advertise these days. Many of them can get all sorts of stuff out of the courts.

Really, when you look at how the law works don't depend on what you think words mean ~

[Lurker]

No one is ever “forced” to hire a murderer. Ever. Your statement to that effect was stupid.

[muawiyah]

No, you are stupid. Here you have a killer and even if the authorities said he did a legal kill, you don't agree. The law prohibits private lawsuits.

Obviously the killer is going to become aware of you ~ you could be an aggrieved child, an angry brother, a widowed wife, and there you have the puke who killed your son, wife, brother, father or whatever, and he'll be on the lookout. In fact, he'll probably have already gotten a prohibitory order on you.

So, how do you get close enough to this guy to exact revenge, or re-balance the scales of justice, or retrieve honor?

Well, you don't have many choices there do you once the government has decided to protect the killer.

I would say you have been FORCED to use a hired killer from somewhere else ~ simply because he's probably not only more experienced, he'll probably be able to get much closer to your target than you are.

FORCE is the correct word.

NOTHING should be prohibited from being subject to a lawsuit in court. That simply puts us back a couple of notches into a state of nature and at that point hunting rules prevail. Bringing in a sharpshooter from out of town is always acceptable under those rules.

[Lurker]

I say we take our chances and risk some crackheads relative hiring a hit man to attempt to kill a citizen who lawfully dispatched some thug. Then said lawful citizen will have the opportunity to add another notch or two.

Besides, it should pretty much be open season on hired killers anyway. In fact it should be open season on anyone who advocates their employ.

[muawiyah]

You advocate that people employ hired killers when you allow people to be protected against civil suits for killing others, and for granting them prohibitory orders to keep you away.

Give you an idea how this happens ~ you go knock on a door at a house where you thought you had been invited for a Halloween party. The homeowner comes to the door and blows your brains out.

Frankly he should not be immune from civil suits in that case.

Just because you think were frightened doesn't justify an economically damaging or disastrous penalty on someone who makes a minor mistake ~ and knocks on the wrong door, got there on the wrong day, left his party mask on (thinking to surprise you), or thinking you weren't insane, or drunk, or on narcotics.

I'd suggest the Republicans who came up with the version they just pushed through the Virginia House go back and take a look at it and see if they've dealt with the "revenge" issue.

Time for the to think like "criminals" for a moment ~

[VOA]

“
...the so-called “castle doctrine”...
“

The castle doctrine became law in Missouri a couple of years ago.

A few months after that, two thugs broke into some guy’s apartment in
fairly liberal Columbia MO (home of U. of Missouri and the Journalism School,
alma mater of Uncle Walter Cronkite).
The two thugs left in body bags.

NO CHARGES.

Missouri ain’t Texas. But it seems to be slowly moving that direction.
Thank Gawd!

[Lurker]

I advocate no such thing and you’re a damned liar for saying I do.

I’d suggest that you spend a lot less time thinking like a criminal lest someone mistake you for one. Although truth be told I’m starting to think that wouldn’t be a mistake at all.

[PapaBear3625]

I would say you have been FORCED to use a hired killer from somewhere else ~ simply because he's probably not only more experienced, he'll probably be able to get much closer to your target than you are.

Keep in mind that normal, middle-class people do not get to hire contract killers. You might come into contact with somebody, but what will end up happening is that he will turn informant to the police in exchange for them ignoring some minor legal issues. When you hand over the money, they arrest you, and the contractor keeps your money.

Oh, real contract killers exist -- but they are only hired by people "in the business" who have the ability and willingness to PERSONALLY do unpleasant things to people who cross them, and only hire contractors to establish distance between themselves and the target.

[PapaBear3625]

Guys, let's take a step back here. Following is the text of the bill, with my bolds:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-91.1 as follows:

§ 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 the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling, having committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person [ lawfully ] in the dwelling, and the occupant reasonably believes he or another person [ lawfully ] 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.

An overt act is defined as "In criminal law, an overt act (from the French adjective ouvert, open), an open act, one that can be clearly proved by evidence, and from which criminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to a mere intention in the mind to commit a crime".

So, in order to use deadly force in self defense, it is insufficient for somebody to show up at your door in a clown suit acting strangely. The person must:

1) Unlawfully ENTER the dwelling. "Unlawfully" here means through the use of force, breaking and entering, or otherwise entering the dwelling without the permission of the residents.

2) The intruder must perform some overt act which would cause a "reasonable" person to assume that he or another was in danger of bodily injury. Again, dancing around in a clown outfit would not satisfy the criteria -- advancing with a weapon would, as would advancing with bare hands if the assailant is bigger and stronger than the victim.

In this case, whether the use of force was "reasonable" and whether the assailant "unlawfully entered" the dwelling will be determined by police investigation and the prosecutor.

[muawiyah]

Fraudulent misrepresentation (if that were believed to be what the entrant were engaged in) would qualify.

You gotta' do better than that or you'll have paranoic schizophrenics scragging every kid in a costume who shows up at their front door on Halloween.

We really don't want those people loose to kill again.

[muawiyah]

Look, you are the one who takes the chance that an ordinary middle class guy doesn't know folks in "the business". Your friendly neighborhood cop knows folks in "the business". I've known folks in "the business".

YOU NEVER KNOW who knows who. So why cut off their options to use the civil courts to strip you bare and leave you penniless on the streets. Isn't it better to be poor than to be right and dead?

[jonno]

Del. Joe Morrissey, D-Richmond, objected that the measure would allow a disproportionate response to a minor provocation such as a hand slap.

Hey congressman, it's not that he slapped my hand, it's that he BROKE INTO MY HOUSE - and slapped my hand.

[backwoods-engineer]

Go Old Dominion! I hope we join y’all on that down here in NC!

[jboot]

Hitmen vs. Lawyers.

Since we are talking scum, I prefer hitmen. They ruin a few lives here and there, but they aren't ruining America. Anything that disenfranchises lawyers is good by me. They are a plague on this once-great nation. May their tribe die out quickly.

[jboot]

They killed this one last session. I hope the chances are better this time.