Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/18/2003 7:48:15 AM EDT
The recent threads on the Whataburger robbery got me to thinking about what Virginia laws say regarding use of deadly force. Did a Google search but couldn't find anything listing the state laws for self-defense or use of deadly force that didn't apply to LEOs.

Does anyone have a good a web reference with current state laws on this subject?
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:49:56 AM EDT
Packing.org ought to have that information.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:54:10 AM EDT
Do a google search for "virginia statutes." The state gov't probably has them webbed. Then search within them for "deadly force" or "use of force."
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 8:03:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 8:15:17 AM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Try here: [url]http://www.vsp.state.va.us/cjis_gunlaws.htm[/url] I didnt read thru all of it. But it should be there some place. [red]Fixed board code -DF[/red]
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 8:25:30 AM EDT
I highly doubt you’ll find anything regarding self-defense mixed in with the firearm laws. Merely having a ccw doesn’t empower you to special provisions of self-defense laws or interpretation of them. Your right to self-defense is as limited or as liberal as it is to anybody else depending on what your state says. It’s really freaky how many people here think that just because they qualify for a ccw, that they’re now God’s Flaming Sword of Vengeful Street Justice.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 8:47:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 8:53:17 AM EDT by LWilde]
Basically, Virginia statute is pretty clear and common sensical: Regardless of the circumstances, IF you kill or directly cause the death of another person, that is a homocide. It isn't an accident, it isn't an act of God (lightning, flood, earthquake, etc.) it is an act by one human on another. NOW...you are faced with two choices, you can claim innocence and non-involvment, OR you can admit to the homocide and try to make the case for self defense. If you can't make your self defense case, you're going to prison. In some cases, you might not have much to prove, given witnesses, the fact that the dead perp had his own gun and was threatening your life or that of your family. Often, the evidence gathered by the authorities may point absolutely and with crystal clarity that the dead perp was posing a risk of serious harm or death to you, that you had no other alternative but to shoot and that the shoot was justified. In this case, the authorities will likely opt not to bring criminal charges against you. Sometimes, the evidence is murky and it isn't obvious that the dead guy was really posing a threat to you when you shot him five times with your Mossy 12ga in the back...as he ran out your back door lugging your new TV. In that case, you probably ought to lawyer up, and quickly. If the DA does decide to press criminal charges against you, he still has to prove that you killed without justification...something you are going to have a chance to rebut on the stand. Twelve of your peers are still going to have to convict you. When considering charges, the DA is going to look into your background too. Are you an agressive asshole always going around looking for the shit...while packing heat? Or are you a peaceful, responsible gun owner who does his level best to always avoid trouble and steer clear of incidents? He will also try to see if you did in ANY way goad the dead perp on...act agressively or not try to escape. Were you two rushing down I-95 giving each other the finger and cutting each other off...or did you immediately exit the interstate and try to flee...but the dead guy followed you all the way home then jumped out with a tire iron? All will be factors in his decision to bring you up on charges. Bottom line...were you really in fear of your life? Can you prove it? Deadly force is probably authorized...and you will likely walk. All situations are different too. The DA is likely to give your 5'/100 lb missus a pass for killing a carjacker, even if she drops an unarmed dude with five shots to the 10-ring...IF the guy happens to be 6' 2"/240 and she is "protecting" her kids in the back seat of the car. In any case...better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Get yourself a copy of the Virginia Gun Owner's Guide. It is full of good info. Here is a source: [url]http://www.gunlaws.com/vgog.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 9:01:38 AM EDT
I'm not one of those superheroes. In the Whataburger scenario, I'd be too close to the center of the action to ignore it. Quite frankly, I couldn't give less of a fuck for 'the public', I have no duty to protect them, I would intervene in [red]that[/red] scenario to protect ME and those under the mantle of my protection, I.E. my wife. Now if I walked by and saw that going on inside, I'd call 911 and get in a position to observe and report, but I would not intervene unless the BGs attempted to engage ME on their departure.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 9:15:16 AM EDT
Watching this on the news last night really got me thinking. I live fairly close to one of the Whataburgers that was hit, and I dine at another location quite frequently. I sat there thinking about who I would engage first, and how I would go about drawing if I was forced to the floor. I also thought about what would happen if I engaged them, and one of THEIR stray rounds hit a bystander. I never came to any real conclusions, but the incidents have definitely got me thinking.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 9:34:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By brouhaha: I live fairly close to one of the Whataburgers that was hit, and I dine at another location quite frequently.
View Quote
Is really possible to [i]dine[/i] at a Whataburger?
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 9:39:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By brouhaha: I live fairly close to one of the Whataburgers that was hit, and I dine at another location quite frequently.
View Quote
Is really possible to [i]dine[/i] at a Whataburger?
View Quote
Yes. [i]dine ( P ) v. dined, din·ing, dines v. intr. To have dinner.[/i] I eat dinner there, so yes...I dine there.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 9:49:45 AM EDT
snip It’s really freaky how many people here think that just because they qualify for a ccw, that they’re now God’s Flaming Sword of Vengeful Street Justice.
View Quote
Funny, we haven't seen any of this here in VA. I guess it's all happening up you way, eh?
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 9:55:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 9:59:01 AM EDT by Dolomite]
Originally Posted By W-W: Funny, we haven't seen any of this here in VA. I guess it's all happening up you way, eh?
View Quote
I was referring to comments made on the other Whataburger thread. We don't have CCW in Wisconsin yet (hopefully next month). What are the training requirements in VA? Do all the wanna-be "cleaners" get disillusioned once they look into the classes and not apply?[devil] And I thought Brouhaha never left the house without being completely surrounded by 18” of ballistic gelatin?[shotgun]
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:03:32 AM EDT
Dolomite is a useful warning to all us CCW owners. You are on your own out there. No one will come to your aid if you are forced into this situation. Even when you give them guns the sheeple are still sheep.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:24:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 11:34:14 AM EDT by llanero]
In Missouri we can kill/use hazardous force ONLY when in the [i]reasonable fear[/i] of: Life, Rape, Limb, Kidnap, Arson of an OCCUPIED building. We can NEVER use it to save property or when the criminal is leaving. Reasonable Fear=JAM. [b]J[/b]eopardy: A threat [b]A[/b]bility: Close enough to do harm [b]M[/b]eans: A weapon or ability to do harm. Brought to you by Western Missouri Shooters Alliance's STAY OUT OF JAIL CARD.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:27:43 AM EDT
I will weigh in that some asshole robbing a place with a shotgun while I'm there that seems to satisfy all three of those elements: Jeopardy: if someone wielding a shotgun in your vicinity with criminal intent isn't jeopardy...I'm Alex Trebeck. Ability: Yep. He could blow my head off ACCIDENTALLY while being an asshole, even. Means: Shotgun. Hm. My response would be the same...a hammer to COM.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:39:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 11:41:30 AM EDT by llanero]
Hm. My response would be the same...a hammer to COM.
View Quote
Well then, you might want to read what the Stay Out of Jail card continues on to say:
Tell 911: 1)"He tried to kill me". 2)"Send an ambulance". 3)"I was terrified". Never: 1)Leave the scene. 2)Change the scene. 3)Move the body. 4)Discard/hide the weapon. 5)Make a statement (you might be sued)
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:42:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 11:46:17 AM EDT by QuietShootr]
I know about that - First, YOU call 911. The first caller has the presumption of innocence. Establish an active dynamic of you as the victim. "I was just attacked at X avenue and Y street, please send police and an ambulance." "What happened?" There should be only 2 things coming out of your mouth. "I was in fear for my life, I need to speak to my attorney." Cops: -"It's ok, QS, you did the right thing. What happened, again?" Me - "I was in fear for my life, I need to speak to my attorney." Cops -"Want a Coke?" Me - "I was in fear for my life, I need to speak to my attorney." Seeing a pattern here?
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:43:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: I will weigh in that some asshole robbing a place with a shotgun while I'm there that seems to satisfy all three of those elements: Jeopardy: if someone wielding a shotgun in your vicinity with criminal intent isn't jeopardy...I'm Alex Trebeck. Ability: Yep. He could blow my head off ACCIDENTALLY while being an asshole, even. Means: Shotgun. Hm. My response would be the same...a hammer to COM.
View Quote
And to do it safely you need to act before they realize you are a threat. Not acting, you are playing russian roulette that these guys are the kind that kill all witnesses. Unless you are a telepath you have no reasonable way of knowing that by sight. Running away, it would depend on the local geography, but you seriously risk getting shot in the back. Waiting untill you have no other choice like Dolomite advocates almost guarentees that you will be injured even if you do take one or more of the badguys with you.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:47:15 AM EDT
Exactly my point.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 12:01:28 PM EDT
Like I’ve said before – this is the internet – I don’t know you guys (or what you are capable of) and you don’t know me. Given that – pardon the fuck out of me if I’m reticent to give you the green light to draw on a couple of armed BG’s in a fastfood restaurant populated with people that may or may not be important to me. What you do when you’re on your own is your business. Get one of my people killed through your inept action (or even inaction) and you would do well to just prepare yourself for the consequences.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 12:06:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 12:13:49 PM EDT by FLAL1A]
Originally Posted By Dolomite: What you do when you’re on your own is your business. Get one of my people killed through your inept action [u](or even inaction)[/u]
View Quote
You have been vigorously but ineffectively arguing on the other thread that one never has an obligation to act in a scenario such as the one under discussion. Explain just what your problem could possibly be with an armed person whose "inaction" gets someone killed. If there is never an obligation to act, inaction can never be culpable.
and you would do well to just prepare yourself for the consequences.
View Quote
OOOOOoooooOOOOooooHHHhhhh.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 12:16:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dolomite: Like I’ve said before – this is the internet – I don’t know you guys (or what you are capable of) and you don’t know me. Given that – pardon the fuck out of me if I’m reticent to give you the green light to draw on a couple of armed BG’s in a fastfood restaurant populated with people that may or may not be important to me. What you do when you’re on your own is your business. Get one of my people killed through your inept action (or even inaction) and you would do well to just prepare yourself for the consequences.
View Quote
I don't think you know of what you speek dolomite. Most of us who have tried to reason with you are CCW permit holders from states that have that ability. We are telling you what we know based on our instruction from licenced, state approved CCW class instructors. Why do you insist on disparaging this information? What is your motivation? Jealousy? Fear? And why do you keep telling yourself that since we are on the Internet this information is meaningless? If that is so why have you come back here over 2000 times? Why do you waste your time, and ours? When Wisconsin gets shall issue CCW, and it will eventually, you are-if you havent talked yourself out of it- going to take a class from people who are going to tell you EXACTLY what we are telling you here.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 12:50:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 12:52:13 PM EDT by QuietShootr]
Oh, he's from a no-ccw state. Dolomite, here's a piece of advice for you. You imply above that you'd interfere with someone taking action in a Whataburger type scenario. That's completely stupid, [red]and if you reference my post on responding to it, exactly why I said I'd get myself clear of ANYBODY when initiating action - cause I'd be more concerned with some self-righteous asshole grabbing me in the middle of my draw stroke to stop me, than with losing the gunfight to some street rat. [/red] Don't do it. If you interfere, you may be the cause of your own demise by stopping the only person who could have saved you. Or at the very least you'd be nursing a broken bone.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 12:56:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: I know about that - First, YOU call 911. The first caller has the presumption of innocence. Establish an active dynamic of you as the victim. "I was just attacked at X avenue and Y street, please send police and an ambulance." "What happened?" There should be only 2 things coming out of your mouth. "I was in fear for my life, I need to speak to my attorney." Cops: -"It's ok, QS, you did the right thing. What happened, again?" Me - "I was in fear for my life, I need to speak to my attorney." Cops -"Want a Coke?" Me - "I was in fear for my life, I need to speak to my attorney." Seeing a pattern here?
View Quote
Aha! If you stall long enough, you get a free Coke! Am I right?
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 12:58:38 PM EDT
hold out for the 'za before you start running your mouth.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 1:07:02 PM EDT
You have to look at the law in your state, not the carry laws but under "use of force" or "deadly force". In Wa. it comes under RCW 9.41.270(3)(c)& RCW 9A.16 chapter (.110&.050) Which boils down to shoot the BG I'll look at VA.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 1:56:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Prefect:
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: I know about that - First, YOU call 911. The first caller has the presumption of innocence. Establish an active dynamic of you as the victim. "I was just attacked at X avenue and Y street, please send police and an ambulance." "What happened?" There should be only 2 things coming out of your mouth. "I was in fear for my life, I need to speak to my attorney." Cops: -"It's ok, QS, you did the right thing. What happened, again?" Me - "I was in fear for my life, I need to speak to my attorney." Cops -"Want a Coke?" Me - "I was in fear for my life, I need to speak to my attorney." Seeing a pattern here?
View Quote
Aha! If you stall long enough, you get a free Coke! Am I right?
View Quote
[rofl]
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 1:59:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 2:06:47 PM EDT by TennVol]
Colorado law reads as follows: COLORADO STATUTES REGARDING DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE AND CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS 18-1-704 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of A Person 1. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose. 2. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and: a) The actor has reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 184-204; or c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, [b]robbery[/b] as defined in section 184-301 or 184-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 or 18-3-203. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if: a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or b) He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 2:08:50 PM EDT
Clean_Cut--no, packing.org has all the information on how/when to carry, but nothing at all on use of deadly force. FLAL1A--I did a google search, got web site where I could scan the Criminal Code of VA, all I got was a bunch of listings about sex offenses. Weird. LWilde: Thanks for the Cliff Notes version. Still seems a little murky to me, though. Here's what I'm trying to figure out: Six weeks after I aerate the life support systems of two goblins, I'm standing in front of the Grand Jury. Do I need to prove A) Imminent perceived threat to myself, or does imminent perceived threat to others allow me to use deadly force? B) I made an effort to diffuse the situation (stupid, in my opinion, but some states require that) or escape, or can my first warning be a shot through the heart? C) Does VA allow deadly force to protect property? Seems a lot of people are making the assumption (in the Whataburger threads) that the simple fact that the goblins showed up to party is enough justification to have a shootout; I'd hate to make that assumption, only to spend the next 20 in jail for murder. I think a good knowledge of the laws in your state would give you a clearer picture of when you should and shouldn't clear leather.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 2:28:26 PM EDT
"I said I'd get myself clear of ANYBODY when initiating action - cause I'd be more concerned with some self-righteous asshole grabbing me in the middle of my draw stroke to stop me, than with losing the gunfight to some street rat. Don't do it. If you interfere, you may be the cause of your own demise by stopping the only person who could have saved you." Quietshooter you do well to consider this possible scenario. I don't know how many others do, but hopefully more now that you mentioned it. My wife interfered with me while I was squeezing the trigger on my neighbors pit bull, causing me to only wound him in the leg. He ran away first and considered the injury later in safety. (Killed our cats, came back in the daytime when the kids are usually out) The result could have been tragic instead of disappointing. The same people who brought us "Just lie there if you're being raped and let him finish" are just the type to interfere with someone defending themselves with a firearm. I think they called them "Human shields" while they visited Iraq!
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 2:35:18 PM EDT
Well after going through VA. codes[%|]the only thing I could come up with is 18.2-280D it's not much but thats all I could find. Some searches "use of force"&"deadly force" came up with codes I couldn't look at, don't understand that.(are they hiding something?) Try asking on line with the VA State Law Library.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 2:44:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 2:46:43 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Because your asking this I guess you are not a permit holder?
Originally Posted By limaxray: Six weeks after I aerate the life support systems of two goblins, I'm standing in front of the Grand Jury. Do I need to prove A) Imminent perceived threat to myself, or does imminent perceived threat to others allow me to use deadly force?
View Quote
Yes, everywhere. Mass, DC or NYC will prosecute you for having the gun but not for the homocide.
B) I made an effort to diffuse the situation (stupid, in my opinion, but some states require that) or escape, or can my first warning be a shot through the heart?
View Quote
Yes,
C) Does VA allow deadly force to protect property?
View Quote
No, but in this case irrelevent. They came in with guns in their hands pointing at people. They were not cops. You are not shooting them cause they are taking something, you are shooting them because of the threat to life they pose by pointing guns at people.
Seems a lot of people are making the assumption (in the Whataburger threads) that the simple fact that the goblins showed up to party is enough justification to have a shootout; I'd hate to make that assumption, only to spend the next 20 in jail for murder. I think a good knowledge of the laws in your state would give you a clearer picture of when you should and shouldn't clear leather.
View Quote
There is NO assumption. They come in to the room, they point guns at people, they are not LEOs affecting a legal arrest. The guns do not have to be real, so long as they are not VISABLY fake like a bright green super soaker with a big water tank. Where the hell does PROPERTY even come into the discussion? They are not LEOs, they are pointing guns at innocent people, which is obviously putting those people in immediate jepordy. Even if they had only KINVES or even screwdrivers it would apply. They are to be shot because they are putting you or other people at imminant risk of death, not because of what their ultimate goal is.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 4:42:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 4:46:09 PM EDT by limaxray]
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Because your asking this I guess you are not a permit holder?
View Quote
Actually, I am a permit holder, but recently VA licensed (last three months). And, since this is the third state in two years I've been licensed in, I'm starting to get a little confused and want to be CRYSTAL clear in my own mind what the VA laws are.
Originally Posted By limaxray: Six weeks after I aerate the life support systems of two goblins, I'm standing in front of the Grand Jury. Do I need to prove A) Imminent perceived threat to myself, or does imminent perceived threat to others allow me to use deadly force?
View Quote
Yes, everywhere. Mass, DC or NYC will prosecute you for having the gun but not for the homocide.
B) I made an effort to diffuse the situation (stupid, in my opinion, but some states require that) or escape, or can my first warning be a shot through the heart?
View Quote
Yes,
View Quote
Is that yes, I need to make an effort to diffuse the situation, or yes, I can fire a warning shot thru the heart?
C) Does VA allow deadly force to protect property?
View Quote
No, but in this case irrelevent. They came in with guns in their hands pointing at people. They were not cops. You are not shooting them cause they are taking something, you are shooting them because of the threat to life they pose by pointing guns at people.
Seems a lot of people are making the assumption (in the Whataburger threads) that the simple fact that the goblins showed up to party is enough justification to have a shootout; I'd hate to make that assumption, only to spend the next 20 in jail for murder. I think a good knowledge of the laws in your state would give you a clearer picture of when you should and shouldn't clear leather.
View Quote
There is NO assumption. They come in to the room, they point guns at people, they are not LEOs affecting a legal arrest. The guns do not have to be real, so long as they are not VISABLY fake like a bright green super soaker with a big water tank. Where the hell does PROPERTY even come into the discussion? They are not LEOs, they are pointing guns at innocent people, which is obviously putting those people in immediate jepordy. Even if they had only KINVES or even screwdrivers it would apply. They are to be shot because they are putting you or other people at imminant risk of death, not because of what their ultimate goal is.
View Quote
And this is why I'm asking. From what I've gathered both here and on Packing.org threads, some states allow you to defend yourselves at the mere threat of harm, others appear to allow defense of property (look at TennVol's post, para 2C), while other states basically say the goblin has to say "I'm going to kill you" AND step toward you with a weapon in hand before you can take any action. In the case of the Whataburger threads, the goblins simply said "hand over the cash." Even if they ARE armed, that is not a death threat; in fact, the opposite is true; if you comply, they imply they will NOT harm you. Therefore, is their appearance LEGAL justification to shoot?
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 6:02:45 PM EDT
In the case of the Whataburger threads, the goblins simply said "hand over the cash." Even if they ARE armed, that is not a death threat; in fact, the opposite is true; if you comply, they imply they will NOT harm you. Therefore, is their appearance LEGAL justification to shoot?
View Quote
How did you extrapolate the implication that they will not harm you from someone pointing a gun and saying hand over the cash? The ONLY things that they have implied is that they are assholes...and that they WILL harm you if you do not comply.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 6:29:06 PM EDT
Check out www.megalaw.com for your states regulations. It might take soem time digging, but I have generally found Megalaw to be a good source for info.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:43:08 PM EDT
Just because you have determined that it is legal to shoot doesn't lead to the conclusion that it is the right thing to do. See my thesis on the other thread. Unless the tactical situation is in your favor, the best bet is to make sure it is in your favor. If that means taking a deep breath and waiting that might be the way to go. Circumstances will dictate. The Whattaburger pair seem to indicate waiting is best there. They don't seem to be a real threat to bystanders. Some of the gang Bank jackings out here, waiting is definitely the best thing to do. They have shown they will shoot at anybody that moves and there are usually 3 or 4 involved. Is it legal to start the gunfight? Yes. Is it smart? NO! If I happened to be carrying (legally or not) and I saw a guy draw and walk up behind an Armored Car Messenger, I'm gonna do everything I can to save his life. Which may be yelling and screaming, it may be a shot from cover no warning. We have had a series where the perps execute the messengers no warning BANG to the back of the head grab the bags and run. Me I'll take my chances with a jury, I can point to the killings and easily say I thought I was saving his life. I'll know I did the right thing.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:55:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Blackbird_Pilot:
In the case of the Whataburger threads, the goblins simply said "hand over the cash." Even if they ARE armed, that is not a death threat; in fact, the opposite is true; if you comply, they imply they will NOT harm you. Therefore, is their appearance LEGAL justification to shoot?
View Quote
How did you extrapolate the implication that they will not harm you from someone pointing a gun and saying hand over the cash? The ONLY things that they have implied is that they are assholes...and that they WILL harm you if you do not comply.
View Quote
Although I agree completely with your point, I'm trying to play devil's advocate and look at it from a non-self-defense-friendly legal viewpoint. In that light, [devil's advocate] these guys have only stated they want to rob you, not hurt you; they have shown no intent to murder. If you had just given them what they wanted, they would have left without hurting anyone. Therefore, by responding with gunfire you have unreasonably escalated the conflict.{/devil's advocate] Your case would be even more aggravated if a third party (someone besides you or the goblin) got hurt or killed in the process. My personal opinion is the same as yours; you point a gun at me and I will assume you want to kill me and respond accordingly. But my question still stands--does the law in VA back up that premise, and where can I go to check it? Is it not wise to check what your state law says about it, then weigh that factor (along with all the others) before deciding your course of action at the Whataburger?
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 6:12:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2003 6:21:40 AM EDT by Dolomite]
Guys, for like the 100th time – I wasn’t there and you weren’t there. All I’m saying is that, yeah it’s great to have this ‘warrior spirit’ thing coursing through you veins 24/7. It’s good stuff really – I wish I could bottle it up and make the people I care about take it everyday – but shit just don’t work like that. The average joe-bag-of-donuts would probably not be able to safely handle a Whataburger type scenario – and would very likely screw it up to the detriment of himself and others. That’s all I’ve said and that’s all I’m saying now. OK. Say, speaking purely hypothetically, my sister was killed during a Whataburger type robbery, would I hold it against some random guy, that he had a ccw on him and didn’t use it because he knew that he was in a situation way over his head? Probably not. However, if one of the people on this thread, who had gone on and on about how adept they are at handling this very type of scenario (isn’t there a common name for this sort of activity?), HAD been there and chosen not to do anything while people were getting executed– well, that would be a DIFFERENT STORY all together? Do you see where I’m coming from? Can I spell it out any differently?
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: Oh, he's from a no-ccw state.
View Quote
Quit making fun of my state! [>(]
Dolomite, here's a piece of advice for you. You imply above that you'd interfere with someone taking action in a Whataburger type scenario.
View Quote
Sorry. It's pretty clear that you are the one implying that. The only reason I can think is that this is how you express your wish to help innocent people out of bad situations. That's a good thing. But your premise on my previous statements is still incorrect.
That's completely stupid, [red]and if you reference my post on responding to it, exactly why I said I'd get myself clear of ANYBODY when initiating action - cause I'd be more concerned with some self-righteous asshole grabbing me in the middle of my draw stroke to stop me, than with losing the gunfight to some street rat. [/red] Don't do it. If you interfere, you may be the cause of your own demise by stopping the only person who could have saved you. Or at the very least you'd be nursing a broken bone.
View Quote
Happy to give you a chance to put that out there “If you interfere, you may be the cause of your own demise”, Oooohh indeed. Now please go back and dig me up a quote of where I said that I’d interfere with any bystander’s actions anywhere – much less their draw – good grief!
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 6:41:55 AM EDT
There was another armed robbery last night. This time it was at Denny's. The robbers pistol-whipped several customers and shot a man in his vehicle when they left. He apparantly was not injured badly.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 6:57:51 AM EDT
Well, shit...I'm convinced. I shouldn't do anything, because Little Billy on his way home from soccer practice with Suzy might get hurt. Check the EE for my pistols.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 6:58:03 AM EDT
Mind you in the first post, I stated it would be a tough call unless you were there innocent bystanders etc., however I am curious what makes some of you think having a shotgun pointed at you by a robber is not putting your life in danger and thus not justifiable to shoot him? Tj
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 7:07:28 AM EDT
[url]http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/121903_local_dennys.html[/url] Denny's story.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 7:09:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: Well, shit...I'm convinced. I shouldn't do anything, because Little Billy on his way home from soccer practice with Suzy might get hurt. Check the EE for my pistols.
View Quote
Hopefully they all come equipped with integral trigger locks.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 7:28:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2003 7:31:47 AM EDT by Jarhead_22]
In Texas: [b]§ 9.31. Self-Defense[/b] (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone; (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c); (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other; (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was: (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or (B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05. (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified: (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary. (d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34. [b]§ 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person[/b] (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; (2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor. [b]§ 9.33. Defense of Third Person[/b] A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if: (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. [b]§ 9.34. Protection of Life or Health[/b] (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself. (b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 10:39:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2003 10:41:43 AM EDT by TomJefferson]
Originally Posted By clean_cut: [url]http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/121903_local_dennys.html[/url] Denny's story.
View Quote
I'm sorry for this response, pistol whipping = distraction TAP TAP move TAP TAP. The laws can KMA. Prediction, this will continue till someone does this. Damn, I'm glad I don't live in Houston anymore. Tj
Top Top