| Author | Post |
|---|
there
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:40 am |
|
i was there they didn't get out the car to fight just to ask for the insurance and the fight was over when he started shooting.there is never a need to shoot someone from two feet away.
those who know the man who did it i fee sorry for you cause he didn't even think twice.
remember that. he took a life that's never justified the way he did it.
i love you Juan rest in peace.you are forever missed.....
|
user
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:32 pm |
|
skidmark wrote: Repeater wrote: If virginia currently had a Florida-style "Stand your ground" law, would that help Royals in this case?
Trust me on this one - you do not want a "stand your ground" law to replace the common law principles of 1) having a right to defend yourself from death or serious bodily injury, and 2) having no duty to retreat from a place where you are lawfully entitled to be. "Stand your ground" laws come with all sorts of qualifiers and exemptions - either written in to them by the legislature or interpreted as being there by the courts.
I'd rather prove I was justified or excused in using deadly force than argue I did not kill the perp when all the evidence - including my own statements made on the advice and consultation with my attorney show I certainly did kill him.
What would be nice is a law granting civil immunity to anyone who sucessfully proves self defense. That would prevent the perp or his estate from suing you for any number of reasons, including loss of income (he's dead so he can't rob oir push drugs any more), loss of consortium (he beat the baby-mammas and the kids, but now that he's dead nobody's getting any hugs), or violaion of his civil rights (he was persuing happiness when he mugged you). [/sarcasm]
stay safe.
skidmark
I really didn't understand this post at all. Virginia is a "true man" state; one is not required to retreat. And self-defense is an absolute defense in both civil and criminal cases. One does not need laws to tell him what he is allowed to do, unless you're in an authoritarian Catholic country like France or Italy. In Virginia, you can do anything that is not prohibited.
And, by the way, I liked Cerebralfix's quote, to the effect that it doesn't matter whether one is "in fear for his life" when relying on the self-defense doctrine. When I read something by the defense lawyer who apparently made a public statement to the effect that the defendant was in fear for his life, I thought, Uh-oh, that guy needs a lawyer. The defendant's emotional state is completely irrelevant to either the charge or his defense. His lawyer has to be able to show that the defendant had a reasonable, good faith belief, on the basis of objective facts, that he was subjected to an imminent threat of serious bodily injury. He could have been in fear for his life because of an irrational phobia about dark places - that wouldn't justify the use of deadly force. But cops seem to shoot people fairly often because they pull out a pen, lighter, or cell phone. Same rule - question is the good faith belief regarding the imminent threat of serious (not necessarily lethal) bodily injury.
Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:37 pm by user
|
Skeptic
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 04:44 pm |
|
I thought if you were outnumbered by credible assailants, that is considered a force escalation in which lethal force in self defense may be justified?
|
vtme_grad98
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:09 pm |
|
You can be beaten to death. A weapon does not have to be pulled out by the attacker to justify using lethal force to protect yourself. The prosecutors comments about "This was a fight, not an incident where the defendant was in reasonable fear of death, and yet he reacts with deadly force," are typical PR bull@#$% to support her case.
This may, or may not, be self-defense. But the fact that the man that died had not actually visibly brought a weapon in the fight doesn't mean that he and his friend were not equipped to kill Mr. Royals.
Regarding the concept of "duty to retreat" in Virginia, it's not techinically accurate to say that there is no duty to retreat in this state. If you did not contribute to the situation, you do not have a duty to retreat. However, if you did contribute to the encounter escalating (e.g., you started arguing and yelling with a guy and then he pulls a knife), then you are required to retreat to the maximum extent possible. If you own a copy of "Virginia Gun Laws", it's pretty easy to find the court precendent that establishes that. Mine is at home unfortunately.
Also, regarding civil cases, and castle doctrine, some of us brought that up with one of our State Senators on Lobby Day in 2008. He had explained that castle doctrine isn't necessary in Virginia like in other states. There are two types of criteria for liability. Some states have relative liability, which would diminish any payouts based on how much of the fault was yours. Virginia is a "strict liability" state, so the person suing can't win if he is at fault for what happened. So, on one hand, you can file a lawsuit for just about anything. But if you shoot and kill a man that broke into your home, his family has no real chance of a lawsuit going any farther than the initial steps.
|
SIGguy229
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:43 pm |
|
there wrote: i was there they didn't get out the car to fight just to ask for the insurance and the fight was over when he started shooting.there is never a need to shoot someone from two feet away.
those who know the man who did it i fee sorry for you cause he didn't even think twice.
remember that. he took a life that's never justified the way he did it.
i love you Juan rest in peace.you are forever missed.....
I know I'm feeding the troll, but I've got 12 hours off before my next mission...
I guess a court is going to sort this out...personally, if I'm outnumbered and threatened with bodily harm from someone 2ft away....I'm not going to be the only one bleeding. Given the circumstances outlined in the OP, I wouldn't think either...except how to get away, and if that includes a couple of bad guys getting hurt, that works for me.
|
kaiheitai17
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 10:36 pm |
|
| Sigguy, welcome back to the board. Missed your posts.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 01:19 am |
|
kaiheitai17 wrote: Sigguy, welcome back to the board. Missed your posts.
And thanks for your service.
Understand you point of view completely. +1
Yata hey
|
Current time is 06:18 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
