Legislation that would allow homeowners to use any degree of force, even lethal, against intruders without threat of criminal or civil charges has passed the House of Delegates.
House Bill 48, sponsored by Del. Richard P. “Dickie” Bell, R-Staunton, which would codify a version of the state’s common-law “Castle Doctrine” passed the House Thursday on a 70-28 vote after a second day of debate.
Democrats argued that the measure could be used to justify homicide when the circumstances are not clear.
But Republicans won out, claiming that the bill merely allowed an individual to protect themselves and their homes against illegal intruders.
On first glance, This bill seems fine. Of course, there are no provisions for luring someone inside that you hate, just so you could waste them. When I was a kid we were always told that if you killed someone breaking down your door, drag them inside.
I have never known why bills like this one have been so controversial, so I am posting it. I guess I will find out. Would this law apply to the home owner or the renter? What about spouses, kids, girl friends, etc.? I would certainly hope that a renter would be extended the same privilege of using lethal force if threatened.
Delegate Bell certainly is prolific. Many of his bills are absurd. This one is not.
“I have never known why bills like this one have been so controversial”
Two words: trial lawyers. Two more words: civil litigation.
There can be civil litigation over anything…buying a cup of coffee and driving off.
Americans should have the right to defend themselves,in their own homes, whether it is with a baseball bat, a gun, or a snarling rottweiler.
Sideshow Bob wins 68% of the Manassas City Tea Party straw poll–how many votes is that? Maybe 6 or 7?
I’ve got a contractor coming tomorrow to start the moat and the drawbridge. Once that is finished we’re gonna set up for the pots of boiling oil! Who knows what is next!
Cato is right about the two biggest threats to Harry Homeowner when he decides to shoot instead of heading out the back door. There will always be another side of the story and a trial lawyer will find it.
I have to dig into this. I’ve been saying we needed a castle doctrine for a long time, but these bills can differ greatly. The better of them provide civil immunity, the worst do not. Every time I asked why Virginia didn’t have a Castle Doctrine, I was always told that there was no need for one, according to the case history. I found that hard to believe. One idiot DA, and you’re finished.
“drag inside before you shoot them” that made me chuckle.
After you shoot them! AFTER, Elena, after. LOL
OK, wow, it looks like it actually might happen! I’m genuinely impressed! Course, it isn’t signed yet, is it?
I’ve found that the “this house protected by Smith & Wesson” sign pretty much does the trick for me. I’m thinking of adding a “3” flag to fly from the front porch to really show I mean business.
God Bless Mister Dale Earnhardt..
Has a Virginia court ever issued a judgement in favor of a criminal who was killed or injured by a homeowner when the criminal was inside the homeowner’s house without permission?
I would be very surprised. Another non-problem solved.
@Scout,
Hi Scout. Good to see you this fine, cold weekend. I don’t know, regarding your question. This new law is one of the few new laws that doesn’t offend me horribly so I said something semi- positive. We have several Castle Doctrine folks here who I am sure will fill us in. Pokie?!!! Marin?!!! Question for you all….
Scout, not that I am aware of. VCDL stayed neutral on these bills as case law tended to support the homeowner and trial lawyers tended to stay away from these cases due to Virginia common law. As Moon indicated. It’s hard to find someone sympathetic to the invader and not the homeowner.
When I was a wee lad in law school, the general principle was that one could use deadly force inside one’s dwelling, if you (the owner or lawful occupant) were present. In other words, you had to have a reasonable fear that your safety or the safety of others was at risk. On the other hand, one could not use deadly force to protect property in a context like rigging a spring gun in a watermelon patch. Taking that last point a bit farther, one cannot rig a spring gun to protect your house when you go away on vacation (cheaper than those pesky monthly charges from the home security service, but a bit harder to modulate). All this seems quite sensible to me. I haven’t read the legislation, but can’t imagine that it improves much on these old principles. I also wonder whether it might confuse the point about not using deadly force simply to protect property.
@Scout, I guess the bill’s patron needed to prop up his “con cred” a bit.
I am smiling over your wee lad in law school remark.
short pants, little rugs that we used to put on the floor for nap time, con law in the morning, milk and cookies, then civil procedure. We were happy little fellows.
@Scout LOL did all you wee lads want to become judges?
We all wanted to do Mergers and Acquistions and be bond counsel. Alas, like kids who think they will play in the NBA, our hopes were dashed. Many of us had to settle for lesser outcomes.
@Scout, that pretty much describes youth, doesn’t it? I guess setting your sights high isn’t a bad thing, as long as one adjusts well.