But if he felt threatened by a strange dog running through his yard he would be. Especially if he saw someone shouting and screaming after it and this person looks like they are having trouble walking (assuming she was as she just had surgery according to the original poster). I would feel threatened and fear for my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotMallNinja
Actually, the fact of the matter is: none of you were there. The information you do have comes from a third party that has a vested interest in the outcome of the case. I'm not calling anyone a liar, but this is only half the story.
SUggest the dog is better restrained in the future.
If he just walked our there with gun in hand, we may be having a different conversation, but he pointed it at someone/something and made a threat to use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by barstoolguru
Now suppose the sound he heard was a 5 year old retrieving a ball that he accidentally kicked into the yard, maybe it bounced off the house and landed in the bushes. Is his response still appropriate, after all he is just "investigating."
Look out the damn windows, listen for more noise. Usually the noises I hear are the delivery drivers leaving packages, they can be thumps and bumps against the house, my first reaction isn't to gear up and go outside. And if it is an "attack" the cover inside my house sure beats me walking out into the unknown where their may be multiple assailants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotMallNinja
Give us a link to strengthen your argument. I personally don't remember reading anything that says you are NOT under blanket of the law if you have a weapon while investigating a problem!
Yes it does, a 5 year old or a 55 year old; they are unauthorized intruders. So what if he hears a noise and doesn't see anyone does it make the noise any less menacing? "Reasonable fear" is the bases; who is to say what that is? Reasonable fear to a 28 year old marine is different from reasonable fear from an 80 year old woman.Quote:
Now suppose the sound he heard was a 5 year old retrieving a ball that he accidentally kicked into the yard, maybe it bounced off the house and landed in the bushes. Is his response still appropriate, after all he is just "investigating."
The point is that Virginia law does not afford you the protection once you leave the safety of your home. Bottom line is you need to convince a jury if you were charged and taken to trial. Also don't forget the jury gets instructions as to what the law is as well as the elements that constitute the crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toorop
uh huh. and the same could be said for any author, from any source. this line of reasoning is illogical. i am not trying to bust your juevas, or anyone elses. but i am tired of people blindly disregarding anything from wiki because it comes from wiki. it's a good site. you just have to take it with a grain of salt, like any other source. and that's the problem, too many people blindly accept source (a) because of it's name, and blindly disregard source (b) for the same reason. one must question EVERYTHING in the pursuit of truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotMallNinja
Para, how old is this person?
Here are two that were referenced in the document provided by Fastk9dad in Post #60:Quote:
Originally Posted by barstoolguru
State v. Morgan, 3 Ired. 186, 38 Am. Dec. 714, held that ""You may not kill, because you cannot otherwise effect your object, although the object sought to be effected is right. You can only kill to save life or limb, or prevent a great crime, or to accomplish a necessary public duty." [Emphasis Added by Me]
Commonwealth v. Alexander, 260 Va. 238, 242, 531 S.E.2d 567, ___ (2000) stated "However, the defendant contends, and the Court of Appeals held, that these principles do not apply when there is a mere threat to use deadly force in protection of ersonal property. We do not agree. Moreover, the owner of land has no right to assault a mere trespasser with a deadly weapon. Montgomery, 98 Va. at 844, 36 S.E. at 373. For these reasons, we agree with the trial court that a deadly weapon may not be
brandished solely in defense of personal property. [Emphasis Added by Me]
Reasonable fear does not come into play until actually firing a weapon in purported self-defense. Brandishing would not help in this instance. It all goes back to what's been said on this forum time and time again: Don't pull a weapon unless you are prepared to use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by barstoolguru
So not just anyone can edit articles now? That would be a huge improvement, but if anyone with a computer can edit an article, it's not reliable to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fausty
I don't know VA law so I can't speak on its behalf but the cops do and he was not arrested!Quote:
Originally Posted by NotMallNinja
Go ahead and cite Wiki in a legal case. And yes, the same could and should be said for any source. Hence why on this cite people often ensure they disclaim themselves as not being an attorney and/or stating that what they are giving is not legal advice (even if they might be an attorney). It will take a lot more than disagreement over the internet to bust my huevos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fausty
Just because a person is not arrested does not mean the case died with it. Come on barstoolguru, you know better than that my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by barstoolguru
From Wikipedia:Introduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by OD*
"Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better—for example, spelling, grammar, rewriting for readability, adding content, or removing non-constructive edits. If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, or suggest them on the article's discussion page. Changes to controversial topics and Wikipedia's main pages should usually be discussed first."
Ugh, it hasn't changed and any moron that doesn't agree with the site can still edit it. Thanks for the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotMallNinja