It still requires that a reasonable person would judge that you were in immanent risk of grave bodily harm or death. But you are no longer required to seek retreat, like a coward, before responding with lethal force. You still have to prove it was necessary to shoot to save your hide. Nothing radical about it.Nick1911 said:
I would like to make one minor correction to what my good friend has just said. It is not enough that you feel that you are in danger "to life or limb." Your fear must still be deemed reasonable. In other words, if Mr. Chicken, the character played by Don Knotts in the movies, is confronted by a black dude at the street corner listening to rap music, and sees this young man bopping around and seemingly talking to himself, and decides that his life is in danger, he is not at liberty under this new law to blow him away, even though he is authentically in fear for his life. Your fear must seem justified to a reasonable person, not just to Don Knotts' Mr. Chicken. I believe, however, that under the new law, your fear is presumed reasonable if someone breaks into your home, i.e., in that case you only need to prove that someone broke in, and you do not have to convince a jury that your fear was reasonable. The street corner, however, is a different situation.tegemu said:
Exactly. As noted it simply extends 'Castle Doctrine' to anyplace you have a legal right to be. All the other strictures on lethal force still apply. The threat must be real - the actor must have means, proximity, opportunity, and intent to cause you to believe that he will inflict death or grave bodily harm before you can respond with lethal force.
Just to be a knit picker, the danger doesn't actually have to be "real." If someone, for example, pulls a realistic fake gun or knife on you, you are at liberty to shoot them in self defense, if a reasonable person would have believed the threat to be real.Mike in VA said:
The Real Hawkeye said:
Yes, well, I suppose that at times, discretion is the better part of valor. You are certainly not required to stand your ground at all times. But now you are at liberty to do so. Keep in mind that I am referring to a situation where the threat is already immanent, i.e., right upon you. The old law required you to prove that escape was not possible under those circumstances, or be convicted of murder if you used lethal force to extricate yourself. Now, you need only prove that the threat was indeed immanent, and you had a right to be there at the time.antsi said:
was right there. Obviously, we're in violent agreement.
Fortunately, we're in VA, which has fairly rational standards for slef-defense.There is no article there, just the title of the article.Ron_Miami said:
The Real Hawkeye said:
All I get is an error message when I use that hyperlink. Is there something wrong with my computer?Ron_Miami said:
Now it's working for me too. Good analysis. That's about what I thought it was.Gunfire said:
