self defense shooter charged mith murder in VA

[SavageEagle]

I believe the confusion is the guy breaking into the car did not actually have a gun, which wasn't reported, so the shooters life was not in danger, which is the defense you would use for using maximum force.

The report clearly said the BG had a gun on the female. That's threat of deadly force with a deadly weapon. Justified.

Ranger, I'd rep you again, if I could!

 

[public servant]

Read the first comment under the news story. It does ramble a bit but it appears there may have been more to it.

 

[public servant]

And just because the story has to do with someone getting arrested/charged for a justifiable act (IMO) doesn't mean you have to try to turn it into a flame war between LE/non-LE.

That happens??? nooooo....say it's not so???

 

[SavageEagle]

Sorry, don't feel like taking the paragraphs and seperating them. This is just an update so feel free to click the link to read it.

Fact is, the facts have not been presented. Witnesses say the thief had a gun and Driver fired six shots. Witness says it's self defense. According to VA law, you can't kill to stop property loss, only in the threat of bodily harm. There is another case where a Baskin Robbins employee chased a robber and fired over a dozen shots and was ruled justified. So someone's CLEARLY trying to push an agenda here. If you can't see that you're just as blind as the rest of the sheeple. BaAaAaAaAa. I'll believe an eyewitness over a government employee anyday and wait for the facts to be presented. Innocent until proven guilty or has the Constitution changed since I was asleep last? And don't give me no "times have changed" crap either.

Murder charge over shooting of alleged thief - NBC12 News, Weather Sports, Traffic, and Programming Guide for Richmond, VA |

By Rachel DePompa - bio | email
Posted by Terry Alexander - email
MORE: UPDATE: VCU student charged with murder in Union Hill shooting
RICHMOND, VA (WWBT) - Was it self defense or murder? A shooting in Church Hill Wednesday has a lot of people asking that question.
The shooting on Leigh Street is complicated. Witnesses give conflicting accounts and police have released very few details.
Witnesses say 25 year old Eric Green Driver confronted a man in a mask breaking into his girlfriend's Honda. Police say Driver shot and killed that alleged thief, 24 year old Jamal Holman.
Some witnesses say Holman was shot while running away. Others say he was shot six times. Police will not say if Holman had a gun. Justin Burdick lives next door and calls the shooting self defense.
"The guy turned around with a gun and my neighbor unloaded on him. That was it. It was kind of self defense issue I think," said Burdick.
But Commonwealth's Attorney Michael Herring does not agree. His office has charged Driver with second degree murder.
"In Virginia you can not use lethal force to protect property. You can resort to lethal force to repel a serious threat of bodily injury or death to oneself or a person," said Herring.
Herring makes it clear, charges would not be filed if he thought driver was fearful for his life or protecting another person.
"We went through this ad nauseam with the Baskin Robbins incident," he said.
In that case, two years ago a man shot and killed an armed robber at the Baskin Robbins on Forest Hill. The ice cream clerk actually chased the robber into a neighborhood firing nearly a dozen shots. A grand jury decided that shooting was justified.
Herring says it appears the Church Hill shooting is very different.
"How do distinguish between someone trying to steal your car vs. your air conditioner? Are you allowed to pull out your nine millimeter and shoot somebody stealing an air conditioner or a bicycle, and the answer clearly is no," said Herring.
Bottom line, Herring says when someone's stealing your property call police. Driver will be in court next week to see if he can get out of jail on bond. If convicted he faces between five and forty years in prison.

 

[ATM]

virgina.

 

[SavageEagle]

virgina.

Yea, yea, yea. And bacon is better for you than drugs too!

 

[dross]

It does seem as if we don't have all the facts of this story quite yet. I for one, think that the law should allow deadly force for stealing property. It's always seemed ridiculous to me that if I drove into my driveway and a couple of guys were loading my TV into their truck, and I told them to put it down and they laughed and continued loading it, that I couldn't use force to make them stop. Why should I have to risk injury wrestling around with two guys who IMO put themselves in harms way when they decided to enter my house and take my things?

To paraphrase Clint Eastwood in the Unforgiven, "Maybe he should have armed himself if he was going to break into my house and steal my TV."

 

[finity]

Sorry, don't feel like taking the paragraphs and seperating them. This is just an update so feel free to click the link to read it.

Fact is, the facts have not been presented. Witnesses say the thief had a gun and Driver fired six shots. Witness says it's self defense. According to VA law, you can't kill to stop property loss, only in the threat of bodily harm. There is another case where a Baskin Robbins employee chased a robber and fired over a dozen shots and was ruled justified. So someone's CLEARLY trying to push an agenda here. If you can't see that you're just as blind as the rest of the sheeple. BaAaAaAaAa. I'll believe an eyewitness over a government employee anyday and wait for the facts to be presented. Innocent until proven guilty or has the Constitution changed since I was asleep last? And don't give me no "times have changed" crap either.

Murder charge over shooting of alleged thief - NBC12 News, Weather Sports, Traffic, and Programming Guide for Richmond, VA |

Who exactly are you arguing with or calling sheep?

I think everybody is agreeing (even me ) that if the other guy had a gun the shooter was justified in defending himself.

If you read your own quote it gives conflicting accounts of what happened so the police/prosecutors are taking the cautious route & investigating it as a murder. Or should I be specific & call it unjustified use of deadly force? Either way IF the guy didn't have a gun or in some other way threaten the shooter with death or GBH, it is illegal in VA to use deadly force to protect property (as it is here also - that law can be put up to debate in another thread). IF that was the case then the shooter broke the law.

This is a prime example of a situation where knowing the laws of your locale is to your advantage. Just because it should be one way doesn't mean it is.

Let the grand jury sort out the details. Thats what they are there for.

 

[finity]

It's always seemed ridiculous to me that if I drove into my driveway and a couple of guys were loading my TV into their truck, and I told them to put it down and they laughed and continued loading it, that I couldn't use force to make them stop.

Thats not entirely correct.

You can use reasonable force to prevent someone from stealing your property.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).

How I read that bolded section is that I can use reasonable force up to but not including deadly force to stop somebody who is not threatening me or others directly from stealing my property. However if the other person escalates the confrontation to a situation that justifies the use of deadly force, then use it. At that point you aren't using deadly force to protect property but to protect yourself from the angry thief who you legally tried to prevent running away with your stuff.

The only caution is don't escalate the situation yourself further than what a jury would find "reasonable". Maybe it's a fine distinction but it is what it is.

 

[esrice]

I've always thought that there should be some sort of fund set up for defraying the legal costs of armed self defense.

Network members don't face the legal system alone!

 

[SavageEagle]

Who exactly are you arguing with or calling sheep?

I think everybody is agreeing (even me ) that if the other guy had a gun the shooter was justified in defending himself.

If you read your own quote it gives conflicting accounts of what happened so the police/prosecutors are taking the cautious route & investigating it as a murder. Or should I be specific & call it unjustified use of deadly force? Either way IF the guy didn't have a gun or in some other way threaten the shooter with death or GBH, it is illegal in VA to use deadly force to protect property (as it is here also - that law can be put up to debate in another thread). IF that was the case then the shooter broke the law.

This is a prime example of a situation where knowing the laws of your locale is to your advantage. Just because it should be one way doesn't mean it is.

Let the grand jury sort out the details. Thats what they are there for.

I wasn't talking to anyone specificly but do you have a guilty conscience?

 

[finity]

I wasn't talking to anyone specificly but do you have a guilty conscience?

No.

I was just trying to make sense of a post that didn't.

 

[SavageEagle]

Again, get your head out the clouds and read it again. It made plenty of sense. Anyone else have trouble understanding what I said? I think most of us still speak American around here....

 

[Ashkelon]

The whole situation is a shame. I personally could not care less if he shot him all 19 times. If he felt threatened then he is justified IMO. A man in a mask runs off after attempting to steal your car WILL come back.
As someone who deals with this type of situation for a living I can tell you if an individual is merely warned off and doesn't fear true retribution the criminal will return but only emboldened. A criminal targets something often out of convenience or opportunity. There was something about this situation that attracted the criminal. They are creatures of habit that will return to see if the same stimuli is there to commit another crime. They are not much different than deer. Very habitual. I believe most LEOs on this board will agree with me on this one.
Happens all the time in the criminal justice system and unfortunately the citizen often gets hurt when the criminal is not "surprised".

 

[finity]

The whole situation is a shame. I personally could not care less if he shot him all 19 times. If he felt threatened then he is justified IMO. A man in a mask runs off after attempting to steal your car WILL come back.
As someone who deals with this type of situation for a living I can tell you if an individual is merely warned off and doesn't fear true retribution the criminal will return but only emboldened. A criminal targets something often out of convenience or opportunity. There was something about this situation that attracted the criminal. They are creatures of habit that will return to see if the same stimuli is there to commit another crime. They are not much different than deer. Very habitual. I believe most LEOs on this board will agree with me on this one.
Happens all the time in the criminal justice system and unfortunately the citizen often gets hurt when the criminal is not "surprised".

That may very well be true but that doesn't mean that every crime deserves the death penalty & that penalty should not be meted out by the general public (except for the obvious response to deadly threat or GBH - I have no qualms about using deadly force in those cases).

 

[Fletch]

Network members don't face the legal system alone!

Woot, thanks for the link.

 

[Ashkelon]

I am not saying every crime merits the death penalty but I do believe that when a criminal uses or has a deadly weapon during the commission of a felonious crime then the stakes are much higher and should a citizen resort to violent force against that criminal during its commission they should be given a pass.
People are afraid to help others and stop commission of crimes because they are afraid of being charged themselves. We have placed WAY too much emphasis in our system on the role of LEOs and that has degraded our citizen action.
I am in no way condoning vigilante groups or actions as reactionary but I am condoning that conduct when a crime is taking place.
I live in Marion County wherein some 911 calls go without even a response. This is not the fault of LEOs because they are simply overwhelmed.
I think we should do a better job of holding ourselves and our neighbors accountable.

 

[Windwalker]

From the info given it should have been a clean shoot. No chargeable action. I would like to know what the investigation turned up to change this?

 

[mike8170]

From the info given it should have been a clean shoot. No chargeable action. I would like to know what the investigation turned up to change this?

Problably a case of Leftist Politics. Or maybe the prosecutor is up for re-election soon, and wants some headlines. I have seen it before in even this great State.

 

[Hoosier8]

Sorry for not posting any backup info but while reading around the web I found one report that said they did not find a weapon on the guy breaking into the car and that is why the charges were brought. Now that could be more of that inventive reporting but if that is the case, deadly force is not justified. That's all I am saying.

Now a good defense lawyer will take the witnesses reports and weave a story where, if the robber had a gun or not, the property owner thought his life was in danger. The prosecution will paint it as just a pissed of homeowner using deadly force inappropriately if there was no weapon. The court will now decide. Either way, the guy is out allot of dough for using his weapon.