PATHETIC — Reynolds Allows Castle Law to Die in Committee
By Shaun Kenney | Tuesday, January 18th, 2011 | PolicyYou hear a crash in your home, and it’s 3AM. Stumbling out of your bedroom with your firearm, you see a shadowed figure. He notices you, and spins around and lunges towards you. Unfortunately for him, you manage to squeeze off a round before he gasps in pain…
Three months later, the intruder sues you for injury claims … and wins.
How did this happen? Because Virginia doesn’t have what are termed as “castle laws” — meaning that if you are required to use deadly force in defending your home or family, the intruder cannot sue you for damages.
Roscoe Reynolds doesn’t like that. SB 876 would have fixed this problem, and Reynolds let it die in committee this morning. From RPV Chairman Pat Mullins:
“When I was told that Roscoe Reynolds let SB 876 die in his committee, I simply couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
The last thing a homeowner in Virginia needs to be worried about when they’re facing down an armed intruder is ‘Will he be able to sue me if I defend myself?’ This law would have given Virginians the security of knowing that the law was on their side – in both the criminal and civil arenas – if they were forced to defend themselves or their families using deadly force inside their own home.
Senator Reynolds let the bill die without saying a word in its defense – in fact, he questioned a number of witnesses as to whether or not anyone had ever filed such a suit before, implying that there’s no need to protect homeowners until someone is sued by a would-be home invasion robber.
Roscoe’s silence shows that he cares more about the rights of home invasion robbers than the safety and security of the Virginians he represents. The residents of the 20th District deserve far better from their state Senator.”
This just seems like such a basic, common sense law. What gives?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
Comments
13 Responses to "PATHETIC — Reynolds Allows Castle Law to Die in Committee"
Frankly if you shoot somebody who breaks into your home and they live and survive, you deserve to be sued…
If you enter my break into my home, you will not sue me period. I do not need some BS political stunt to protect me, my family or my castle.
I don’t have any problem with the logic behind the bill, but based on what you said about Reynolds questioning witnesses, it may be what we used to call “a solution in search of a problem.”
The “he cares more about the rights of home invasion robbers than the safety and security of the Virginians he represents” part is just typical over-the-top partisan BS spin.
I have a hard time imagining a Virginia lawyer filing the suit you mention in your hypothetical. I have an even harder time imagining any Virginia judge or jury ruling against the homeowner. (That wouldn’t matter if there was evidence that such suits ARE filed, I’d agree that the homeowner shouldn’t have to expend legal fees defending himself in a case where he was clearly in the right).
The necessity for the law is because of the legal difference between “justifiable” use of force versus “reasonable” use of force. Without a castle doctrine law, an occupant of a dwelling is limited to using “reasonable” force to repel an intruder. If the intruder is not armed, you cannot shoot him. In castle law states, use of deadly force is “justifiable” if the occupant has a belief that he is in imminent danger of injury or harm, regardless of the intruder’s capability.
There must be some requirement for the law because 31 states have adopted it. Not adopting it leaves Virginia in the same category as the District of Columbia when it comes to self-defense in your home, i.e. when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
And, yes, burglars have sued property owners for injuries they suffered while breaking and entering, including being shot. I’m not aware of any recent cases in Virginia, but there were cases this year in Wisconsin and Florida. In the Florida case, the judge refused to dismiss the suit at the preliminary hearing and let it proceed to trial, provided that the plaintiff (who was in prison) posted a $10,000 bond in the event he lost and was held liable for the defendant’s legal fees. When he couldn’t post the bond the suit was finally dismissed.
But, typical of our General Assembly, we will have to wait until we have an egregious case here in Virginia before they will pass a common sense law.
…and there have been notable instances of this happening elsewhere in the United States. Roscoe was very deliberate in asking whether there were any instances of this happening *in Virginia* — because he knew what the answer would be if he merely left it to instances nationwide.
Castle laws make sense. And yes, if someone intrudes upon my home and threatens me or my family with what I perceive to be a life-threatening movement — expect to get shot.
I don’t think this issue is as clear cut as it seems on the surface. I know a lot of people who fully support your right to bear arms, but are split as to whether codifying the castle doctrine is a good idea. It currently exists as common law in Virginia, so it’s a little misleading to say that we don’t have a castle doctring. If you put it in statute, then you must meet every standard set forth in the Code in order to use it as a defense, and there is less flexibility.
You hear a crash in your home, and it’s 3AM. Stumbling out of your bedroom with your firearm, you see a shadowed figure. He notices you, and spins around and lunges towards you. Unfortunately for him, you manage to squeeze off a round before he gasps in pain…
Three days later, you bury your teenaged son whom you didn’t realize had snuck out of the house to go to a party down the street.
How often does this happen?
A helluva lot more frequently than a burglar suing for damages.
Jim- I’m not in favor of gun control, but your scenario almost happened to me.
My Dad opened my bedroom door and flipped on the light with a .357 leveled right between my eyes as I froze half in and half out of the bedroom window as I snuck back in at about 2 a.m. I was 17.
SV,
I trust that your father then proceeded to whip your ass. Mine would have.
Jim,
“Three days later, you bury your teenaged son whom you didn’t realize had snuck out of the house to go to a party down the street.
How often does this happen?
A helluva lot more frequently than a burglar suing for damages.”
At the risk of sounding like Sen. Reynolds, can you cite one instance in Virginia where this has happened?
law girl,
Thanks for that clarification. It dovetails with my opinion of the right of self-defense in Virginia. It is the old expression, “I would rather be judged by twelve strangers than be carried by six friends.” However, no matter how burdensome it might be to codify the castle doctrine into law, it would be worth it as far as I am concerned. I have seen too many instances of how anti-gun zealot prosecutors can twist the law to make a political statement.
Senator Renyolds just shot himself in the foot. I live in his district and if played correctly could spell defeat for the senator this fall. Folks around here (both democrats and Republicans) value their guns and the right to defend themselves. Could this be another sign that Renyolds my be considering retirement?
Join Virginia Gun Owners Coalition, Virginia’s only state-level No-More-Excuses Gun Lobby and help us get rid of Reynolds
Most of my info comes from VCDL, and it seems that Virginia Common Law is very nuanced when it comes to this issue. One of VCDL’s concerns was that if we codify Castle Doctrine we could unintentionally negate the rest of our Common Law that says we can defend ourselves outside of our home. The danger they cited was that a future court “might say that the only place we can defend ourselves is inside a dwelling because of this targeted law.” I’m not a lawyer, so not sure if that’s 100% accurate, but it does seem like our common law is pretty robust and in favor of self defense so caution on changing the law would seem to be in order.
Here’s a legitimate concern when I read the text: The “intruder” does not have to be armed according to the text.
So….let’s say you have a teenage boy. He and another boy have an ongoing “beef” over a girl. One night, the other boy knocks on the door, your son answers the door, the other kid forces his way in the home and they get in a fistfight in your house. Even if the other boy has no weapon at all, if he is in your house and hitting your son then this law gives you the right to blast him away with no consequences at all. Why? Because the other kid was unlawfully in your house and he is putting your son in danger of imminent bodily injury. Now my common sense would lead me to break up the fight and call the cops. I could not ever imagine shooting a kid over that.
I’m a gun owner, and I certainly don’t consider myself a “liberal”, but…the fact that someone is using bare hands to punch someone doesn’t lead me to believe that it would be moral or just to take their life even if they had forced their way in my home.
I wouldn’t call a supporter of the bill a pejorative term such as a cowboy or a redneck gun lover, and I would hope that terms like hug a thug wouldn’t be used to describe my position. I would certainly support such a bill if it stated that the intruder had to be armed with a dangerous weapon (gun, knife, etc.) I don’t think I could support the bill as written.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.