[lethal tupperwa]

great sign

[Willfulone]

...and


Will

[lethal tupperwa]

for some reason the pic did not want to post.

but it did see above.

[MCunningham]

Too bad its not real.

[packin23]

Originally Posted by MCunningham

Too bad its not real.

I thought the same thing. Looks photoshopped.

[mikebass78]

Originally Posted by MCunningham

Too bad its not real.

+1

people believe anything.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by mikebass78

+1

people believe anything.

I'm telling you dude, she IS A girl!!!

[NMG26]

Originally Posted by MCunningham

Too bad its not real.

Oh it is real. It is right there on the internet!




.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by Gallium

I'm telling you dude, she IS A girl!!!

[M&P15T]

I wish!!!

Hell, despite the fact that VA is shall-issue, they still don't have Castle Doctrine Legislation. So, if you defend yourself, you're taking your chances without the benefit of clear law.

I've already decided that I won't step-up to defend anyone except those closest to me. I hope VA gets it together one day.

[HerrGlock]

If you believe no one sees something that you do, it might be wise to double check to see if what you're missing is a sense of humour.

[jdeere_man]

Its certainly funny, but fake.

[md2lgyk]

The only thing you're "warned" about when entering VA is that radar detectors are illegal.

[TSAX]

Originally Posted by Gallium

I'm telling you dude, she IS A girl!!!

[Willfulone]

Originally Posted by Willfulone

...and


Will

Pic is there now...pretty funny, and true...

Will

[concretefuzzynuts]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

I wish!!!

Hell, despite the fact that VA is shall-issue, they still don't have Castle Doctrine Legislation. So, if you defend yourself, you're taking your chances without the benefit of clear law.

I've already decided that I won't step-up to defend anyone except those closest to me. I hope VA gets it together one day.

Um.. I think you'd better re-check your facts. We have a form of a "Stand Your Ground" Commonwealth law. Which is better than the castle doctrine, you don't have to be at home.

While Virginia does not have Castle Doctrine or Stand-your-ground laws on the books, they do have common law versions of both. Virginia Common Law is very clear that both apply ANYWHERE a citizen is, and not just in your home/business/car.

http://www.usacarry.com/virginia_con...formation.html

Also, we have a State approved Militia here. Complete with training and uniforms, most anyone can join.

http://www.virginiacitizenmilitia.org/

Don't Tread On Us.

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by lethal tupperwa

great sign

Awesome!

If only it was real.

[CharlestonG26]

I'm developing a true dislike for Photoshop.

[roger123]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

I wish!!!

Hell, despite the fact that VA is shall-issue, they still don't have Castle Doctrine Legislation. So, if you defend yourself, you're taking your chances without the benefit of clear law.

I've already decided that I won't step-up to defend anyone except those closest to me. I hope VA gets it together one day.

A Look At Current Self-Defense Common Law In Virginia (Important Information)

Virginia Citizens Defense League March 2012

Virginia currently has excellent protections for those involved in the use of force for self-defense. Our protections are much broader than the "Castle Doctrines" that many states have. True "Castle Doctrine" bills provide protection only in a person's home, while Virginia common law provides protections everywhere you might be - at home, in the yard, at work, at the store, in church, etc. Some states desperately needed "Castle Doctrine" laws, as their existing laws were horrible on self-defense. Many required a person to retreat EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOME! Not true in Virginia.

Virginia is a "stand-your-ground" state. That means AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT PART OF "THE PROBLEM" and are innocent, you can stand your ground and use force to defend yourself wherever you may be. Deadly force is only allowed if you are under IMMEDIATE threat and you reasonably fear that you, or another innocent party, will be killed or be grievously injured. The death of an attacker caused by use of such deadly force is considered "justifiable homicide." Note that you don't actually have to be in a deadly situation, but only have a REASONABLE FEAR that you are in such a situation, to be justified in the use of deadly force. For example, if someone tries to rob you with a toy gun and you don't know it's a toy gun, you would be justified in responding with deadly force since you would reasonably fear that your life was in immediate danger.

If you are part of "the problem," say by making an obscene gesture or yelling a threat at someone, then, if attacked, you MUST RETREAT. The retreat must be as far as you can reasonably go and you must indicate that you give up the fight. Then, and only then, if the attacker persists, can you use force against them. If they are trying to kill you or grievously injure you, and they die because of your use of deadly force, it is considered "excusable homicide," a lower standard than "justifiable homicide." Moral to the story: don't give up your right to stand-your-ground by being part of the problem - ever.
The reason that a person who is part of the problem is required to retreat is to avoid someone committing murder under the guise of self-defense. Otherwise, a murderer could intentionally badger a victim to the point that the victim attacks out of sheer anger or frustration. At that point the murderer, standing his ground, could use that attack as an excuse to kill the victim "in self-defense," getting away with murder legally. Not good, not acceptable, and not legal.

Would common law or the "Castle Doctrine" bills GUARANTEE that a person legally defending themselves could NOT be charged with murder or sued civilly? NO. If the police and/or the Commonwealth Attorney have reason to believe, rightly or wrongly, that you committed a murder instead of true self-defense, you are going to be arrested and charged. Period. As far as a civil suit, you can be sued for anything and nothing can stop that either. However, common law (and the wording in the Castle Doctrine bills) provide a defense. However, the common law provides the same defense wherever you may be, while
the "Castle Doctrine" would only apply inside your dwelling.

[skew12]

VA is a pretty gun friendly state.

[concretefuzzynuts]

Originally Posted by roger123

A Look At Current Self-Defense Common Law In Virginia (Important Information)

Virginia Citizens Defense League March 2012

Virginia currently has excellent protections for those involved in the use of force for self-defense. Our protections are much broader than the "Castle Doctrines" that many states have. True "Castle Doctrine" bills provide protection only in a person's home, while Virginia common law provides protections everywhere you might be - at home, in the yard, at work, at the store, in church, etc. Some states desperately needed "Castle Doctrine" laws, as their existing laws were horrible on self-defense. Many required a person to retreat EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOME! Not true in Virginia.

Virginia is a "stand-your-ground" state. That means AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT PART OF "THE PROBLEM" and are innocent, you can stand your ground and use force to defend yourself wherever you may be. Deadly force is only allowed if you are under IMMEDIATE threat and you reasonably fear that you, or another innocent party, will be killed or be grievously injured. The death of an attacker caused by use of such deadly force is considered "justifiable homicide." Note that you don't actually have to be in a deadly situation, but only have a REASONABLE FEAR that you are in such a situation, to be justified in the use of deadly force. For example, if someone tries to rob you with a toy gun and you don't know it's a toy gun, you would be justified in responding with deadly force since you would reasonably fear that your life was in immediate danger.

If you are part of "the problem," say by making an obscene gesture or yelling a threat at someone, then, if attacked, you MUST RETREAT. The retreat must be as far as you can reasonably go and you must indicate that you give up the fight. Then, and only then, if the attacker persists, can you use force against them. If they are trying to kill you or grievously injure you, and they die because of your use of deadly force, it is considered "excusable homicide," a lower standard than "justifiable homicide." Moral to the story: don't give up your right to stand-your-ground by being part of the problem - ever.
The reason that a person who is part of the problem is required to retreat is to avoid someone committing murder under the guise of self-defense. Otherwise, a murderer could intentionally badger a victim to the point that the victim attacks out of sheer anger or frustration. At that point the murderer, standing his ground, could use that attack as an excuse to kill the victim "in self-defense," getting away with murder legally. Not good, not acceptable, and not legal.

Would common law or the "Castle Doctrine" bills GUARANTEE that a person legally defending themselves could NOT be charged with murder or sued civilly? NO. If the police and/or the Commonwealth Attorney have reason to believe, rightly or wrongly, that you committed a murder instead of true self-defense, you are going to be arrested and charged. Period. As far as a civil suit, you can be sued for anything and nothing can stop that either. However, common law (and the wording in the Castle Doctrine bills) provide a defense. However, the common law provides the same defense wherever you may be, while
the "Castle Doctrine" would only apply inside your dwelling.

True.

Many will not read a long post. While it is true I have learned to shorten mine.

[jfost11]

Originally Posted by lethal tupperwa

great sign

I wish that were real!

[M&P15T]

Originally Posted by concretefuzzynuts

Um.. I think you'd better re-check your facts. We have a form of a "Stand Your Ground" Commonwealth law. Which is better than the castle doctrine, you don't have to be at home.

There seems to be some differences in how different states label "Castle Doctrine". I'm going to share what Michigan has done.

Their "Castle Doctrine" means that your right to self defense extends to wherever you happen to be, and if you use a firearm, wherever you are legally allowed to carry a firearm. In other words, you can defend yourself as if you are inside your "castle" wherever you find yourself threatened.

Additionally, the authorites have to have clear evidence to suspect that you committed murder, instead of acting in self-defense, to prosecute you. This is a fundamental change from being assumed guilty until proven innocent, as it is in many states. You also have the ability to come to the aid/defense of someone you do not know. You yourself do not have to be in danger, only someone else, no matter whom they may be.

Lastly, and most importantly, there is total protection from civil suits stemming from self-defense or the defense of another.

Originally Posted by roger123

A Look At Current Self-Defense Common Law In Virginia (Important Information)

Virginia Citizens Defense League March 2012

Virginia currently has excellent protections for those involved in the use of force for self-defense. Our protections are much broader than the "Castle Doctrines" that many states have. True "Castle Doctrine" bills provide protection only in a person's home, while Virginia common law provides protections everywhere you might be - at home, in the yard, at work, at the store, in church, etc. Some states desperately needed "Castle Doctrine" laws, as their existing laws were horrible on self-defense. Many required a person to retreat EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOME! Not true in Virginia.

Virginia is a "stand-your-ground" state. That means AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT PART OF "THE PROBLEM" and are innocent, you can stand your ground and use force to defend yourself wherever you may be. Deadly force is only allowed if you are under IMMEDIATE threat and you reasonably fear that you, or another innocent party, will be killed or be grievously injured. The death of an attacker caused by use of such deadly force is considered "justifiable homicide." Note that you don't actually have to be in a deadly situation, but only have a REASONABLE FEAR that you are in such a situation, to be justified in the use of deadly force. For example, if someone tries to rob you with a toy gun and you don't know it's a toy gun, you would be justified in responding with deadly force since you would reasonably fear that your life was in immediate danger.

If you are part of "the problem," say by making an obscene gesture or yelling a threat at someone, then, if attacked, you MUST RETREAT. The retreat must be as far as you can reasonably go and you must indicate that you give up the fight. Then, and only then, if the attacker persists, can you use force against them. If they are trying to kill you or grievously injure you, and they die because of your use of deadly force, it is considered "excusable homicide," a lower standard than "justifiable homicide." Moral to the story: don't give up your right to stand-your-ground by being part of the problem - ever.
The reason that a person who is part of the problem is required to retreat is to avoid someone committing murder under the guise of self-defense. Otherwise, a murderer could intentionally badger a victim to the point that the victim attacks out of sheer anger or frustration. At that point the murderer, standing his ground, could use that attack as an excuse to kill the victim "in self-defense," getting away with murder legally. Not good, not acceptable, and not legal.

Would common law or the "Castle Doctrine" bills GUARANTEE that a person legally defending themselves could NOT be charged with murder or sued civilly? NO. If the police and/or the Commonwealth Attorney have reason to believe, rightly or wrongly, that you committed a murder instead of true self-defense, you are going to be arrested and charged. Period. As far as a civil suit, you can be sued for anything and nothing can stop that either. However, common law (and the wording in the Castle Doctrine bills) provide a defense. However, the common law provides the same defense wherever you may be, while the "Castle Doctrine" would only apply inside your dwelling.

So, as I said, Virginia has a long way to go legislatively. There should be none of this "part of the problem" B.S. Simply upsetting someone should not end your ability to defend yourself. Simply upsetting someone somehow should not put the legal burden of having to retreat onto someone that needs to act in self-defense, nor should it tacitly make it legal for someone to assault you with deadly force, while removing your ability to defend yourself without first having to retreat.

Being upset by another person's words should not be a legal basis to assault someone, and the other person being forced to retreat, instead of defending themself where they stand. All of this "you must indicate that you give up the fight. Then, and only then, if the attacker persists, can you use force against them." is simply stupid, and puts people's lives in jeopardy. It also smacks of hundreds of years old laws from Ye Olde England, which I would not be surprised to find is true.

Also, the last sentance again higlights how differently states define "Castle Doctrine". In some states that have recently been passing such legislation, it does not mean that you have to be in your "Castle" to defend yourself and be free from prosectution. What states like Michigan mean with their Castle Doctrine, is that wherever you are legally able to be armed, you have the same legal protections as if you were in your "castle".

So, Virginia has some ways to go on this front. And until these issues get tackled, only my nearest and dearest would see me defend them. Because Virginians are still at a high risk of criminal and civil prosecution following an act of self-defense, much less defending another person, I would only risk my freedom and financial health on those I am willing to sacrifice myself for. I would additionally forward a guess that defending another person would pretty much be viewed as murder here in VA, so I would only sacrficie my freedom for someone that I truly love.

Additionally, I asked questions here in the VA forum when I first moved here about VA Castle Doctrine. The responders basically said that the laws regarding self-defense are vague and out-dated, and that a person defending themself takes on a ton of criminal and civil liability exposure because of the poor, unclear laws.

Sorry, but unless I have gotten some really bad info, I have very little confidence in VA's Castle Doctrine. It seems to me that native Virginian's have sorely miss-placed confidence in their state's laws, because they don't know much about what is happening on this front in other states, how good it is elsewhere.

[concretefuzzynuts]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

There seems to be some differences in how different states label "Castle Doctrine". I'm going to share what Michigan has done.

Their "Castle Doctrine" means that your right to self defense extends to wherever you happen to be, and if you use a firearm, wherever you are legally allowed to carry a firearm. In other words, you can defend yourself as if you are inside your "castle" wherever you find yourself threatened.

Additionally, the authorites have to have clear evidence to suspect that you committed murder, instead of acting in self-defense, to prosecute you. This is a fundamental change from being assumed guilty until proven innocent, as it is in many states. You also have the ability to come to the aid/defense of someone you do not know. You yourself do not have to be in danger, only someone else, no matter whom they may be.

Lastly, and most importantly, there is total protection from civil suits stemming from self-defense or the defense of another.



So, as I said, Virginia has a long way to go legislatively. There should be none of this "part of the problem" B.S. Simply upsetting someone should not end your ability to defend yourself. Simply upsetting someone somehow should not put the legal burden of having to retreat onto someone that needs to act in self-defense, nor should it tacitly make it legal for someone to assault you with deadly force, while removing your ability to defend yourself without first having to retreat.

Being upset by another person's words should not be a legal basis to assault someone, and the other person being forced to retreat, instead of defending themself where they stand. All of this "you must indicate that you give up the fight. Then, and only then, if the attacker persists, can you use force against them." is simply stupid, and puts people's lives in jeopardy. It also smacks of hundreds of years old laws from Ye Olde England, which I would not be surprised to find is true.

Also, the last sentance again higlights how differently states define "Castle Doctrine". In some states that have recently been passing such legislation, it does not mean that you have to be in your "Castle" to defend yourself and be free from prosectution. What states like Michigan mean with their Castle Doctrine, is that wherever you are legally able to be armed, you have the same legal protections as if you were in your "castle".

So, Virginia has some ways to go on this front. And until these issues get tackled, only my nearest and dearest would see me defend them. Because Virginians are still at a high risk of civil suit following an act of self-defense, I would only risk my financial health on those that would stand by me in such a situation.

Additionally, I asked questions here in the VA forum when I first moved here about VA Castle Doctrine. The responders basically said that the laws regarding self-defense are vague and out-dated, and that a person defending themself takes on a ton of criminal and civil liability exposure because of the poor, unclear laws.

Sorry, but unless I have gotten some really bad info, I have very little confidence in VA's Castle Doctrine.

I will concede, If you live in the suburbs of DC you may be subject to an unjust system.

However if you live further south your rights of self protection carry more weight. And the further west, even more.

What really stinks about Va gun laws is, the closer you live to the corrupt, vapid, toilet of DC, the less rights you are afforded by our Commonwealth.

[M&P15T]

Originally Posted by concretefuzzynuts

I will concede, If you live in the suburbs of DC you may be subject to an unjust system.

However if you live further south your rights of self protection carry more weight. And the further west, even more.

What really stinks about Va gun laws is, the closer you live to the corrupt, vapid, toilet of DC, the less rights you are afforded by our Commonwealth.

I have no doubt that you are completely correct.

Living in the area I do, I have seriously grave concerns about ever having to defend myself. But I harbor no illusions that defending myself out in the more conservative parts of this state means I would be better protected. I believe that I would still be arrested and prosecuted, forced to defend myself with the burden of proving my innocence, being presumed guilty until proven innocent. And of course, I would get my butt sued into oblivion in a civil court.

So VA has got to make some serious changes, for the entire state, not just us poor saps close to D.C.

Sadly, the summation of the situation here in VA is that, while the laws regarding firearms and legally carrying them are great, legal protection for those that defend themselves is poor, and in the matter of civil suits and defending others, is non-existant.