In Va., charges rare for those who shoot intruders

[shadowrider]

Thinking that a man was trying to steal something from his yard, a retired police officer fired twice at the man's pickup, hitting it once. One of the bullets lodged in the man's head.

The city's top prosecutor determined that the shooting was justified, saying Charles Duck feared for his life and his wife's when the man dived into his pickup. Duck said he couldn't see the man's hands, and what if there had been a gun in the truck?

The case illustrates the complexity of distinguishing what is self-defense and what is illegal.

The Virginian-Pilot reviewed reports of several similar cases in recent years. In most, prosecutors did not file charges against people who shot intruders. When prosecutors do file charges, the cases go to juries that often are sympathetic to the shooters.

http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2011/02/va-charges-rare-those-who-shoot-intruders

[saras]

1. The key words "thinking that..."

The article presents no evidence whatsoever that the man was even IN the officer's yard, let alone behaving in a manner so as to justify such an opinion. Perhaps he was merely fleeing a nut waving a gun around.

[jpak]

2. This is the most powerful argument for restricting open carry

anyone "carrying" could justify killing because they "thought" someone was a bad guy.

No justification needed

and legal

what

horseshit

:thumbsdown:

[PavePusher]

3. On the contrary, they'd still have to have justification.

There are no laws saying you get a free pass; the laws being set up say that the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that there was no justification.

Ya know, "innocent until proven guilty", etc.

So your statement is "horseshit".

Yup.

[safeinOhio]

4. All it took was

"Thinking that a man was trying to steal something from his yard".
Now if an undercover cop had cut thru a yard and jumped in a truck and an armed citizen, with the same situation, had shot him.......

[Boudica the Lyoness]

7. sorta like this a bit

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/aug/27/valley-officer-kills-pastor-at-nursery/

The cop had killed some before when he had him in a choke hold. Also he killed a woman'a dog, inside the owners house, while she was giving her husband CPR. He was supposed to be helping the woman's husband, but shot the dog when she barked. The woman, who called 911 for help, lost both her husband and dog that day.

http://www.grahamlawyerblog.com/2010/11/25/investigations-continue-on-brian-hirzel-scott-creach-shooting/

The killer deputy was not charged with anything;

http://www.inlander.com/spokane/blog-2684-deputy-wont-be-charged-in-creach-shooting.html

[jpak]

5. Apparently not in VA - as the OP stated

yup

[X_Digger]

6. You still have to meet the 'reasonable' standard.

Would a reasonable person have the same fear.

If the DA thought that a reasonable person would have the same fear, such charges would not likely be pressed.

If pressed, that 'reasonableness' would be part of the defense, and up to the grand jury then trial jury to decide.

[jpak]

8. A "reasonable" standard in VA - "well, duh, I tot he wuz a bad guy"

He didn't look like me and I tot he wuz stealing from my yard - even tho he wuznt in my yard - duhhhhhhhhh.

all perfectly OK

no charges filed

stupid

&

criminal

yup

[X_Digger]

9. Did you actually read the article? I think not..

Go back and read about the cases that were pressed, then get back to me.

See if you can tell the difference- hint, my post above addressed it.

[jpak]

10. From the article "The city's top prosecutor determined that the shooting was justified"

In VA if you pull a gun on someone and they try to get away, then you can shoot & kill with impunity.

That is what happened

yup

:thumbsdown:

[X_Digger]

11. Hence my comment-

"If the DA thought that a reasonable person would have the same fear, such charges would not likely be pressed."

But tell me, what is the difference between the cases where the DA did prosecute and those that he didn't?

[jpak]

12. Like I said before-in VA, if you think someone is "bad" you can shoot and kill him with impunity

which is wrong

but don't tell that to the trigger happy folks of VA or their murder facilitating DAs

it's all good

yup

[X_Digger]

13. You didn't actually answer the question.

Did you actually read the article?

[jpak]

14. I read the entire article - and both the shooter and the DA are assholes

yup!

[X_Digger]

15. So answer my question..

"What is the difference between the cases where the DA did prosecute and those that he didn't?"

[X_Digger]

24. Still waiting.. *taps foot* ... *whistling*.. n/t

[PavePusher]

16. Cite to evidence or you are bullshitting. n/t

[shadowrider]

18. No answer yet n/t

[PavePusher]

20. Not expecting one.

Not a valid one, anyway...

[petronius]

25. My guess - based on zero info from outside the article of course - is that "retired police officer"

had a lot to do with the DA's decision. Especially since he apparently fired (but just at the tires) after the truck was already driving away. Hard to see a self-defense justification in that...

[Dr_Scholl]

17. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

That's what happens when you try to steal something from someone's property or break into their house. Just comes with the territory.

[jpak]

19. Except he wasn't stealing or on his property - the killer only "thought" he was

and killing in defense of property is murder

except in VA

where you an take life and get away with it

if'n's yu iz "skared"

yup

[PavePusher]

21. If you put away your blatent and open bigotry...

you still wouldn't have any valid points or cites to evidence.

Grow up.

[jpak]

22. What is the title of this thread?

I win

yup

[lawodevolution]

23. Yes you won the biggest bigot award

[old mark]

26. Good shot, I'd say....nt