Incident in VA over the weekend. Gun owner killed "attacker"

[HOKIEHUNTER]

So I don't know if anyone heard has heard what happened over this past weekend, but I'm interested to hear what you all think about this incident.

Over the weekend a man went to a restaurant / bar with his girlfriend. While at the restaurant, the man insulted another mans wife or girlfriend and a fight ensued. I believe the first man was drunk at the time and eventually the restaurant owner threw the first man out.

A couple hours later when the second couple left with some of their friends, the first man had been laying in wait for them in the parking lot. As the second man went to his vehicle the first man started approaching obviously ticked off. Second man pulls his gun from his vehicle and tells first man to back off. First man keeps coming despite warnings and when close, second man shoots him dead. At the hospital they find two knives on dead man but according to witnesses the knives were never pulled at the scene.

So synopsis:
First man is drunk and gets into fight with 2nd man.
First kicked out of restaurant and waits a long period of time for second man.
1st man begins to confront second man in parking lot and ignores warnings / the sight of a loaded gun pointed at him.
1st man is shot dead by 2nd man.

Is this a justified use of deadly force?

 

[Big Don]

That's up to the DA to decide whether it's justified but based on the information given, I wouldn't put money on the shooter getting off. No weapons visible, shooter could have retreated into the bar to call the PD. I'm interested in how this plays out. Please keep us posted.

 

[Jim March]

Any difference in physical size between them? Age/physical condition of the gunnie?

Just how aggressive was this clown? If he was sitting in that parking lot for a couple of hours, he had a lot of time available to get all emotionally wound up.

 

[ryanp5579]

Lots of unknown variables here. Had the shooter been drinking? What was the nature of the first altercation? Was the first altercation inside the restuarant a case of an argument gotten out of hand, or a case of unsolicited aggression on the part of the 1st man?

I suspect these details will come out in a trial, but this reeks of a typical bar fight gone terribly wrong.

I too, am interested in how this plays out.

 

[HOKIEHUNTER]

These are mainly the highlights I haven't heard the full details. I was listening to our local talk radio show and this topic came up. The hosts started off kind of bashing gun ownership and concealed carry.

A little background: On July 1st of this year the retreat law in VA was eliminated. If you now believe you are under a reasonable threat for your safety you can defend yourself first. It used to be you were required to flee first and only defend as a last ditch effort.

There hasn't been any precedent in VA under these new rules so this will be the first test. Unfortunately someone was killed, but also this is a pretty hazy first test of the new law.

I think if the shooter gets a heck of a lawyer he may get off here. I wasn't there but on the surface I don't think it was the most prudent use of force. I haven't heard whether or not the attacker was high on drugs at the time but I do know he waited a long time for the shooter, approached in a threatening manner (according to witnesses), and most importantly ignored a verbal and visual warning about the use of a firearm. Normal people don't do that...

 

[nate45]

I wouldn't put money on the shooter getting off. No weapons visible

According to Virgina law on self defense, the person attacking you does not have to have a weapon. Only that you fear they will do you serious bodily harm.

In my way of thinking the drunken man laying in wait and then advancing in the face of a firearm; is more than enough to lead me to believe he was intent on doing harm. Were I in that situation, or any in which I told someone to stop advancing or I would shoot, then if they did not I would shoot. If you think about it you pretty much have to at that stage of the game. You certainly don't want your firearm taken from you and turned against you.

 

[HeroHog]

^^^THIS^^^

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I have never found much weight with the sentiment that an unarmed person is not dangerous. I have witnessed an unarmed person do a good bit of damage to another once or twice.

 

[booker_t]

Do you have a link or some source of additional information about the incident?

 

[Kjackson35]

I agree with many others that there is probably more to the story then what we've been given, however, I personally don't care to go at a bare fisted fight with a stranger in a parking lot myself. I will do ANYTHING to avoid a confrontation such as this but somebody angrily charging me for no reason is getting a gun pulled on them. Too many people have been very seriously injured in pointless fights. Who is to say that once your attacker knocks you out cold, he doesn't decide to repeatedly jump on your head? I'm not much of one to take risks and I think my family enjoys my coming home at the end of the day.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I agree that an unarmed man can certainly present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury; but at the same time, if you shoot an unarmed man, you should expect to spend five to six figures on a lawyer and suffer substantial stress in a best case scenario. If a prosecutor doesn't see a clear cut answer to "Who is the bad guy?" he is likely to let the jury figure it out.

I'm seeing at least two issues here based on the facts presented:

1. Could the shooter be construed to have been a willing participant in the altercation? Was he being aggressive or verbally antagonistic? If so, then he may not be able to claim self defense unless he did try to retreat/withdraw (regardless of the new VA law)

2. Was there an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury justifying the use of deadly force? That one will pretty much be up to the jury. The knives won't be helpful because the shooter didn't know he had them.

Of course neither of those is really relevant to the new VA law you mentioned; but expect the press to cite the new law repeatedly every time they dicuss the case.

 

[sakeneko]

Lots of people correctly commented that the issue isn't whether the attacker was armed with a gun or other deadly weapon, but whether the defender was reasonably in fear for his life. IMHO this is a tricky case, and might well come down to a size or other disparity in power between the attacker and defender. If a big drunk guy who had threatened to harm me kept coming after I pulled a gun, I would shoot unless I had a secure place where I could retreat. I'm female, he's much bigger than me.

At the same time, I would probably have looked for him when I left the bar, and if I saw him still present in the parking lot, would have retreated into the bar and called the police. My instinct is to avoid confrontations with drunks; they are *not* rational and things can go bad really fast.

 

[bamboo spear]

God I love living in Texas!

 

[alloy]

If it started between Man 1 and the Female, and resumed HOURS later....I think some of this story might be missing.

 

[fastbolt]

There's probably quite a bit that's been left out of this alleged incident.

Before someone decides to go about their daily affairs lawfully armed with a firearm, being carried as a dedicated defensive weapon, they would probably be well served to learn everything they can about the laws governing the use of force in defense of self (and others) in their jurisdiction, or in any jurisdiction in which they intend to be lawfully armed (considering the level of reciprocity nowadays for permits/licenses).

Anyway, while I obviously don't know the details of what's required in VA, here's some info published by the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California for the public (on their website @ http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf ).

Some excerpts include the following:

The question of whether use of a firearm is justified for self-defense cannot be reduced to a simple list of factors. This section is based on the instructions generally given to the jury in a criminal case where self-defense is claimed and illustrates the general rules regarding use of firearms in selfdefense.

and ...

The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime. Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes.

and ...

It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend himself or herself from attack if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer bodily injury. In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury.

I underlined the line in the previous excerpt since it is somewhat relevant to this thread, but only from the perspective of what's stated in lay person language in the state's .pdf booklet.

Then there's this bit a little later ...

NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal penalties.

That's a rather sobering disclaimer, and reminder, isn't it?

Some advice from an attorney licensed to practice law in someone's own jurisdiction, preferably with some experience in this are of law practice, would certainly seem a prudent thing to consider getting before going about armed, I'd think. "Common sense" isn't necessarily going to follow statutory law, you know. That's why the law is probably codified instead of just leaving it to everyone's own interpretation of 'what's right' & 'common sense'.

Now, what's going to happen in VA when it comes to the opinion of the prosecuting attorney, DDA or grand jury? How about the potential for civil proceedings? This could become an expensive proposition somewhere along the line.

Naturally, I have no intention of drawing any conclusions or making any speculation on the circumstances involved in this incident. I wasn't there, and neither have I carefully listened to anyone who was either involved with the circumstances leading up to the shooting, or witnessed any of it. The circumstances will have to be determined during any investigation. Let us know if anything else is released, and don't be surprised if info comes to light which may reveal additional circumstances at some point.

 

[Mr Dish]

That's up to the DA to decide whether it's justified

I thought it was up to a Jury of our Peers?

 

[big_bad_kitty]

In TX, there must be an indictment or an information filed before the DA can bring an arrest warrant charging anyone with any criminal charge. Usually the DA will take the police investigation with testimony from the investigating officer in front of a grand jury to get the indictment. Keeps his rear end out of the political crosshairs when the grand jury refuses to indict. An officer can file a sworn affidavit to get an arrest warrant and charge an individual with a criminal charge. It takes one or the other to get someone in front of a judge for a criminal charge. If the DA decides the case is not strong enough to get an indictment (true bill) it may never see the light of day. So, usually the DA is the last cog in the chain of events leading up to the actual charge being brought and an arrest warrant being issued and signed by a judge.

 

[Big Don]

With any luck, a jury doesn't ever get the case...

 

[big_bad_kitty]

Stranger things have happened! It might just come down to who you know (or who your attorney knows!) and I did not say that! You can't quote me on that and nobody can prove a thing because nobody saw anything! Who said that?

 

[GUNSITE]

Two bad things going on here...

When any incident involves someone drunk/under the influence, and when you pull your weapon and your unarmed target doesn't care. Another scenario where i wouldn't want to be the shooter.