Homeowner faces charge after chasing, shooting at thieves

[Grapeshot]

In Virginia we do not have a defense for using deadly force to protect personal property - neither excusable nor justified..

"When (police) arrived, a community member told them that he had just confronted two subjects who had entered onto his property and were breaking into his vehicles," Chesterfield police said. "The man said that he chased the subjects and fired his firearm while in pursuit."
http://www.nbc12.com/story/38826134/police-homeowner-charged-after-chasing-shooting-at-thieves

 

[OC for ME]

In Virginia we do not have a defense for using deadly force to protect personal property - neither excusable nor justified....

Unfortunate.

 

[Grapeshot]

It has been said that your sterling silver tea service is not worth anothr's life.

 

[Roverhound]

The idiot needs to be charged.
If you are a gun owner it is your responsibility to know the laws.
To discharge a firearm in a neighborhood and strike a house is the greatest bit of stupidity.

 

[Grapeshot]

The idiot needs to be charged.
If you are a gun owner it is your responsibility to know the laws.
To discharge a firearm in a neighborhood and strike a house is the greatest bit of stupidity.

I can quickly think of a few bits worse..

 

[sidestreet]

to borrow a quote from Dirty Harry...,

"A man's got to know his limitations.", from "Magnum Force", wouldn't hurt to understand the law a little bit better either.

sidestreet

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

Jeremiah 29:11-13

Philippians 1:3

 

[Marco]

In Virginia we do not have a defense for using deadly force to protect personal property - neither excusable nor justified..

"When (police) arrived, a community member told them that he had just confronted two subjects who had entered onto his property and were breaking into his vehicles," Chesterfield police said. "The man said that he chased the subjects and fired his firearm while in pursuit."
http://www.nbc12.com/story/38826134/police-homeowner-charged-after-chasing-shooting-at-thieves

While his actions were/are foolish, and I would not recommend others to follow suit, I couldn't find the HO guilty on any charges.

Ideally, in my way of thinking the originators of the crime should bear the burden for all criminal offenses resulting from their actions.
Transferred intent.

In its original form, the malicious intent inherent in the commission of any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any consequences of that crime, however unintended.​

 

[user]

Well, if anyone had been killed by the homeowner during the event, the "felony murder" rule would kick in and THEN the "originators of the crime" would be held liable for the murder.

That said, the homeowner would also be guilty of second-degree murder.

There is an affirmative defense of "stopping a serious felony in progress", but even if this incident HAD involved rape, robbery, murder, burglary, or arson (the official list of "serious felonies"), the incident was over when the shooting started. Not "in progress", eh? In fact, it may have been a burglary, if the property stolen was located within the curtilage of the home, even if not inside the dwelling itself.

If the homeowner had caught them in the act, within the curtilage, and shot them at that time, it would be both "stopping a serious felony" and "defense of habitation" (as the "castle doctrine" in Virginia is called).

Chasing after them shooting a gun was just plain stupid. I wonder where the bullets went.