‘Castle Doctrine’ bill on its way to (West Virginia Governor) Manchin

[Lasher]

CHARLESTON — Quicker than a marksman could fire and reload, the House of Delegates agreed Thursday that a man’s home is his castle and it’s all right to gun down any intruder skulking about, in or out of the premises.

<snip>

In mind was some protection in law that a homeowner could protect hearth and home and use deadly force, if needed, if he felt he and his family were imperiled by invaders.

Love’s bill would guarantee that a homeowner using such force could use the fear of potential harm as a “full and complete defense” if the intruder filed a lawsuit over his wounds or his survivors resorted to litigation.

This bill goes an extra step in allowing a property owner to use force outside the home if he feels a prowler is about to commit a felony, such as making off with an expensive yard implement, auto or other possession.

<snip>

A stronger version offered by Sen. John Unger, D-Berkeley, would have blocked any injured prowler from even filing a lawsuit against a homeowner, but Austin said the Love bill would suit West Virginia’s needs.

http://www.register-herald.com/local/local_story_059215715.html

I wish the bill would have included the measure promoted by Sen. Unger but this is still a big improvement.

[sepulveda]

1. generally speaking

i support the concept that those committing a felony should not have the right to sue private citizens for injuries they receive pursuant to that felony

if the private citizen's conduct was egregious enough to qualify as criminal, that's antoerh story.

fwiw, i have seen many cases where i have interviewed citizen witnesses and victims who failed to act primarily because they feared civil liability.

[johnbraun]

2. Yes! A real-live progressive and pro-gun DEM bill getting before a DEM governor!

Bills like this are how we run the anti-gunners out of the party and win elections! Yess!

Us DEMS are waking up from the long nightmare that started in 1994 with the Assault Weapons Ban.

I can't think of anything more LIBERAL than saying that people have the right to defend themselves in their own home.

[jody]

3. I agree, law-abiding citizens who exercise their right of self-defense regardless of arms used

should not be subjected to civil suits by the attacker.

It's important to note that the issue is not about guns, it's about a victim defending her/him self against a criminal.

[slackmaster]

4. Gee, more and more states are trying to be like California

We've always had the right to use deadly force inside of our homes against someone who breaks in, and outside in order to prevent a felony from occurring.

[Lasher]

5. Good for you.

How's it work regarding civil suits?

Edit: And how about brandishing & warning shots?

[slackmaster]

6. In a situation where shooting is legal, brandishing is too

Warning shots go against every self-defense training I've ever had.

As for civil suits, that can and does happen in self-defense cases, but the absence of a conviction for the homeowner makes the case much more difficult for the home invader, whose situation is complicated by being in jail.

I like the idea of civil immunity.

[jody]

7. W. VA. Senate Bill 145 does not mention guns, it's about self-defense including any means.

Senate Bill 145

Be it enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia:
That §55-7-22 of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, be amended and reenacted to read as follows:
ARTICLE 7. ACTIONS FOR INJURIES.
§55-7-22. Civil relief for persons resisting certain criminal activities.

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's or attacker's unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home or residence or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder or attacker intends to commit a felony in the home or residence and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker in the circumstances described in subsection (a) of this section.
(c) A person not engaged in unlawful activity who is attacked in any place he or she has a legal right to be outside of his or her home or residence may use reasonable and proportionate force against an intruder or attacker: Provided, That such person may use deadly force against an intruder or attacker in a place that is not his or her residence without a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that he or she or another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he or she or another can only be saved by the use of deadly force against the intruder or attacker.
(d) The justified use of reasonable and proportionate force under this section shall constitute a full and complete defense to any civil action brought by an intruder or attacker against a person using such force.
(e) The full and complete civil defense created by the provisions of this section is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing or escaping from the commission of a felony;
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, herself or another with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(3) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, herself or another, unless he or she withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(f) The provisions of this section do not apply to the creation of a hazardous or dangerous condition on or in any real or personal property designed to prevent criminal conduct or cause injury to a person engaging in criminal conduct.
(g) Nothing in this section shall authorize or justify a person to resist or obstruct a law-enforcement officer acting in the course of his or her duty.

[Lasher]

8. You're right.

Thanks.