• But in here it's so delightful - thoughts on Obama and the weather
• Protectionism: Everybody stimulate yourself!
• I like the pictures
• Mandela, King, Gandhi... Blagojevich
• Shovels are so 1933
• The cutting edge is nipping at its own tail
• Funny Because It's True (yet again)
• Obligatory Gaza
• Being Reasonable--reaction from the Muslim family recently thrown off a flight by AirTrain
• Won't you be my neighbor?
• Snowzilla
• ZOMG! Radioactive coal sludge will kill us all! (updated)
• Quick points on the auto industry bailout
• Slow and Steady
• Foreign policy and international public opinion

• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005

« The Moral of the Tale of Marcotte and McEwan | Main | Researching Dracula = "Good Behavior" »

Virginia General Assembly (Updated)

Try to follow this logic. The Virginia General Assembly is poised to pass legislation allowing youths as young as 14 to make decisions regarding alternative medicine. Though the wording of the current bill reportedly gives judges discretion on the matter, 14 is being referred to as the “age of consent” on the issue. Of course, that same kid is still 2 years too immature to drive, and 4 years too immature to make his own decisions about smoking, dropping out of school, or joining the military. He is also 7 years too young and immature to drink wine with dinner or have a beer at the game. Perhaps if he were to claim any of these were medicinal, it would suddenly be okay - pending judicial review. (Story at Virginian-Pilot on line.)

In other news, the House Finance Committee voted down legislation that would have allowed a 40 percent tax credit on contributions of at least $1,000 toward private schools serving children with disabilities. Which horrific special interest group would discourage donations to schools for disabled kids? The Virginia Education Association, for one. Again, try to follow this logic:

They said money that would pay for the credits would reduce general funds available to public schools.

The lesson? When push comes to shove, those disabled kids had better back off of the taxpayers’ VEA’s money.

And lastly, legislators have shot down a bill that would protect homeowners who use legally owned weapons to defend their lives, their families, and their property. The bill would have protected homeowners from wrongful death suits, but not from criminal suits (obviously). One last time, try to follow the logic of those opposing the bill:

But Henry County prosecutor Bob Bushnell, speaking for the Virginia Commonwealth's Attorneys Association, said the legislation would shield someone who opens fire on a mentally ill person who wanders into his home.

It also would provide immunity to a drug dealer who shoots a police officer who enters a home unlawfully because he didn't notice that a magistrate forgot to sign a search warrant, Bushnell said.

(emphasis mine)
So according to Mr. Bushnell, if an officer enters my home unlawfully, and I take him to be a non-police officer who has entered my home unlawfully (the only difference here being his occupation), then I should not be able to defend myself? Keep in mind that during the average unlawful home entry, there isn't a lot of time for asking whether the masked man in fatigues is a police officer or a criminal. Besides which, a criminal might lie.

I guess I’ll just take comfort in the fact that I’m not a drug dealer, and therefore the police would never enter my home unlawfully.

Update: MichaelW of ASecondHandConjecture comments at QandO that Virginia follows the Castle Doctrine; Thus the legislation in question concerned civil liability, but Virginians are already protected from criminal liability if they shoot a violent intruder. It is true that the legislation was about civil liability – the sponsor was concerned with a homeowner facing a wrongful death suit filed by the family of an intruder that had been killed – but my understanding of Virginia Law is that the Castle Doctrine is not spelled out in Virginia. It may be implied or understood, but my understanding is that is as far as it goes.

Of course, I am no lawyer, and the scenario in the QandO story is a bit off of my original point anyway. My point is that the reason given for killing the legislation was that homeowners might take advantage of the freedom to kill trespassers wantonly, or at least inappropriately. And I understand the concern, I guess. But the appeal that one of those trespassers might be a police officer instead of just a citizen is one I find lacking. If the intruder is there illegally, then the homeowner should be explicitly protected under the law. If the intruder is there legally, then the Castle Doctrine does not apply, and the now-dead legislation would not have, either. Whether the intruder is a cop or not shouldn’t matter at all to this discussion. Their lives are not to be held above those of citizens.

Posted by Wulf on February 20, 2007 at 10:38 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/484

Comments

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:

Remember This Information? YesNo

Comments:

---