Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is very gratified right now. Two reasons for this.

First, he just finished a very large and tasty calzone for lunch. He is, consequently, very full and sort of sleepy. But he feels really good.

Secondly, he just finished reading the two Smallholder posts immediately preceeding this one.

It is good to see the common sense evolution of the Smallholder (and Mrs Smallholder) on the issue of guns.

As th Smallholder stated, we discussed the use of deadly force to protect property. In the senario we created, Bonnie (Smallholder’s house cow) was being “rustled” by cattle thieves. Would Smallholder be allowed to use deadly force in the protection of his property?

Both the Smallholder and your Maximum Leader concluded, without full knowledge of the law, that one would probably NOT be able to use deadly force to protect property (in this case Bonnie the house cow). Your Maximum Leader grew curious on this point and decided to do a little researching.

He found what appears to be a reasonably authoritative web site on the subject. It is here. If any minion readers out there are lawyers in Virginia with knowledge of these things your Maximum Leader (and the Smallholder) would gladly partake of your insights.

NB to Lawyers who might respond: This is a purely intellectual and speculative exercise. Your Maximum Leader and the Smallholder would not, under any circumstances, consider your comments to be authoritative legal advice or a privledged conversation. Should either your Maximum Leader or the Smallholder need legal counsel we would retain the services of a licensed attorney in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Anyho…

The cited website states:

Even if [the] actions [of the person threatening the defendant’s property] were unwarranted or illegal, the defendant, as an owner of personal property, did not have the right to assert or defend his possessory rights thereto by the use of deadly force. In Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 98 Va. 840, 842-43, 36 S.E. 371, 372 (1900), we said:

The law is clearly stated by a learned judge in State v. Morgan, 3 Ired. 186, 38 Am. Dec. 714, as follows: “When it is said that a man may rightfully use as much force as is necessary for the protection of his person and property, it should be recollected that this rule is subject to this most important modification, that he shall not, except in extreme cases, endanger human life or do great bodily harm. It is not every right of person, and still less of property, that can lawfully be asserted, or every wrong that may rightfully be redressed by extreme remedies. There is a recklessness and a wanton disregard of humanity and social duty in taking or endeavoring to take, the life of a fellow-being, in order to save one’s self from a comparatively slight wrong, which is essentially wicked, and the law abhors. You may not kill, because you cannot otherwise effect your object, although the object sought to be effected is right. You can only kill to save life or limb, or prevent a great crime, or to accomplish a necessary public duty.” See, also, 1 Bishop on New C. L., secs. 839, 841, 850.

However, the defendant contends, and the Court of Appeals held, that these principles do not apply when there is a mere threat to use deadly force in protection of personal property. We do not agree. Moreover, the owner of land has no right to assault a mere trespasser with a deadly weapon. Montgomery, 98 Va. at 844, 36 S.E. at 373. For these reasons, we agree with the trial court that a deadly weapon may not be brandished solely in defense of personal property. Commonwealth v. Alexander, 260 Va. 238, 242, 531 S.E.2d 567, ___ (2000).

Your Maximum Leader looked up some of the cases and laws referred to on the page and they all check out. (Examine the Code of Virginia here if you like.) Thus your Maximum Leader is accepting the page as reasonably authoritative.

In the case cited above, Commonwealth v. Alexander, the facts of the case revolve the repossession of a car. The repossessor got beligerent with the (former) owner of the car; who in turn brandished a rifle at him (the repossessor).

So indeed it would appear as though one is not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.

Of course, one could try and claim self-defence undr certain circumstances. For instance… If the Smallholder heard Bonnie the house cow making calls in distress he might grab his trusty .307 before going out to investigate. Indeed, Bonnie the house cow, could be endangered by some sort of feral predator. If he approached and saw armed men attmepting to steal Bonnie the house cow he might reasonably assume that the men meant other foul play. One suspects that if the Smallholder approached in a non-threatening way and called for the cattle thieves to peacably depart (or at least release Bonnie) before he called the police; one might reasonably believe that one had discharged his requirement to peacably protect his property. If the armed thieves in response brandished their firearms one could suppose that his life was endangered and thus be allowed to use deadly force to protect his own life. Bonnie the house cow would, under that senario, be an incidental rescue in the whole affair.

Or perhaps not.

Overall the great Commonwealth of Virginia (generally) seems to give a fair degree of latitude to protection of self and property. One would hope that this rabidly hypothetical senario would never take place.

Carry on.