Not an aggressor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fear Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So is grabbing a Little League bat and chasing
> the
> > person you accuse of stalking you, like Miz did.
>
> > Yet the Morenos successfully argued that Miz
> was
> > fearful of eesh, despite being the aggressor.
> > Furthermore Miz had previously expressed his
> > sexual attraction for eesh and a desire to meet
> > eesh.
>
> You mean the night he showed up at his apartment?
> That's not being an aggressor in any sense of the
> word. You seem to forget only one person was
> arrested that night.
You seem to forget the arrest was totally unrelated to the visit.
Once Moreno went back to grab a bat and ran/hobbled out of his apartment (leaving the curtilage of his dwelling), he became the aggressor. Moreover, there is no evidence that eesh and lizzie did anything to physically attack Miz -- lizzie dropping a deuce on the doormat is not sufficient grounds for self-defense.
Fortune v. Commonwealth gives one the right to defend one's home including the use of deadly force, but there are limits and the defense must be from an attack that took place within the curtilage. As for eesh and lizzie's visit to Miz, there was no attack on Miz. The Court ruled:
Quote
Supreme Court of Virginia
"But in no case, even within one’s own home, or curtilage, is a person wholly justified in taking the life of another, who has entered the home or curtilage peaceably on an implied license, merely to punish or subdue him or to compel him to leave the premises, where there is no apparent intent on the part of the latter to commit any felony.
In Foley v. Commonwealth, the Court ruled that a road is not part of the curtilage; it is not in a “necessary and convenient” area that was “habitually used for family purposes and the carrying on of domestic employment.”
Quote
Supreme Court of Virginia
Foley failed to establish that he was standing on anything more than just property he owned. The record contains insufficient evidence that the section of Holly Tree Road where Foley was standing at the time of the offense was “habitually used for family purposes” or “the carrying on of domestic employment.” Although Foley was only twenty feet away from his house, there was a steep slope between his location in the road and his home. While Holly Tree Road bisects Foley's property, there is no evidence in the record that he used either the road itself or the property on the other side of the road for anything but storing his farming equipment or as a “junk yard.” In short, no evidence was presented that Foley used the portion of his property where he was arrested as an extension of the home to the degree that the law provides it the same protection as the home itself. We therefore conclude that the evidence in the record supports a finding that Foley failed to produce evidence that he was on the curtilage of his home at the time of the offense