Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Violent Politics (UPDATED)
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Has it come to this?
A Fredericksburg man was arrested Saturday on charges he assaulted three strangers at their home during a dispute over politics, police said.

According to a Fredericksburg police report, the suspect went to a home in the 900 block of Marye Street about 5:30 p.m. after finding one of the resident's name on a Republican Web site.

The resident and his two roommates engaged in a discussion with the suspect, though none of them had ever met or had contact with him before.

The argument got heated and the suspect learned that the young residents had not enlisted in the military and "put their all" behind the Republican-led war effort in Iraq, police spokeswoman Natatia Bledsoe said.

The suspect refused to leave the home after repeatedly being asked to do so, police said. The three roommates were hit multiple times each as they attempted to get the suspect out of the door, authorities said.

The suspect continued to be aggressive and disorderly even after a city police officer arrived, the report states.

Andrew Stone, 23, was charged with three counts of assault and battery. A magistrate released Stone on his own recognizance and he was ordered to have no further contact with the victims.

It was not clear in the report what political agenda Stone was supporting.
It wasn't? Well maybe that's true.

He could have been a "peace" activist. Or perhaps he was just "anti-war". Or both.

(HT: The Mason Conservative)

UPDATE: A couple of commenters have mentioned that had it been them, the attacker would most likely gotten a lead injection somewhere along the line. Wulf from Atlas Blogged points me to a post he did yesterday which, to say the least, should discourage such a reaction. I'm not saying I agree, I'm simply pointing to legal reality, such that it is. As you'll note immediately, Wulf isn't too keen on it either (and this, btw, is the state in which the attack above took place):
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.
Of course there is always the old saw to fall back on, which goes "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". Some certain truth to that, although possibly not in this particular case.

MichaelW points out that the legislation rejected by VA had to do with civil liability, not criminal liability. Per Michael Virginians are protected from criminal liability in those sorts of instances.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

You seem suprised.

Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
You seem suprised.
I’m not.
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Uh, violent home intruders are subject to being shot. These so-called conservatives were remiss in not being armed and doing their duty . . .
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Andrew Stone? I wonder if he has a Frisch in the woodpile.
Written By: cjd
URL: http://
He could have been a "peace" activist. Or perhaps he was just "anti-war". Or both.

[heh! I plan on getting a lot of mileage out of that just so you know ;)]
Written By: MichaelW
It’s been coming to that for a long time, Bruce.

Adjust your specs, mate, and start looking down the road as far as you can.

You’ll see it coming.
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—
The problem that scares me here is, had it been me, .25 seconds after he threw the first punch he would have found himself 10mm / .357" closer to God.

How asinine do you have to be to risk your life over friggin’ politics? Showing up at someone’s door angry and unannounced is just asking for trouble.

I am swarmed by hard-core leftists here at work, and we’re never uncivil. At least the work environment keeps them primarily non-frothy. But none of them ever accost me out in the parking lot or follow me home.
Written By: Robb Allen
Yes, and Dem activists shot-out windows of GOP campain headquarters in 2004, slashed tires and stole signs. Pro-war demonstrators have been beat-up and spat at. A poster on Indimedia went on a murder rampage as "protest."

But don’t forget that Bushtler is responsible for creating a "climate of fear."

Also — reprinting the words of leftist bloggers who go to work for Dem candidates is "hate speech" and "crushing dissent" and the same as sending "death threats."

Actual death threats are probably considered "free expression" by these creatures...
Written By: TBone
URL: http://
It’s just the beginning.
Written By: Dave Schuler
It’s just the beginning.
I’m not too worried. Conservatives tend to have more guns.
Written By: steverino
Pro-war demonstrators
I wonder what the signs these people carry around say?
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
Hence why I live in the Gunshine state where this is not the case. In Florida, you’re even allowed to protect yourself from someone you’ve invited in if they decide to attack you.

The Castle Doctrine is just sound, logical thinking. And, just like owning a firearm, I will always refuse to comply with any law that states otherwise.
Written By: Robb Allen
Wulf from Atlas Blogged points me to a post he did yesterday which, to say the least, should discourage such a reaction.
This might also discourage such a reaction:
Farmer shot by deputy accused
Written By: Dan
URL: http://
And that’s why I live in Indiana, and wouldn’t think twice about moving anywhere else...
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
35-41-3-2 Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
Yep, That’s a threat to use force in reaction to a violent person in my home or elsewhere, against my wife or I (or anyone else that happens to be around.)

But, I’m sure there are some who would consider that a threat against them. Which is easily solved, don’t come to me, picking a fight.
Written By: Keith_Indy
Virginia does follow the Castle Doctrine. The legislation that was just shot down (no pun intended) in committee concerned protection from civil liability. We’re already protected from criminal liability.
Written By: MichaelW
MichaelW, thanks for clarifying that - the article I linked to explained that, but my post didn’t make the distinction.
Written By: Wulf
Of course there is always the old saw to fall back on, which goes "I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". Some certain truth to that, although possibly not in this particular case.
Then there is the three-S rule: Shoot, Shovel, Shutup.

Written By: Don
URL: http://
Why I live in Texas #325764876.

Written By: SDN
URL: http://
This thread is great.
Written By: Bryan Pick
MichaelW, thanks for clarifying that - the article I linked to explained that, but my post didn’t make the distinction.
No problem, Wulf. I meant to clarify at Atlas Blogged, but I was too lazy to do the registration thing. I figured you’d get around to it.
Written By: MichaelW
This home invader must have been a real bad-ass having served in Bosnia/Kosovo/Somalia/Haiti etc.

I mean, he’s no chicken-hawk right? He signed up for all of those adventures.

Did I miss any?
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
More about this here, the link suggested by Instapundit.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks