School Daze in the Senate
The Senate just spent a full day debating three bills sent down by Governor McDonnell regarding charter and alternative school issues.
These bills include SB 736 (establishing College Lab schools), SB 737 (relating to charter schools) and SB 738 (relating to on-line curricula). All three of these bills recognize a reality that education in this century will be markedly different than the desk and blackboard instruction of my youth.
There has been tremendous opposition to these bills. Some of it is substantive and some is symbolic. Either way, people have strong opinions about public schools, how they're funded and how the students are orgnanized. All the historic divisions of this Commonwealth are invoked.
On the other hand, President Obama himself has endorsed these concepts -- especially charter schools -- as a means for improving schools, especially in under-performing districts. His "Race to the Top" program allocates nearly $5 billion to states based upon their participation in innovative programs. A few days ago, Virginia learned it would not join fifteen other states in receiving those funds. While our weak "charter school" law was not the definitive reason for this failure, it was a relevant factor.
Here's how the process played out today ...
SB 736 (College Lab Schools) would have permitted our universities to set up "lab schools" in the community in conjunction with their Schools of Education. Here's the problem: our colleges don't have enough money to educate their own students. And now they're going to open an elementary school? I voted "no." Regardless, the bill passed 25-15.
SB 737 (Charter Schools) actually was mostly symbolic. The pared-down version of the bill only changed the law in permitting the State Board of Education to play an advisory role in a charter school application. The final decision still rests with the local School Board. This bill passed 27-12. I sit on the Board of a non-profit that is considering applying for a charter school. Therefore, I recused myself from this vote pursuant to Senate Rule 36. If I had voted, I would have voted "yes."
SB 738 (On-line schools) will have the most impact. This legislation set up a system for the Board of Education to evaluate and regulate on-line curricula and those school divisions which establish on-line programs. Schools are already moving this way.. This bill is a catch-up. The bill passed 35-5. I voted "yes."
These bills will pass the House and go to the Governor.
HB 854 Castle doctrine; right to use physical force against an intruder, immune from civil liability.
03/03/10 Senate: Passed by indefinitely in Courts of Justice (9-Y 6-N)
YEAS--Marsh, Saslaw, Howell, Lucas, Edwards, Puller, Deeds, McEachin, Petersen--9.
NAYS--Quayle, Norment, Reynolds, Obenshain, McDougle, Hurt--6.
ABSTENTIONS--0.
______________________________________
Senator,
Can you explain why you voted to let this bill die in committee? The "Castle Doctrine" is the law in 24 other states and is pending in at least 6 other states.
Under current Virginia law, if you use physical force against an intruder instead of fleeing your own home, you can be held liable for civil damages for any injury you inflict on the intruder, even if the Commonwealth's attorney finds that your conduct was not illegal.
Please explain why this Castle Doctrine would be bad law in a Commonwealth founded on the English common law premise that "a man's home is his castle."
Although off topic, I too would like to hear Chap's explaination.
JB,
I'm not sure why this is off topic, since the original post concerned the disposition of bills before the Courts of Justice Committee, however it appears that we are not going to get an explanation from Chap.
That is very disappointing. Not only did I support him in his election race, but I took the trouble of contacting him after HB 854 was sent to his committee when it arrived in the Senate so that he would know that his constituents were interested in this bill and not allow it to be overlooked in the crush of dealing with House bills.
Here is the response I got on 2/25:
"Thank you so much for your email. We appreciate your correspondence.
Legislative Assistant
District 34
Senate of Virginia"
Hey Gang: I got it and happy to explain my vote.
Right now there is a ton of Virginia case law re self-defense and when it is reasonable. There is no duty to retreat when one is faced with with attack in one's own home. That is the current law.
Can anyone show me a case decided differently or a situation where a defendant did not have an opportunity to raise this issue? If so, I'd like to know.
I don't have the bill in front of me but I recollect it as follows ...
Person appears unlawfully on property and makes an "overt act" towards defendant. At that point, deadly force is justified.
Imagine the following case ...
I am going door-to-door campaigning for re-election. I walk past a sign which says "No Trespassing" (too distracted to notice). Now I'm on the property illegally.
I knock on the door and the resident opens. I say "Hi I'm Chap" and extend my hand for a hand-shake. Now I'm taking an overt act towards the resident.
The resident then shoots me and kills me. He tells the arresting officer
the foregoing story and then says he was in reasonable fear of his own life (for whatever reason).
Who's going to contradict his statement? The only other witness to the exchange is now dead.
The current law of self-defense is much better. It allows a judge and jury to take into account all the circumstances surrounding a self-defense claim. Juries are smart are smart enough to figure this out -- and remember you only need one hold-out to prevent a conviction.
Sorry for the delay in posting this explanation. Chap