Ox Road South: Recent Comments

Comment on Surreal Life (Richmond Version)

Chap — 2010-03-14T18:48:47Z

Thanks for that clarification. Just goes to show that the folks here are often the last to know the correct titles. Chap

Comment on Surreal Life (Richmond Version)

Groveton — 2010-03-14T17:41:48Z

Sen. Petersen wrote that he went to a cuban restaurant and smoked a cigar. He did not write that he smoked a cuban cigar. I have been to many cuban restaurants in the US. Many are owned by former Cubans who immigrated to the US years ago. They hate Castro and would never do anything to help him. Usually, they sell Dominican cigars although I have also had Jamaican cifars and even a passable Indonesian.

Comment on Surreal Life (Richmond Version)

FYI — 2010-03-14T16:36:11Z

Eric Finkbeiner is not Chief of Staff..he is the Senior Advisor for Policy.

Comment on Surreal Life (Richmond Version)

Chap — 2010-03-14T13:39:21Z

Not sure I follow the logic in your comment but anonymous acccusations are not known for intellectual clarity. thanks anway.

Comment on Surreal Life (Richmond Version)

Anonymous — 2010-03-14T12:34:49Z

Not to upend the spirit of cooperation and harmony but is it not illegal for a US citizen to import, purchase or consume a Cuban cigar (citing the US embargo of Cuba during the Kennedy administration)?

Oops, I forget. Lawyers and lawmakers are above the law. My bad.

Comment on Justice Rolls Like a Mighty River (Monday's version)

Chap — 2010-03-13T18:07:08Z

DanielK: THanks, as always, for giving us the view from the front lines. We're agreed on this. Chap

Comment on School Daze in the Senate

Chap — 2010-03-13T15:33:14Z

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

Comment on School Daze in the Senate

Merle Russ — 2010-03-12T22:19:02Z

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"

Comment on Governor Overrides AG on Campus Issues

LarryG — 2010-03-11T16:11:41Z

Actually it's a public service to not talk sense to any who aspire to office who hold these kinds of views.

Cuccinelli did the honest thing. He is carrying out his office according to his deeply-held principles (I would assume).

I respect him for being honest about his views and acting on them forthrightly.

I don't agree with him but he should act according to his principles and we, as voters, need to be cognizant of our responsibilities to vote those into office that have principles we support.

that's a LOT BETTER than some of the dishonest feather-dancing BS we see with some candidates, eh?

Comment on Governor Overrides AG on Campus Issues

NovaGirl — 2010-03-11T15:47:43Z

I definitely agree with you on this point: "As a legal matter, that's a dubious point. As a political matter, it's a sure loser."

I haven't been following this story too closely -- why did the AG choose to write this letter now? It seems kind of out of the blue. The letter makes Cuccinelli look like a mean spirit with nothing better to do than quibble about school policy.

Since Cuccinelli is your friend, do you think you could talk some sense into him?