Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
The shooting in the back is a myth. Take a usage of deadly force refresher. Running at you in a car/van is not fleeing. Bank robbers flee all the time putting others in danger. Guess the police shouldn't return fire eh?
Home invasion hits family friend
- Thread starter railsplitter
- Start date
- Replies 150
- Views 9,040
The shooting in the back is a myth. Take a usage of deadly force refresher. Running at you in a car/van is not fleeing. Bank robbers flee all the time putting others in danger. Guess the police shouldn't return fire eh?
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
PLEASE quote from SC state law where it says 'under your roof' in the castle doctrine. I need to be enlightened, via state law.
Again, for posterity:
"
The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.
H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006."
Last edited:
RaceRedGT
Well-Known Member
Dude, quit quoting other scenarios. If she would have put herself in front of the fleeing car to create an issue to defend herself she would have legal trouble explaining that.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
I was going to say, if she engaged them while in their vehicle she has both the "tried to run me over" defense as well as, and more importantly, "I was concerned they may have had my son hostage"
If using the second one, you better be a good shot and be able to convince the DA that you weren't risking hitting your son should he be inside the van.
If using the second one, you better be a good shot and be able to convince the DA that you weren't risking hitting your son should he be inside the van.
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/2011/27047.html
South Carolina v. Dickey
Explain that.
And also:
A person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense when:
(1) The defendant was without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
(2) The defendant . . . actually believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily injury, or he actually was in such imminent danger;
(3) If the defense is based upon the defendant's actual belief of imminent danger, a reasonable prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the same belief . . . ; and
(4) The defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance.
South Carolina v. Dickey
Explain that.
And also:
A person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense when:
(1) The defendant was without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
(2) The defendant . . . actually believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily injury, or he actually was in such imminent danger;
(3) If the defense is based upon the defendant's actual belief of imminent danger, a reasonable prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the same belief . . . ; and
(4) The defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance.
Last edited:
They side swiped her car... I believe they would have put her in front of their van, not the other way around. This suggests that the driveway was such that they could not have gotten around her easily. Not to mention they were going in reverse.
RaceRedGT
Well-Known Member
I didnt see anything about trying to run anyone over or blocking anyone in. So its irrelevant to this discussion.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
You're wrong. Give it up.
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
Wasn't covered under the roof of a residence, as you mentioned must be present. Looks like he was lawfully where he was, and believed he was in danger like 1 of the 4 elements of affirmative self defense.
You understand case law and how that works, right? @Prosecutor you care to chime in with how castle law is generally interpreted in NC?
RaceRedGT
Well-Known Member
If you wanna try your luck shooting people in the back then thats your deal buddy.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
You want to base your actions on watching old Westerns then good luck to you. And I ain't your buddy, troll.
RaceRedGT
Well-Known Member
You start a new thread with thay story and we will talk about that. We were talking about a woman in her driveway. You cant prove me wrong so you change the subject.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
I don't feel a need to prove your wrong. SC state codified castle doctrine already does.
RaceRedGT
Well-Known Member
Ill watch my westerns and you keep watching Dirty Harry. Buddy
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
RaceRedGT
Well-Known Member
I doubt a judge or jury would consider pulling into your own driveway behind another car trying to block them in. You can let them go if you want, but I'll take my chances with the courts in this situation.
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
lawfully where you are supposed to be vs not lawfully where you have just committed a crime or 3. That's pretty cut and dry, and having served on a jury, you get those instructions in writing if you ask for it.
Glad both are unharmed.
The son should have went to the back porch, let off two shotgun blasts, that is how Joe Biden would do it.
The son should have went to the back porch, let off two shotgun blasts, that is how Joe Biden would do it.
Last edited:
RaceRedGT
Well-Known Member
A BILL
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 6, CHAPTER 11, TITLE 16 SO AS TO ENACT THE "PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT", TO DEFINE THE TERMS "DWELLING", "GREAT BODILY INJURY", "RESIDENCE", AND "VEHICLE", TO AUTHORIZE THE LAWFUL USE OF DEADLY FORCE AGAINST AN INTRUDER OR ATTACKER IN A PERSON'S DWELLING, RESIDENCE, OR OCCUPIED VEHICLE
Dwelling' means a building or conveyance of any kind, including an attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a ROOF over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging there at night.
Residence' means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
This is SC H. 4301.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 6, CHAPTER 11, TITLE 16 SO AS TO ENACT THE "PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT", TO DEFINE THE TERMS "DWELLING", "GREAT BODILY INJURY", "RESIDENCE", AND "VEHICLE", TO AUTHORIZE THE LAWFUL USE OF DEADLY FORCE AGAINST AN INTRUDER OR ATTACKER IN A PERSON'S DWELLING, RESIDENCE, OR OCCUPIED VEHICLE
Dwelling' means a building or conveyance of any kind, including an attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a ROOF over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging there at night.
Residence' means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
This is SC H. 4301.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
RaceRedGT
Well-Known Member
No, you first have duty to retreat. If that is impossible then use of deadly force. The only place you don't have duty to retreat is in your castle which is defined above as dwelling.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
RaceRedGT
Well-Known Member
Ok so she shoots through her windshield? She wouldnt be "in imminent danger" from being run over and unlawful use of deadly force.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Residence
Personal presence at some place of abode.
Although the domicile and residence of a person are usually in the same place, and the two terms are frequently used as if they have the same meaning, they are not synonymous. A person can have two places of residence, such as one in the city and one in the country, but only one domicile. Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with the intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Residence merely requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, whereas domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's permanent home.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/residence
Personal presence at some place of abode.
Although the domicile and residence of a person are usually in the same place, and the two terms are frequently used as if they have the same meaning, they are not synonymous. A person can have two places of residence, such as one in the city and one in the country, but only one domicile. Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with the intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Residence merely requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, whereas domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's permanent home.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/residence
Yes. A 3000lb piece of steel moving at speed can cause grievous bodily harm. Otherwise, people wouldn't die from car accidents.
So, let's sum up:
Shooting in the back is not a thing. See the actual law.
Castle doctrine doesn't specify the need to retreat. See the actual law.
Castle doctrine doesn't care if you are in your own home. See the actual law.
You don't seem to be able to understand these things. See, "Pigeon Chess."
RaceRedGT
Well-Known Member
Can you not read? I said castle doctrine there is no duty to retreat. However your front yard is not your castle see :
http://www.schouse.gov/sess116_2005-2006/prever/4301_20060601.htm
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
http://www.schouse.gov/sess116_2005-2006/prever/4301_20060601.htm
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
https://www.deatonlaw.net/south-carolina-stand-your-ground-law/
Lookie there, a legal opinion by an SC lawyer, explicitly saying
You realize you linked to a 12 year old bill proposal to amend the law, not the actual law, right? I could link to a gun bill proposed by a Democrat, and say all semiauto guns are banned now, right?
Edit: Here's the actual law, which mentions vehicles:
https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/2013/title-16/chapter-11/section-16-11-440/
Last edited:
RaceRedGT
Well-Known Member
Within home, business or car. Not in yard
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
RaceRedGT
Well-Known Member
I pulled off sc statehouse dont come at me with no legalpedia. Thst version was approved 6/1/06
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Wow, you are a special one, there.
Right, you pulled a BILL. Not a law. You understand the difference, right?
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c011.php
Lookie there, exact same text. You're wrong. Search for "440".
Ok, so now we agree that a vehicle is a justified place where castle doctrine applies, though I think you'll just drop the point instead of admitting it.
Now, go back to what @Chdamn said, the term "curtilage." This is the place directly surrounding your property. The argument here is, "does your yard count as curtilage?"
A: No one has defined where curtilage ends. And no prosecutor would likely want to be the test for that, so we can assume that it is covered.
A2: Doesn't matter.
Using the law
The bad guys forcibly entered a dwelling...and that's it. Nothing else needs to be considered. They forcibly entered, they(using the thought experiment) committed assault with a deadly weapon. Castle doctrine applies.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
I love threads like this. LMAO.
The bottom line is that none of us are lawyers and there are good and bad prosecutors out there. The good ones will do everything within their power to not have to prosecute someone they feel was justified and the bad ones will do things within and not within their power to try and make an example of someone and a name for themselves.
In this situation, however, the language of the statute is pretty clear as it pertains to curtilage. It ended as well as can be expected (well once the thieves are caught and put in jail) and without the legal and moral issue that most people face after a shooting, justified or not.
I think that situations like this make for good teaching examples for the rest of us however. We can Monday quarterback all of the what ifs and could haves all day long and try to glean some sort of takeaway for ourselves.
I carry everywhere I go. I am also one paranoid SOB. Had it been me what would have most likely happened is that I would have stopped in my driveway when I saw the car in the vacant lot, gotten out, walked over to them and asked, in a not so nice tone of voice "Hey fellas, can I help you with something?" And if their response wasn't to my satisfaction I would have called the police. They would have most likely fled as I walked up being as that they were up to no good.
But then I can be a fairly intimidating figure when I want to be. But I've seen 110 pound women who would have done the same.
Had I returned to my home with a car in the driveway, my natural reaction would be to block them in until I could figure out what was going on. But this thread allowed me to think through the situation from the outside instead of in the moment, so now if it happens I will park where they can get by as I don't want to leave the impression I sprung a trap.
That said, I know from experience that I would exit my truck with my gun in hand and at the ready.
The bottom line is that none of us are lawyers and there are good and bad prosecutors out there. The good ones will do everything within their power to not have to prosecute someone they feel was justified and the bad ones will do things within and not within their power to try and make an example of someone and a name for themselves.
In this situation, however, the language of the statute is pretty clear as it pertains to curtilage. It ended as well as can be expected (well once the thieves are caught and put in jail) and without the legal and moral issue that most people face after a shooting, justified or not.
I think that situations like this make for good teaching examples for the rest of us however. We can Monday quarterback all of the what ifs and could haves all day long and try to glean some sort of takeaway for ourselves.
I carry everywhere I go. I am also one paranoid SOB. Had it been me what would have most likely happened is that I would have stopped in my driveway when I saw the car in the vacant lot, gotten out, walked over to them and asked, in a not so nice tone of voice "Hey fellas, can I help you with something?" And if their response wasn't to my satisfaction I would have called the police. They would have most likely fled as I walked up being as that they were up to no good.
But then I can be a fairly intimidating figure when I want to be. But I've seen 110 pound women who would have done the same.
Had I returned to my home with a car in the driveway, my natural reaction would be to block them in until I could figure out what was going on. But this thread allowed me to think through the situation from the outside instead of in the moment, so now if it happens I will park where they can get by as I don't want to leave the impression I sprung a trap.
That said, I know from experience that I would exit my truck with my gun in hand and at the ready.
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
OH but my my my roofs! It's not over muh head!
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
I scared the hell out of a guy at the wrong house lol.
Scott Free
Well-Known Member
I'm just gonna leave this here, from an attorney.
https://www.charlestonlaw.net/stand-you-ground-law-south-carolina/
Protections Under “Stand Your Ground” Outside of a Home or Vehicle
The protections of “Stand Your Ground” extend outside of a home and vehicle also. If you aren’t engaged in unlawful activity, and you are attacked, you can “stand your ground” and meet the attack with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe that your force is necessary to protect you or someone else from death or great bodily injury or to prevent the commission of a violent crime. You don’t have a duty to retreat. This protection applies in public, such as on a sidewalk or at the mall, or at your business.
Now shut the hell up.