Home invasion hits family friend

stop quoting attorneys, dammit. You know they're not experienced enough to write opinions that are upheld by court cases and case law, and they never become judges neither.
Your best bet is to challenge baddies to an old fashion fair fight at noon, preferably on Sat or Sun when you're not at work and you can draw and aim for COM that way there's no back entry wound.

Now......DRAW!
 
stop quoting attorneys, dammit. You know they're not experienced enough to write opinions that are upheld by court cases and case law, and they never become judges neither.
Your best bet is to challenge baddies to an old fashion fair fight at noon, preferably on Sat or Sun when you're not at work and you can draw and aim for COM that way there's no back entry wound.

Now......DRAW!


No, I turned around so you can't shoot me! Hah! I win! I'm just gonna walk backwards, and shoot when I get closer.
 
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.


I never said car was not covered under castle doctrine. I have only been saying that your yard does not count as your castle. After all, it is the CASTLE Doctrine, not the Estate Doctrine, or the Kingdom Doctrine or even the Property Doctrine.

Second, I have not been talking about shooting the person inside the home. That is expressly protected in the Castle Doctrine. I have been talking about a hypothetical situation another poster presented where the mom would have blocked the car and attempted to keep the intruders from leaving. The Castle Doctrine/Stand your ground will not protect her in this scenario. Her job is not to detain the assailants, its to protect herself or others. That is all I have been trying to say the whole time but nobody will actually read what I am saying. They just reply the same thing over and over again.

Now, could you still be found innocent in court from that situation? Absolutely, but you don't want to go to court over something like that. Your putting your freedom in someone else's hands. If the woman was in her home and shot the people illegally entering, then cut and dry no prosecution for her. But, in this hypothetical, she would only have self-defense as her only protection and then it is up to the court to decide if she was in the right or not.

Again, this does not represent my belief of how the laws should be, it only represents the way the law has been conveyed to me over many, many years of sitting through and assisting with CWP classes and having long, hypothetical discussions with my father who was the prosecutor for the City of Conway for over 20 years, and is a certified NRARSO and a CWP instructor. And also from having these conversations with other esteemed members of the firearm community of Horry County, many of which are also members of this forum.
 
I never said car was not covered under castle doctrine. I have only been saying that your yard does not count as your castle. After all, it is the CASTLE Doctrine, not the Estate Doctrine, or the Kingdom Doctrine or even the Property Doctrine.

Second, I have not been talking about shooting the person inside the home. That is expressly protected in the Castle Doctrine. I have been talking about a hypothetical situation another poster presented where the mom would have blocked the car and attempted to keep the intruders from leaving. The Castle Doctrine/Stand your ground will not protect her in this scenario. Her job is not to detain the assailants, its to protect herself or others. That is all I have been trying to say the whole time but nobody will actually read what I am saying. They just reply the same thing over and over again.

Now, could you still be found innocent in court from that situation? Absolutely, but you don't want to go to court over something like that. Your putting your freedom in someone else's hands. If the woman was in her home and shot the people illegally entering, then cut and dry no prosecution for her. But, in this hypothetical, she would only have self-defense as her only protection and then it is up to the court to decide if she was in the right or not.

Again, this does not represent my belief of how the laws should be, it only represents the way the law has been conveyed to me over many, many years of sitting through and assisting with CWP classes and having long, hypothetical discussions with my father who was the prosecutor for the City of Conway for over 20 years, and is a certified NRARSO and a CWP instructor. And also from having these conversations with other esteemed members of the firearm community of Horry County, many of which are also members of this forum.

I think the issue is that you seem to ignore the term curtilage. That is part of the castle doctrine. It does not just say in your home, car and place of business. It adds the term curtilage. That is the area surrounding your home.
 
stop quoting attorneys, dammit. You know they're not experienced enough to write opinions that are upheld by court cases and case law, and they never become judges neither.
Your best bet is to challenge baddies to an old fashion fair fight at noon, preferably on Sat or Sun when you're not at work and you can draw and aim for COM that way there's no back entry wound.

Now......DRAW!

 
I think the issue is that you seem to ignore the term curtilage. That is part of the castle doctrine. It does not just say in your home, car and place of business. It adds the term curtilage. That is the area surrounding your home.

That is just it though, there is no mention of curtilage in the SC Stand your ground law.

http://www.schouse.gov/sess116_2005-2006/bills/4301.htm This was signed into law by the governor on June 9, 2006. No mention of curtilage.
 
You are trying to argue a SC position in what was most likely a NC incident based on the OP's listed residence area. In NC, she would have been fine according to NC Castle Doctrine. First rule of self defense, know the attitudes and laws on SD in the area you are in. NC considers curtilage part of your castle.
 
You are trying to argue a SC position in what was most likely a NC incident based on the OP's listed residence area. In NC, she would have been fine according to NC Castle Doctrine. First rule of self defense, know the attitudes and laws on SD in the area you are in. NC considers curtilage part of your castle.

You are correct, it may be totally different in North Carolina. However, when Ikarus said PLEASE quote from SC state law where it says 'under your roof' in the castle doctrine. I need to be enlightened, via state law. Its the first 3 paragraphs of SC castle doctrine that define what constitutes dwelling and residence. That is where the SC Castle laws came in to play.

However, even in NC it says, "if the person against whom defensive force is used has discontinued efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle or workplace and has exited those locations." then it is unlawful to use deadly force.
 
Last edited:
You are correct, it may be totally different in North Carolina. However, when Ikarus said PLEASE quote from SC state law where it says 'under your roof' in the castle doctrine. I need to be enlightened, via state law. Its the first 3 paragraphs of SC castle doctrine that define what constitutes dwelling and residence. That is where the SC Castle laws came in to play.

However, even in NC it says, "if the person against whom defensive force is used has discontinued efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle or workplace and has exited those locations." then it is unlawful to use deadly force.


In case you missed it...


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.



Just accept that you are misinformed, and welcome yourself to the Internet.
 
You are trying to argue a SC position in what was most likely a NC incident based on the OP's listed residence area. In NC, she would have been fine according to NC Castle Doctrine. First rule of self defense, know the attitudes and laws on SD in the area you are in. NC considers curtilage part of your castle.

And affirmative self-defense on school grounds (of course the feds will probably charge you)
 
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

I'll honestly admit that I don't know enough about NC/SC laws to give an opinion. Your statement above seems to imply that you have a duty to retreat (if the means are possible), even if you're in the act of being physically assaulted. If that's what you meant, then I'm pretty sure you're absolutely, positively wrong regardless whether it's NC or SC.
 
Last edited:
In case you missed it...





Just accept that you are misinformed, and welcome yourself to the Internet.


In the situation we were discussing, they perpetrators were fleeing the scene and deadly force would not be lawful. You can't jump in front of someones car and claim self defense just like you cannot instigate a bar fight and shoot the person when you start getting your @$$ kicked.
 
You are correct, it may be totally different in North Carolina. However, when Ikarus said PLEASE quote from SC state law where it says 'under your roof' in the castle doctrine. I need to be enlightened, via state law. Its the first 3 paragraphs of SC castle doctrine that define what constitutes dwelling and residence. That is where the SC Castle laws came in to play.

However, even in NC it says, "if the person against whom defensive force is used has discontinued efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle or workplace and has exited those locations." then it is unlawful to use deadly force.

Notice the past tense of "had occurred". Add to that the people are in the carport where the car is parked.

(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.


So they are still in your garage, still on your property, still in the act, or had been in the act according to the above, of committing a crime even if she blocked them in. The striking of her car would constitute another crime as well. If she were out of the car and they tried to get past her in their vehicle by running over her, or threatening too, she would also have every right to shoot them.

She just couldn't chase them down the road.

And do you really think a jury has a problem if she uses deadly force? In NC or SC? You would have a hard time finding a DA to let it by, much less a jury.
 
Last edited:
I'll honestly admit that I don't know enough about NC/SC laws to give an opinion. Your statement above seems to imply that you have a duty to retreat, even if you're in the act of being physically assaulted. If that's what you meant, then I'm pretty sure you're absolutely, positively wrong regardless whether it's NC or SC.

That is just the thing, the post I commented on was someone saying to jump in front of the car and shoot them. Then claim self defense because they were trying to run over you. I am not referring to being mugged in an alley, or someone breaking in your home or someone trying to kidnap your child. That is stand your ground law. But, I will say it again, in the one hypothetical situation I was referring to, the attackers had broken off the home invasion. ***And lastly, one can’t use deadly force against one who has discontinued efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle or workplace and has exited those locations (one can’t shoot someone who is running away).***
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-3-21_15-2-57.png
    upload_2018-3-21_15-2-57.png
    465.8 KB · Views: 10
[QUOTE="And do you really think a jury has a problem if she uses deadly force? In NC or SC? You would have a hard time finding a DA to let it by, much less a jury.[/QUOTE]

No that's why I said earlier, you still might get off without any problem but you would not want to put your freedom in the hands of someone else. Anything is possible with the court, OJ and Casey Anthony got off. You never know what the person in the robe or the people in the box are gonna do.
 
By my understanding, Castle Doctrine and Stand your ground are two entirely separate things, so under your roof or curtilage is irrelevant. That said, If I return to my residence after my child has called me saying someone has broken in, park in my OWN driveway behind a vehicle I don't know and then ventilate the person driving close enough in my direction to sideswipe my vehicle, there is not a jury in NC or SC that will vote to convict. That's not re-initiating an encounter while the bad guy is trying to escape. That is employing deadly force to stop a violent attack. They may have discontinued efforts to unlawfully enter the residence, but they surely haven't stopped offering deadly force as they drive a vehicle at you. Even if the law requires one to attempt to retreat before using deadly force and no castle doctrine or Stand your Ground law exist, there are always caveats that add "unless retreat is not available or would increase your probability of injury or death" Trying to run from an attacker in a car is the definition of that.
 
Last edited:
In the situation we were discussing, they perpetrators were fleeing the scene and deadly force would not be lawful. You can't jump in front of someones car and claim self defense just like you cannot instigate a bar fight and shoot the person when you start getting your @$$ kicked.

You keep changing the point you're arguing.

Castle doctrine doesn't work in your yard. You have to be under a covered portion of your house.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

What I posted covers this as incorrect.

Unless they are firing on you but thats different situation. In this one she had the duty to retreat

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Her property, no duty to retreat. Once again, incorrect.

Protection of property is absolutely 0 grounds to use deadly force. Only to protect yourself or others

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

If she thought they might try to run her over- justified.

Ok, thats under your covered roof of your house. Totally different situation. I am only talking about this specific instance with this woman.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

The roof has nothing to do with it.

Within home, business or car. Not in yard

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Oh, there you are again! You should change your username to "AlwaysWrong"

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


See where this is going? About as far as your legal career.

You a pouty lil bish [emoji23]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


Who's the bish now?
 
By my understanding, Castle Doctrine and Stand your ground are two entirely separate things, so under your roof or curttilage is irrelevant. That said, If I return to my residence after my child has called me saying someone has broken in, park in my OWN driveway behind a vehicle I don't know and then ventilate the person driving close enough in my direction to sideswipe my vehicle, there is not a jury in NC or SC that will vote to convict. That's not re-initiating an encounter while the bag guy is trying to escape. That is employing deadly force to stop a violent attack. They may have discontinued efforts to unlawfully enter the residence, but they surely haven't stopped offering deadly force as they drive a vehicle at you. Even if the law requires one to attempt to retreat before using deadly force and no castle doctrine or Stand your Ground law exist, there are always caveats that add "unless retreat is not available or would increase your probability of injury or death" Trying to run from an attacker in a car is the definition of that.

While I personally agree with you, I would not trust the court to agree with you. Just look at Trayvon Martin shooting. Zimmerman had lacerations on the back of his head where he was getting it beat into the pavement and they almost convicted him of murder. It is just not a situation you want to be in if there is any gray area. Inside your house, black and white. In the yard, that starts getting open to interpretation. I do not want to leave my life up to someone else.
 
sull-gazing-com-arguing-with-idiots-is-like-playing-chess-with-a-19898881.png
 
While I personally agree with you, I would not trust the court to agree with you. Just look at Trayvon Martin shooting. Zimmerman had lacerations on the back of his head where he was getting it beat into the pavement and they almost convicted him of murder. It is just not a situation you want to be in if there is any gray area. Inside your house, black and white. In the yard, that starts getting open to interpretation. I do not want to leave my life up to someone else.

If I remember correctly the Jury found him not guilty..........
 
You keep changing the point you're arguing.



What I posted covers this as incorrect.



Her property, no duty to retreat. Once again, incorrect.



If she thought they might try to run her over- justified.



The roof has nothing to do with it.



Oh, there you are again! You should change your username to "AlwaysWrong"




See where this is going? About as far as your legal career.




Who's the bish now?

I mean its still him cause he through a temper tantrum cause someone didn't agree with him. But that's his problem. What you posted was a lawyers interpretation. The actual state law does not account for curtilage or property outside of the home. Some confusion arose from comparing SC law to NC law but I only brought up SC law because I was asked to.
 
I mean its still him cause he through a temper tantrum cause someone didn't agree with him. But that's his problem. What you posted was a lawyers interpretation. The actual state law does not account for curtilage or property outside of the home. Some confusion arose from comparing SC law to NC law but I only brought up SC law because I was asked to.

What I posted was from a SC Defense Attorney. You know, the people who do all the talking in a courtroom. I'm pretty sure 98.3% of the confusion is in your mind, the remaining 1.7% is people confused as to why they're still trying to get you to comprehend.
 
Last edited:
This entire conversation is a perfect example of the trigger lock every instructor I have ever had has warned about. You can dive into the legalese and statutes and completely paralyze yourself. It all boils down to that if someone you know to be a violent criminal is driving a vehicle at you in your own driveway, no law in the land requires you to try to run away.
 
What I posted was from a SC Defense Attorney. You know, the people who do all the talking in a courtroom. I'm pretty sure 98.3% of the confusion is on your mind, the remaining 1.7% is people confused as to why they're still trying to get you to comprehend.
Unfortunately the defense doesn't always win. Or thankfully.. depending which side your on.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Happy ending that had a potentially sad and terrible outcome. My 17 year old son has been armed at home when alone since he was twelve. This is just another reminder to keep your head on a swivel when leaving the house. Great job on Mom's part.
 
You stayed out of jail but spent $150,000 in lawyers fees. "Your honor I'd like to retract my plea of innocent."

Hire the outfit who uses the same lawyer who got George Zimmerman off.
CCWsafe.com
$16 month for their barebones package.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom