Another SC Home Defense Shooting

[tattedupboy]

Regardless of how we look at it, because of this homeowner's actions, it is quite unlikely that this young punk will burglarize anyone else's property ever again. Isn't that one of the reasons we on this site advocate that more law abiding citizens like the elderly homeowner own guns? To make the jobs of burglars like this guy more dangerous? Furthermore, if the guy was slow to take his hands out of his pockets, are you saying that he should have waited to see if what he pulled out was a gun or not? I'm glad I wasn't in that position, but personally, I wouldn't have waited to see.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey tattedupboy: First off, let me say that I am glad that the old guy was able to "teach" the young perp a lesson. Having said that, FOR ME, "stuff" is not worth my life or even that of the perp, IF HE IS NOT THREATENING MY LIFE. The old guy did not call 911 but went outside and then, after shooting the young perp, called 911; I have a problem with that even though I support his actions for feeling that he had to protect his property under South Carolina law. The old guy put himself in danger of being killed over "stuff", if the young perp had been more aggressive, and was really on the cusp of being in big time trouble even though "stuff" is good enough in SC; it wasn't however "imminent danger" until the old guy put himself in that position. We can discuss all day and as I said in previous threads--my comments are not meant as being critical of others it is what I WOULD DO OVER STUFF---call 911, get ready to summarize my stuff losses, find the phone number of the insurance company and go from there. If the perp decides that my house has more stuff or if I was in the car or truck at the time or was outside near the truck at the time I would be afraid and truly think I was in mortal danger and I would do exactly what the old guy did but if I am in my house and someone is roaming around outside I would turn lights on, I would call 911, I would yell out, I would activate autoalarm on car or truck but I would not be so inclined to get my gun and go out in the middle of the night to confront some idiot perp who may be high on something, or armed to the teeth, or willing to just shoot on sight over 'stuff".

 

[JJFlash]

Kelcarry,

With you all the way on this. There's "stuff" and then there's "life". No comparison.

 

[kelcarry]

According to the previous posts, symtron quoted SC laws and regs; in one paragraph he quotes that homeowner can use deadly force if he believes an intruder intends to commit a felony yet in the next paragraph he quotes that deadly force may not be valid for defense of property alone. If I understand english, a felony can consist of a burglary and in the course of this burglary, I would expect a homeowner like myself to be quite frightened and in fear of whoever this person is and what he plans on doing next---I assume the above quotes are moving from the second quote where I cannot use deadly force to the first quote that I can use deadly force. Bottom line for me is that if a perp is wandering around in my house or my car and has no business being there in the middle of the night, I AM CONCERNED FOR MY WELL BEING AND THAT OF MY FAMILY--this is not about property almost from the getgo and is about my belief that this perp is not only committing a felony but in doing so he is endangering my family and me and will be dealt with appropriately ACCORDING TO THE LAW ON DEADLY FORCE. Am I wrong? Isn't this castle doctrine in SC?

 

[FN1910]

only such force must be used as is necessary, or apparently necessary, to a reasonably prudent man.

Take a very close look at that statement. In SC if there is an intruder in your house you have reasonable fear that he is there to harm you. This may not include your drunk brother-in-law that stumbled in even if you want it to but the key is reaonable. If someone is walking across your yard or even just stnading on your front porch they are not open season but if they are in your living room then just be sure it isn't your BIL. :biggrin:

 

[kevin mosley]

I wouldn't call 911 if, for all I know, I'm just gonna find a raccoon or kids with toilet paper. Most likely a raccoon causing trouble where I'm at. In Florida, we can protect our property too, as God and our Constitution intended.
I wasn't there - I don't know what happened or how. I'm going to give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt, because:
a) it's his property, his stuff, b) the other guy was an uninvited trespasser, in the process of looting.
Homeowner shoots a criminal in the act on his property - BRAVO!

 

[Tucker's Mom]

Did I missed something? -- I reckoned that the old man asked the 19-year-old to turn around because it will look worst if he just shot someone from behind. THEN he called 911 because there is body there that needed cleaning up and out of his driveway. :laugh:

 

[kelcarry]

Hey FN1910: There is one difficulty with "reasonably prudent". When someone is on your property in the middle of the night poking around where they should not be and carrying who knows what in their pocket, and you are just a poor schmoe who has never had to face any sort of "intrusion" in your life, whether it is right outside your home or in your home, "reasonably prudent", once my heartbeat is at 130 beats and I am holding back my bladder, is very difficult to define. Outside my home is a bit easier but if outside my home means on my porch right by a door or window, it is getting a heck of a lot closer to "reasonably prudent"--certainly in the house I do not think any of us have a problem with the definition.
Hey Tucker's Mom: Are you really Tucker's Mom?

 

[dvnfly]

chalk one up for the good guys on this one. First we don't have the whole story so we can't arm chair quarterback this one with a bunch of what ifs. Second IMHO if you want to take any of my hard earned stuff and I come across you in the process you will either listen and get taken away in cuff or not listen and get taken away in an ambulance period. It's about time the laws of this country are going back to the side of good. I don't care what the BG's story is, if he didn't want to get shot he should stay out of other peoples stuff. And I totally agree with the not calling 911 at every sound you hear they'd be in our neighborhood every night all night long with the wildlife we have hear. As for the use of deadly force, when we went over the ROE in Afghanistan over the use of it, it comes down to if you have time to think about it it probably wasn't authorized so if he thought the punk was going to pull a weapon of some sorts then it was authorized.

 

[Tucker's Mom]

....Hey Tucker's Mom: Are you really Tucker's Mom?

Yup! :biggrin: And btw, I like the way you think...you have good answers that, if I remember when a thing like that might be happening with our truck (outside the driveway too), might save my life one day...but then, if I see someone going through our truck, I just hope I don't wet my pants first...:laugh:

 

[FN1910]

I went back and refreshed myself on the OP and have no problems with what the old man did. As for calling 911 on every noise, there is no need unless you want to tie up the lines so no emergency can get through. The kid took one had out of his pocket and hesitated with the other one which would make me think he had some kind of weapon in there. I think that anyone with a reasonable amout of sense would agree. However we can't count on a jury to have any kind of sense on this kind of decision. Someone standing there with both hands in their pockets and you holding a gun on them is going to obey your comands immediately unless they are up to no good and going to try something. That is the way I see it and I think any prudent person would.

 

[Juanito]

What was the 19 yr old doing with property that was not his. Did he have a right to try and take what was not his? Where does one draw the line between a good bad guy and a bad bad guy? My hat off to the old guy. Maybe if the message gets out crime will drop. If not what will be violated after the truck?

 

[Booga]

Juanito, is there such a thing as a good bad Guy?

 

[kelcarry]

Hey juanito: Go to the laws of SC, per this forum, and read Section 16-11-440--Protection of Persons and Property. deadly force can be use where there is a "presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury" annd "against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering or has entered a dwelling or OCCUPIED vehicle"--no mention of unoccupied vehicle. You can read this and assume no criminal consequences (up to a prosecutor) but there still may be civil consequences and, in any event, legal costs. Personally, for "stuff", I am not going to start a gun fight or put myself in a position to be killed--that is why I pay for insurance. Others feel differently and I understand and support their actions. Unoccupied car is one thing, coming into my home when I am home is a different ballgame.

 

[mappow]

Kudos to the old man. I would have probably done the same thing. There was a story in Jedburg, SC a few years back about a older couple taking their evening walk through their property. The man had a 38 snub concealed with no permit, which is OK as long as you're on your property. As they came back to their house, two BG's had pretty much emptied all worthy contents they wanted on the front lawn and was in the process of loading up their car. Neither BG's were armed,but a few long guns from the house was laying on the lawn. The man drew, yelled at them both to freeze. One of the BG's bent down to grab the rifle and the man shot twice killing the first BG. The second BG complied and the wife called the county LEO's. NO Charges filed.

I always like a happy ending..............

 

[kelcarry]

Hey mappow: SC has a fairly documented history of not filing any charges in these kind of cases and I have no problem in reaffirming those actions if on a jury. Some states, however, are not as lenient and it should be stressed in this forum, whenever we add our comments, that you must do your due diligence in learning the ins and outs of your state's laws and judicial opinions regarding any form of action you may take with your firearm.One size does not fit all.

 

[GOV5]

Funny that this subject should come up now. A few weeks ago I rode my Harley over to the Police Station. I waited until I saw an officer get out of a police car. He was a plainclothes detective. I told him that I recently had obtained a CCW,but a question occurred to me that wasn't covered in class. Could I shoot someone if I heard a noise in my driveway, and came out to find someone breaking into my car? He honestly didn't know. But he told me he'd find out and call me back.

Two days later I received a call from him. He had checked with the Chief and the City Attorney, and both had said that I would be arrested if I shot someone for that. The Castle Doctrine covers your HOUSE. It also covers your car, but you have to be IN IT at the time someone is breaking into the car. If you shoot them, and they die, you'll be charged with murder. That ruling also backs up what an attorney said on one of the video tapes we saw in class. "You can't kill someone over a piece of property." Property can be replaced. A human life can't. That is the distinction.

So be careful how you handle a situation that doesn't involve IMMEDIATE threat to your life, or bodily damage to you or someone else nearby. You could wind up in jail and charged with murder.

If this old guy wasn't charged with anything, there has to be more to this story than was told here, because he was in direct conflict with S.C. Law. I'm not saying the young man didn't deserve to have his butt kicked real good, but you can't murder someone, and that's what it wold have been. I'm real surprised he isn't facing a civil lawsuit from the kid or the kid's family, because they certainly have cause.

 

[mappow]

Hear what your saying GOV but the old man per OP "He ordered him to turn around and face him and told him to take his hands out of his pockets as he stood there. The 19 year old hesitated and then took one hand out and started to take the other hand out" AT that time he must of had a fear of something and shot. Unfortunately, the OP does not state if the BG was armed or not. BUT your are correct, be sure, be dam sure. IT WILL be a life changing event on both sides of the weapon.

 

[GOV5]

Hear what your saying GOV but the old man per OP "He ordered him to turn around and face him and told him to take his hands out of his pockets as he stood there. The 19 year old hesitated and then took one hand out and started to take the other hand out" AT that time he must of had a fear of something and shot. Unfortunately, the OP does not state if the BG was armed or not. BUT your are correct, be sure, be dam sure. IT WILL be a life changing event on both sides of the weapon.

I know what you are saying about the hesitation with the young guy, but he did STILL have his back turned to the old guy. Even if the boy had a gun, he would have to turn around first to fire at the old man, or make some kind of move to turn and fire. Remember, the old man had the gun pointing at the boy already. He certainly could fire before the boy made his move to "turn and fire".

My point is that because this discussion has gone on for many posts, there are several opinions on what when, where, and how about this incident. It ISN'T "cut and dry". This thing winds up in court in most cases. I don't want that for me. Juries come up with some weird results. Remember, a jury is doing "armchair quarterbacking".

They have the luxury of looking at it from a hundred different angles, with as much time as they please. The shooter didn't have that luxury. He had to make a call immediately. If he screwed up, too bad. The jury will look at it like he should have known what he is doing if he is going to have and carry a gun. Besides, what happens when an anti-gun person, or persons, are sitting on the jury.

Finally, I'm a CCW holder, and it's pretty smelly to me. Can you imagine what it would like like to a jury?

Know your local laws boys and girls. It will save you a lot of trouble. I know you can't know all of them for every instance, but this one was a "no brainer". The old guy was wrong, and got away with it. Don't count on being that lucky.

I want "cut and dry". The officer comes, surveys the situation, thanks me for apprehending a bad guy, puts the BG in the patrol car, tells me to have a nice day, AND LEAVES. No court, no hassles!

 

[kelcarry]

Hey mappow: My last reply and GOV state it correctly. In your house or in your car, theft can be fraught with ultimate danger by a perp. As far as this particular incident is concerned 1) the old man did not call 911 or local LEO before he went outside to confront this supposed thief--wrong, wrong, wrong. 2) the kid did not have a firearm and, quite frankly, I find it convenient for the old man that this kid was doing all this reaching and not following orders--fits into "reasonable fear of imminent danger and peril" too neatly and nicely and 3) SC is one of those states that has a broad tolerance forthe behavior of this old man--this is not the first case that never went to criminal exposure and it will not be the last. As a forum writer I have no problem with anyone caught stealing getting anything and everything he deserves--including, if you try to extend "reasonable fear" and "imminent dange" to every instance similar to this one. As a juror, however, if this case had come to trial, I would have a hard time just letting the old man off the hook--mainly because he did not even bother to call 911. I do not have all the facts since all we got was the cursory facts based on prosecutor not seeking any criminal charges but I did have a problem with what I perceived as an act by this old man that was beyond "reasonable" and beyond "imminent danger", which he initiated and not the kid. Let me be clear, I understand and support any and all actions against any kind of perp--I am sick and tired of the kind of crimes and behavior that take place here in SC by the "more entitiled" among us, but these are my thoughts on the forum, not on a jury. "Stuff" is just "stuff", as GOV said, and it just it not worth the life of a sleazebucket, and possibly your life. This old man could just as easily been killed if that kid had whirled around with a big 45--over what?--the kid had not even started to take "stuff", he was just in the snooping mode, from what I gather about the story. We will never know the full, true story so all we can do is talk, but I do agree with GOV--IMHO "stuff" ain't worth your life or mine or even that of a sleaze.