Another SC Home Defense Shooting

[dster72340]

toledo incidents

Here in toledo we have had three such episodes where the carriers were cleared. one a man came home from work and there were three men in his house he shot and killed a 21 year old running out the door. two a 39 year old man held a gun to a clerks head the owner of the store heard the nervosness in her voice came around the corner with a gun the perk then started shooting at the owner, the owner returned fire severaly injuring the man.( music store) the third a carryout owner was robbed at gun point by a 16 year old black male the store owner than shot and killed him.All in the last three weeks.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey dster: your 3 examples are a lot more clear cut for SC laws then the case in point (see my last reply), where I have questions concerning the reasonable fear of imminent peril to the old man's life. SC law, for all its ambiguities, is pretty clear on castle doctrine whether it is in your home or IN your car. Someone stealing from your unoccupied vehicle is, IMO, based on my understanding of SC law, not a green light for firing a weapon.
Hey G50: I'm not quite sure what is going on in your life that you have this unbridled anger or some kind of problem with/over the State of SC. Something "ticked" you off badly and I do not understand why you cannot get over whatever it is; you continually have these similar angry comments about the State. Sounds like you are going to get into something that will cause you more problems in the future. Wish you well and hope you can learn to chill a bit but your anger together with a CCWP and a firearm is a recipe for bad consequences.

 

[kelcarry]

With all due respect G50, People's Republic of South Carolina?--what is that all about? Read some of your other comments--it may just be your style and I apologize if that is the case; obviously I do not know you and I would hope I am wrong about assumptions I have made purely on the basis of the printed word. I just sense (and, if not mistaken several other members have made comments) an anger and for a forum about firearms, I do not think anger is the proper mode of operation. Sorry if I am wrong and I apologize.

 

[theicemanmpls]

I am not realy sure where you are getting that I have some type of unbridled anger towards the People's Republic of South Carolina, but then again on another thread you had stated that I was being hostile toward SC LEO's because I explained to another poster that Cane-guns fell under NFA rules. :wacko: I guess I'll just remained confused on this one.

I am just calling this as I see it. It's Trolling. G50AE was suspended for a week by the site admin. Perhaps he don't quite get it. G50ae, if you want to know the in's and out's, do's and don't's, just ask. This is a drama free site, and I for one wish to keep it that way.

 

[ConditionOne]

I agree with you, kelcarry. In this case it was just "stuff" and I personally wouldn't find it worth killing over.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand me, I'm not arguing the older gentleman didn't have the right to protect his property, nor would I judge any of you for protecting yours as you saw fit. It's just that I don't think I'd personally be willing to draw my weapon unless I felt my life was at stake. If I walk into my residence and someone is there stealing stuff, or if I wake up to hear an intruder, you're damned right I will be armed and ready to pull the trigger; by that point confrontation is almost certainly unavoidable. If I woke up and heard or saw someone rummaging through my vehicle, I'd call 911, wait and watch. If they made a move to enter my residence, I would be prepared to defend myself.

I know, I know... you could argue that I don't know if there is anyone else out there, perhaps another BG already trying to enter the premises and I don't know who's armed and who's not. You may argue it's best to shoot first and ask questions later. There are a whole lot of "what ifs" and the situation can change drastically with a single variable. I've never drawn my gun on someone (and I honestly hope I never, ever have to). I'm also not currently a homeowner, nor is my vehicle especially nice. I don't have a wife and kids to worry about. My perspective is obviously going to be different from those of you in different situations.

Booga asked, "is there such a thing as a good bad guy?" I don't think the answer to that question is as black-and-white as we may like it to be. In some cases perhaps the "BG" isn't really all that bad. I don't advocate being soft on criminals, and I understand and totally agree that by even attempting to steal someone else's property this kid was breaking the law and falls under the "BG" moniker. However, what if that 19-year-old was one of your sons, making an incredibly bad decision in an otherwise decent life? Good people can make stupid choices, especially when they're young and don't have a great deal of life experience. Add in peer pressure, maybe a poor home situation or some kind of emotional trauma like a parent dying, and you have a formula for a very crappy decision-making process. The bad guy in a case like that may just be a guy, making bad decisions. Saying, "all BGs are evil and wrong and I will exercise my right to defend my property with deadly force no matter what" makes about as much sense to me as the "zero tolerance" gun and drug policies in force in our public school system; that is to say, none at all. We have good heads on our shoulders, and we should use them... even if other people are not.

None of that excuses the act mentioned in the OP, and it doesn't put the older gentleman defending his property in the wrong. The kid obviously made a series of poor decisions, but that doesn't mean he's instantly a hardened career criminal who will only ever be out to deprive honest people of the fruits of their labors. He needs to pay for any crimes he committed, but not necessarily with his life.

I don't think you're a "big pussy" for stating you'd at least be given pause, JJ, were you put into the same situation. I personally believe you can be morally justified in shooting and killing someone who threatens you, but also believe you can be saddened it came to that, and have sympathy for the life you were forced to end. These things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[kelcarry]

Condition One is Condition OK in my book. Well said. Bottom line is "reasonable fear that imminent death or bodily injury can occur"--it is the cornerstone of most of the defensive gun laws in this country and truly sets the boundaries IMHO of when a firearm can be presented and discharged. Someone out by your unoccupied truck is not that.

 

[GOV5]

I agree with you, kelcarry. In this case it was just "stuff" and I personally wouldn't find it worth killing over.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand me, I'm not arguing the older gentleman didn't have the right to protect his property, nor would I judge any of you for protecting yours as you saw fit. It's just that I don't think I'd personally be willing to draw my weapon unless I felt my life was at stake. If I walk into my residence and someone is there stealing stuff, or if I wake up to hear an intruder, you're damned right I will be armed and ready to pull the trigger; by that point confrontation is almost certainly unavoidable. If I woke up and heard or saw someone rummaging through my vehicle, I'd call 911, wait and watch. If they made a move to enter my residence, I would be prepared to defend myself.

I know, I know... you could argue that I don't know if there is anyone else out there, perhaps another BG already trying to enter the premises and I don't know who's armed and who's not. You may argue it's best to shoot first and ask questions later. There are a whole lot of "what ifs" and the situation can change drastically with a single variable. I've never drawn my gun on someone (and I honestly hope I never, ever have to). I'm also not currently a homeowner, nor is my vehicle especially nice. I don't have a wife and kids to worry about. My perspective is obviously going to be different from those of you in different situations.

Booga asked, "is there such a thing as a good bad guy?" I don't think the answer to that question is as black-and-white as we may like it to be. In some cases perhaps the "BG" isn't really all that bad. I don't advocate being soft on criminals, and I understand and totally agree that by even attempting to steal someone else's property this kid was breaking the law and falls under the "BG" moniker. However, what if that 19-year-old was one of your sons, making an incredibly bad decision in an otherwise decent life? Good people can make stupid choices, especially when they're young and don't have a great deal of life experience. Add in peer pressure, maybe a poor home situation or some kind of emotional trauma like a parent dying, and you have a formula for a very crappy decision-making process. The bad guy in a case like that may just be a guy, making bad decisions. Saying, "all BGs are evil and wrong and I will exercise my right to defend my property with deadly force no matter what" makes about as much sense to me as the "zero tolerance" gun and drug policies in force in our public school system; that is to say, none at all. We have good heads on our shoulders, and we should use them... even if other people are not.

None of that excuses the act mentioned in the OP, and it doesn't put the older gentleman defending his property in the wrong. The kid obviously made a series of poor decisions, but that doesn't mean he's instantly a hardened career criminal who will only ever be out to deprive honest people of the fruits of their labors. He needs to pay for any crimes he committed, but not necessarily with his life.

I don't think you're a "big pussy" for stating you'd at least be given pause, JJ, were you put into the same situation. I personally believe you can be morally justified in shooting and killing someone who threatens you, but also believe you can be saddened it came to that, and have sympathy for the life you were forced to end. These things are not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE

Thank you so much for that post. That was as good an explanation as anybody will ever read about the correct mindset for protection and personal defense. This should be required reading at this site, and in CCW classes!

WE, as CCW holders, are not "associate" cops or vigilantes. And having the "right" to shoot someone doesn't give you a moral/religious "right" to end someone's life. There are young folks out there that have been influenced by misguided people, and those young folks need someone to show them the LIGHT. They are still young and most of them, not all, are still salvageable. I would hate to snuff out of the life of someone that GOD isn't finished with yet. Remember, there is a difference between "KILL" and "MURDER".

 

[Bangba]

A 19 year old was "rummaging" around a pickup truck in someone's yard in the middle of the night with the apparent iintention to find some treasure, if not the truck itself. The older gentleman in the home heard noises, grabbed his gun and before calling 911, went outside to confront the 19 year old. 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 which point the old man fired and hit the 19 year old twice--serious injuries but not life threatening; the old man THEN called 911. The solicitor refused to indict and no further legal action has or was taken concerning the old man's actions. In my heart I immensely enjoy everything the old man did. In my mind, however, I find this case a bit troubling. I understand "castle doctrine" etc, but no 911, the seemingly cavalier attitude of priority of property over life, and a confrontation first by the old man who truly initiated his apparent "imminent dange". Any comments?

In my neihborhood, just turning on all the outside lights would have been enough to end the incident. No 911. no confrontation. no gun fire. no problem. I do agree that lost property is a lose for the property owner.Protection of "LIFE & Property" is the only reason necessary to be licensed to carry where I live. whoever, having said that, I do not own anything in the way of property that is worth taking a life for. A threat to life is a different story. An invasion of my property with hostal intent is a different story. If you don't leave anything of value in your truck, you won't have to shoot someone for looking. If you leave it unlocked they won't have to break in to see that there is nothing there. Insurance covers everything else. Just my oppioion. Every situation determines the responce.

 

[GOV5]

In my neihborhood, just turning on all the outside lights would have been enough to end the incident. No 911. no confrontation. no gun fire. no problem. I do agree that lost property is a lose for the property owner.Protection of "LIFE & Property" is the only reason necessary to be licensed to carry where I live. whoever, having said that, I do not own anything in the way of property that is worth taking a life for. A threat to life is a different story. An invasion of my property with hostal intent is a different story. If you don't leave anything of value in your truck, you won't have to shoot someone for looking. If you leave it unlocked they won't have to break in to see that there is nothing there. Insurance covers everything else. Just my oppioion. Every situation determines the responce.

" I do not own anything in the way of property that is worth taking a life for"

First of all, I personally agree overall, but specifically it depends on the crime. We have gotten WAY too lax on crime in this nation. How was that man that shot the boy to know if he was a first time offender,or a hardened criminal that makes a living from stealing? What if the car the boy was breaking into was the final big retirement purchase the old man had worked so hard for years to save up for,and it was his last purchase that would last him till he died, or wasn't fit to drive anymore? It's not just the vehicle, you see. It's what the VEHICLE REPRESENTS and HOW HE got it.... What he had to do without while saving for it....the extra overtime hours he spent working to save for it.

If stolen, or damaged,now he would be looking at having to spend money for a rental car while his insurance claim is being processed. And do you think the insurance company is going down to the local car dealer and buy him a new one? No, the car is now a "used car", so they will deduct some money, therefore he has lost some more from the punk's actions.

In my opinion, no crook has the right to steal THAT much from anybody! If they want to be a crook for a career, they have to understand that career choice comes with consequences. They have to weigh it out, NOT ME!!

 

[FN1910]

On this board and many othes I cannot help but get the impression that too many posters, rather than looking for a reason to have to use their gun are looking for an excuse to be able to use it. On the average while driving to and from work I could be involved in two or three accidents where is would clearly be the other person's fault. However I try to avoid those. We should look at guns the same way and not when can we use it but when do we need to.

 

[Bangba]

" I do not own anything in the way of property that is worth taking a life for"

First of all, I personally agree overall, but specifically it depends on the crime. We have gotten WAY too lax on crime in this nation. How was that man that shot the boy to know if he was a first time offender,or a hardened criminal that makes a living from stealing? What if the car the boy was breaking into was the final big retirement purchase the old man had worked so hard for years to save up for,and it was his last purchase that would last him till he died, or wasn't fit to drive anymore? It's not just the vehicle, you see. It's what the VEHICLE REPRESENTS and HOW HE got it.... What he had to do without while saving for it....the extra overtime hours he spent working to save for it.

If stolen, or damaged,now he would be looking at having to spend money for a rental car while his insurance claim is being processed. And do you think the insurance company is going down to the local car dealer and buy him a new one? No, the car is now a "used car", so they will deduct some money, therefore he has lost some more from the punk's actions.

In my opinion, no crook has the right to steal THAT much from anybody! If they want to be a crook for a career, they have to understand that career choice comes with consequences. They have to weigh it out, NOT ME!!

On the other hand,we could what if this all day, What if this kids only motivation was hunger. Not a criminal.not even the average punk on the street. In an unusual situation. Just hungry. You wouldn't know that until it was too late. I for one, am not going to shoot someone unless there is absolutly, positively, without a dought no other defence. Then it will swift and deadly. I've read that shooting someone can leave you bankrupt defending your self even if your right. What happens to your property then? Just my oppinion folks. This is the kind of discusion we come here for.

 

[GOV5]

On the other hand,we could what if this all day, What if this kids only motivation was hunger. Not a criminal.not even the average punk on the street. In an unusual situation. Just hungry. You wouldn't know that until it was too late. I for one, am not going to shoot someone unless there is absolutly, positively, without a dought no other defence. Then it will swift and deadly. I've read that shooting someone can leave you bankrupt defending your self even if your right. What happens to your property then? Just my oppinion folks. This is the kind of discusion we come here for.

Hunger isn't a reason to steal. There are charities in every city that feed people every day. I know. I worked at one. That's some of that "feel good" stuff that's been jammed down our throats for years by people that don't want us to have guns. Don't fall for that rhetoric.

Now, I agree with you on the "think before you shoot" issue. And that thinking starts before you start carrying. You need to understand in this "sue crazy" country in which we live, it is WAY too easy for someone to come after you in court. Our court & legal system is out of control. There is no way someone should be able to sue you in civil court if you have been found not guilty in criminal court. It's double jeopardy, and that should be unconstitutional. It is, but it hasn't been upheld by the courts.

Be like it or not, when you shoot someone, there iis a high degree of probability you are going to court. So be ready to do so when you pull that trigger.

 

[Bangba]

hunger isn't a reason to steal. There are charities in every city that feed people every day. I know. I worked at one. That's some of that "feel good" stuff that's been jammed down our throats for years by people that don't want us to have guns. Don't fall for that rhetoric.

Now, i agree with you on the "think before you shoot" issue. And that thinking starts before you start carrying. You need to understand in this "sue crazy" country in which we live, it is way too easy for someone to come after you in court. Our court & legal system is out of control. There is no way someone should be able to sue you in civil court if you have been found not guilty in criminal court. It's double jeopardy, and that should be unconstitutional. It is, but it hasn't been upheld by the courts.

Be like it or not, when you shoot someone, there iis a high degree of probability you are going to court. So be ready to do so when you pull that trigger.

wow!!!

 

[Bangba]

GOV5 Quote............. WE, as CCW holders, are not "associate" cops or vigilantes. And having the "right" to shoot someone doesn't give you a moral/religious "right" to end someone's life. There are young folks out there that have been influenced by misguided people, and those young folks need someone to show them the LIGHT. They are still young and most of them, not all, are still salvageable. I would hate to snuff out of the life of someone that GOD isn't finished with yet. Remember, there is a difference between "KILL" and "MURDER".[/QUOTE]


So if your just hungry Your salvageable. Well thats better.

 

[GOV5]

"So if your just hungry Your salvageable. Well thats better."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

Sorry, I don't understand what you said. Can you explain?

 

[kelcarry]

Whichever of you members said there is a difference between murder and killing is exactly right and I wish the religiously informed among the populace got this right. The true translation of the words on the commandments is murder--it is the only word that makes sense--ie we kill chickens, we kill cows, we kill deer etc etc--yet we do not consider these acts as a defiance of the commandment. Murder means intent on an immoral basis. Killing someone when you are not in imminent danger of your own life or great bodily injury, IMO, is going to be a subject for a jury to decide whether the act was a justifiable killing or murder (albeit manslaughter).

 

[GOV5]

" Whichever of you members said there is a difference between murder and killing is exactly right..."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

It was me. I hate when two different terms are tossed around like they are the same thing. Either one though, has a serious consequence and effect on the one left living. It is a decision that very few will know of which they are certain, until the time the moment of truth comes. I can talk all day long about what I will do, but until the time faces me, I don't know how I will act.

 

[FN1910]

" Whichever of you members said there is a difference between murder and killing is exactly right..."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

It was me. I hate when two different terms are tossed around like they are the same thing. Either one though, has a serious consequence and effect on the one left living. It is a decision that very few will know of which they are certain, until the time the moment of truth comes. I can talk all day long about what I will do, but until the time faces me, I don't know how I will act.

You are not alone in that and unless you have faced that time no one can actually say that they know. I know I am repeating myself but we should look for a reason to use a gun and not an excuse. Killing is not ths same as murder but killing when you do not need to is.

 

[Bangba]

I agree with you, kelcarry. In this case it was just "stuff" and I personally wouldn't find it worth killing over.
WE, as CCW holders, are not "associate" cops or vigilantes. And having the "right" to shoot someone doesn't give you a moral/religious "right" to end someone's life. There are young folks out there that have been influenced by misguided people, and those young folks need someone to show them the LIGHT. They are still young and most of them, not all, are still salvageable. I would hate to snuff out of the life of someone that GOD isn't finished with yet. Remember, there is a difference between "KILL" and "MURDER".

GOV5,ConditionOne.
Maybe I missunderstood. It sounded to me like the answer to BG problems large/small is an armed confrontation. I do think that it is reasonable and prudent to prepare for the worst but hope for the best. Again I do not believe that propery damage should buy you a bullet. Doesn't mean you should get away with it either. GOV5 said " being hungry is not a reason to steal" I agree. I also believe that just being hungry or any other minor offence shouldn't buy you a bullet. So when Condition one said that " they are young and most of them, not all, are still salvageable" That was what I was trying to get at. Sorry for any missunderstanding.
When I said that I didn't have any propery worth killing for that is true. If there was a serious threat of harm/death in the taking/damageing of that property, that would be a different story.
Again...... SORRY for any missunderstanding.

 

[kelcarry]

Many recent posts echo my thoughts---"stuff" is just not worth killing for, whether it is you against a slime or a slime against you. In either case both of you have a lot to answer for and will find that out in a court of law. At least in SC the law is pretty clear, although there have been cases like the one that started this thread that begs further clarification to me,---if you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury you've got a legal leg to stand on. The law gets a little "murky" when it continues to discuss "unlawful and forceful entry into a dwelling or occupied vehicle", which can be interpreted as saying that if this should occur, you immediately have a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury. In any case, I have insurance, I do not have any children or other family members living in another part of my home and see no reason to confront someone who has entered my home forcefull while I am behind a locked and secure bedroom door. 911, car alarm, preplanned defense with double zero---if they want into the bedroom, all bets are off, but I am not going to be looking for them.