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.
No problem mate. One of the things about the internet, when in discussions, is that the other person can't see or hear your voice inflections, and see the expression on your face when you are "talking" (typing). Therefore it is real easy to get confused on the intent or delivery of a message.
Don't worry, as I said to another member here, we seem to be on the same page here. Neither one of us want to shoot someone and end their life for taking "stuff" that can be replaced. In fact, in our CWP class, we viewed a video, done by an attorney, that stated in S.C. it is unlawful to shoot someone for stealing 'stuff". You can't use deadly force if there isn't imminent danger to life or bodily harm.
It sounds crazy, but someone can come into your driveway, break into your car, hot wire it, and drive away...and you can't shoot them! All you can do is call 911.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another SC Home Defense Shooting
- Thread starter kelcarry
- Start date
It sounds crazy, but someone can come into your driveway, break into your car, hot wire it, and drive away...and you can't shoot them! All you can do is call 911.
Actually you can do much more than that. Treu you can't just shoot them for trying to steal your car but you can go out and confront them, If they attack you then you can shoot them but to say that you have to stand there and watch is wrong.
Hey GOV5 and others: The original thread posted by me relates the story of the 19 year old shot by the old man for doing nothing more than "rummaging" around at his truck and not listening to the old man upon confrontation, even though the old man NEVER called 911; the old man ended up shooting slime boy (he did not die) and was never prosecuted. No details on anything further on this story. As far as I am concerned, personally, he could have killed slime boy and I would not have raised an eyebrow. From my legal perspective and my own intended personal actions and if I was on a jury, I find this shooting to be indefensible. The old man caused the confrontation and put himself in the "imminent" danger role and this falls into the FN 1910 category, which I fail to understand as defensible, but this is SC. Botttom line: If their is a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury which comes from slime using deadly force on you or in the process of unlawfully entering or forcefully entering your home or occupied vehicle--you can use deadly force against the slime. It specifically says vehicle must be occupied and it does not say that the reasonable fear in all cases is based on your own independent actions and confrontation that caused the escalation to imminent peril---this is the rub as far as I am concerned, particularly in the old man/slime boy scenario. Hey guys, that's just me sayin.
Actually you can do much more than that. Treu you can't just shoot them for trying to steal your car but you can go out and confront them, If they attack you then you can shoot them but to say that you have to stand there and watch is wrong.
Confront them how? If they don't come after you, you can't do a darn thing. Call your local police dept and have them check with the city attorney, and then listen to their answer. That's what I did.
Seriously, if you have a legal loophole, let me know about it. I can't believe a thief can come into my driveway, steal something of that kind of value, that I worked so hard to get, and I am powerless to do something about it, other than to call 911, and hope that a cop just happens to be right around the corner when he gets the call.
I mean, the law is so wrong on this that it could be interpreted that even if you don't use a gun, and come after them with a baseball bat and hit them, THEY could sue YOU for Assault & Battery! How screwed up is that?
Hey Gov and FN: Reading the last few replies, a light bulb went off in my head when GOV complained that there was nothing he could do over the car theft scenario. In reality, if you feel you are good enough for it (armed with a big gun and very proficient at using it), there does not seem to be a reason why you should not be able to go outside and confront some slime with a "what the hell do you think you are doing?" It is your property and you, I would think, have a right to question someone who is fooling with your stuff. If the slime now turns on you and puts you in the "imminent danger" mode, you can defend yourself. I stand corrected on my previous comments. I believe the old man had every right to go outside and confront slime boy--it is his car and his property and by god he has a right to ask "what the hell do you think you are doing?"; I would think that this is the reason no charges were brought. If, as in this case, slime boy is slow to respond and does so in a manner that is a "reasonable" threat to "imminent danger", slime boy can suffer the consequences, which he did. YOU SHOULD AT LEAST CALL 911 AS A PRUDENT INITIAL EFFORT, and you should be aware that slime boy could be packin bigger than you and may be better at than you. Personally, "stuff" is not worth my life to find out that slime boy is indeed better at this "gun thing" than me, as I lie there dying.
SC law is good
I'm glad to hear SC has a sensible Castle Doctrine. I wish my state did. If legal in my state, I would have done exactly what the old man. If a BG sticks his hands in his pockets, instead of raising them high over his head, i would assume he is going for a weapon. I would have shoot him.
I'm glad to hear SC has a sensible Castle Doctrine. I wish my state did. If legal in my state, I would have done exactly what the old man. If a BG sticks his hands in his pockets, instead of raising them high over his head, i would assume he is going for a weapon. I would have shoot him.
I'm glad to hear SC has a sensible Castle Doctrine. I wish my state did. If legal in my state, I would have done exactly what the old man. If a BG sticks his hands in his pockets, instead of raising them high over his head, i would assume he is going for a weapon. I would have shoot him.
I would not shoot for putting his hands INTO his pockets (most likely)... but the hands better stay right there...
I mean, I suppose , if he was wearing cargo pants, or shorts... He MIGHT be able to turn and point a mouse gun within the pocket... but if he were wearing the current "style" I doubt he'd even be able to reach into his pockets without hiking up the pants first.
I would have called 911 on discovery of the kid rummaging in the truck. not for the initial noise.
Had the BG fled upon being discovered, things may have played out differently. But his noncompliance coupled with his felonious presence got him shot. I'm OK with that.
Me too, in working as an Expert Witness in Court, I would have been able to demonstrate the time it would have taken to pull and fire a mouse gun, from a pocket.
It might have been argued that the shooter did not know that at the time.
But the jury would have seen that, and of course listened to the Defense ask me self serving questions! The bad guys do it, why not an old guy. I mean the real bad guys.
Glad the perp got what was coming to him. So tired of thieves getting away with our hard earned goods just to make it to the drug dealer for a new high. For those "soft" on criminals, you just have not been stolen from enough or you would be ready to stop them also. Thieves are just parasites preying on those of us who try to make a living honestly. Property over life--then stop stealing and your life will not be in danger--simple solution.
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.
For those of you that aren't religious, you aren't going to like this, but TOO BAD. Deal with it!
I think I can clear up pretty quickly, in my words, why the law is written the way it is about " You can't take a life over "stuff" ". Most of our laws are based upon laws from the Old Testament, or at least old religious laws. The REAL reason, however, is the " Be patient, GOD isn't finished with me yet!" belief.
Young people especially make stupid decisions. They learn with experience. Killing a young person, even 19 years old, is awful. That person still has time to "turn around". And what would be in the car anyway that would justify taking someone's life?
This case is no more than an old man that is pissed off about the unchecked rush of crime in our country, and the liberal courts and justice system that let folks too easily. He wanted to "rid the streets of garbage", and took the law into his own hands. He murdered someone, as far as I'm concerned. And GOD wasn't finished with that young man yet.
Last edited:
Hey oakchas: I can understand not shooting someone for just not taking their hands out of or putting their hands into their pants pockets, but the bottom line in SC is that if a person is "forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle" the law presumes that I "have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury" and I can then "use deadly force" against that person. Bottom line in the cases that I can recall in SC---if you enter someone else's house forcefully you had better be prepared to get shot. The homeowner or resident should NOT have a burden of trying to figure out what the heck the individual has in mind or whether he has a gun or not--he is in your house illegally and you have a reasonable fear of who or what he is, what he is doing, and what he is doing it with; you can immediately defend yourself without reading Miranda or having a social conversation with the slimebucket.
This is one of those cases when we are discussing it that some are saying that he had a reason to shoot the kid while others are saying he had and excuse to shoot him. That is where some of us get caught up in the conflict. We can justify all day about whether or not the shooting was legal which in some people's minds doesn't mean one thing. In others it is the absolute difference. The old man made a decision based on his knowledge and shot the "kd'. What if he hed not, we will never know and we can argue all day about it. We were not there and we can run our mouths (and keyboards) about what we would or would not have done. We don't know.
I do think that too many of us get caught up in what is legal or not and base our actions on that. There is an actual case right now being argued on various boards about a fatal shooting. I don't know and have no magic insight but I firmly believe that the shooter may have felt that what he was doing was legal and was an excuse for his actions. I also believe that a jury will not excuse him for what he did but find that he made a bad decision.
I do think that too many of us get caught up in what is legal or not and base our actions on that. There is an actual case right now being argued on various boards about a fatal shooting. I don't know and have no magic insight but I firmly believe that the shooter may have felt that what he was doing was legal and was an excuse for his actions. I also believe that a jury will not excuse him for what he did but find that he made a bad decision.
I gotta agree with the investigate and call 911 crowd on this one. I don't have a problem with the man's actions but, in my situation, there are a few things to consider:
1) For all I know the BG could have just been mixed up and at the wrong house and have a legitimate reason to be there ("My buddy told me to come and get his hammer out of the back of his truck"). (However unlikely)
2) Do I want to live with the fact I took a life over stuff in the back of my truck? (Currently that would be two bungee cords, an old toilet seat, a bent lawnmower blade and an empty A&W Root Beer bottle). The rounds I'd use would likely cost more that the total value of that stuff, not to mention that the responding LEO would probably confiscate my weapon for evidence. I've had an LEO friend who killed a BG. He had a really hard time with the remorse.
3) If I shoot and miss, and the BG shoots back and kills me, my wife and baby are now defenseless. Plus, I'm dead. Neither is a good thing.
4) If I shoot and miss and the BG shoots back there are now bullets whizzing all over the place with my wife and baby in the house, and neighbors all over the place. Not good.
In short, the risk outweighs the reward for me. I come from the school of you use deadly force only if your life or your family is in danger (this includes the cat). Not for "stuff."
I don't want to judge the people in the OP's post. However, I'd investigate quietly (NEVER turn the light on inside the house to look out the window) and call the 911 if there is something to it. If I go outside to investigate my weapon is coming with me and if needed I'll shoot, but I'm not shooting someone over "stuff."
If they break into the house, that's another story that involves an undertaker.
1) For all I know the BG could have just been mixed up and at the wrong house and have a legitimate reason to be there ("My buddy told me to come and get his hammer out of the back of his truck"). (However unlikely)
2) Do I want to live with the fact I took a life over stuff in the back of my truck? (Currently that would be two bungee cords, an old toilet seat, a bent lawnmower blade and an empty A&W Root Beer bottle). The rounds I'd use would likely cost more that the total value of that stuff, not to mention that the responding LEO would probably confiscate my weapon for evidence. I've had an LEO friend who killed a BG. He had a really hard time with the remorse.
3) If I shoot and miss, and the BG shoots back and kills me, my wife and baby are now defenseless. Plus, I'm dead. Neither is a good thing.
4) If I shoot and miss and the BG shoots back there are now bullets whizzing all over the place with my wife and baby in the house, and neighbors all over the place. Not good.
In short, the risk outweighs the reward for me. I come from the school of you use deadly force only if your life or your family is in danger (this includes the cat). Not for "stuff."
I don't want to judge the people in the OP's post. However, I'd investigate quietly (NEVER turn the light on inside the house to look out the window) and call the 911 if there is something to it. If I go outside to investigate my weapon is coming with me and if needed I'll shoot, but I'm not shooting someone over "stuff."
If they break into the house, that's another story that involves an undertaker.
Hey SC Tiger: Your comments are perfect IMO. Someone is outside my home I call 911 and stay out of it. Someone is in my home, I call 911, I use my car alarm via the remote and I stay in my locked bedroom. It's all insured "stuff" and the perp may be a better shooter with a better gun than me--I am not going to get killed over insured "stuff". If he comes into my locked bedroom he will not be leaving the way he came in. Some of my previous comments only relate to what I understand is the SC Castle Doctrine Law and how it seems to have been used in SC. Quite frankly the case that started this thread never quite added up IMO. The old guy NEVER called 911 before he went outside and the truck was not forcibly entered and no one was in the truck--these facts IMO do not add up to Castle Doctrine. In any event the prosecutor declined to pursue the case. As a bystander in this case, via news reports, the dark side of me is kind of pleased that the perp got a good healthy taste of what he deserved.
I agree with charliej47 on some level. I've heard that "it's only stuff and replaceable". That may be true if you're insured out the wazoo or raking in a big paycheck. If you're less rich/fortunate, that stuff may be a major part of your life or livelyhood. At this time in Missouri, you can't use deadly force to prevent theft nor can you shoot at a retreating perp. I have pulled a couple of dumb face to face scenarios with potential theives and luckily came out on top each time. I also have develped a rep of always being armed and not being timid about the use of same. I have been ripped off, know who did it, and sent said person a word of mouth message of the consequences of another theft. Left him a note right on the door of the building they broke into. The guy threatened me with physical harm in front of witnesses so made himself fair game.
Hey Mobuck: I understand your comments on "stuff" and how hard you worked to accumulate it and how much it means to you and how outrageous it is for someone to just take it, but in the same breath, as I said in my last post, if you die trying to save the "stuff"--well that makes less sense to me; talking this up on a forum and doing battle with someone who may be better armed and better prepared than you, are two very different scenarios and although I can appreciate "ridding" this world of these slimy perps, shooting them in the back or saying hello and just firing away as they turn ( I doubt whether your or I are going to "face down" someone in our house mano y mano) IMO is not Castle Doctrine although in SC it probably is. Don't get me wrong--I'm all for making sure anyone who is a slimy perp being taught a "proper" lesson--I just do not think that is me.
Hey Scouse: The 19 year old was wounded but was not killed
Hey Scouse: The 19 year old was wounded but was not killed
All this talk about the importance of life. Where do we draw the line? The 19 year old is nothing more than a common thief and should be dealt like one. He has to know that other people's property isn't his, therefore he is nothing more than a common thief. He did not have respect for the property of another. I applauded the property owner. Harsh yes, was it the correct action, yes.
Hey Mobuck: I understand your comments on "stuff" and how hard you worked to accumulate it and how much it means to you and how outrageous it is for someone to just take it, but in the same breath, as I said in my last post, if you die trying to save the "stuff"--well that makes less sense to me; talking this up on a forum and doing battle with someone who may be better armed and better prepared than you, are two very different scenarios and although I can appreciate "ridding" this world of these slimy perps, shooting them in the back or saying hello and just firing away as they turn ( I doubt whether your or I are going to "face down" someone in our house mano y mano) IMO is not Castle Doctrine although in SC it probably is. Don't get me wrong--I'm all for making sure anyone who is a slimy perp being taught a "proper" lesson--I just do not think that is me.
Hey Scouse: The 19 year old was wounded but was not killed
Good lesson, even better all around that he did not die, home owner relieved, 19 year old has time to change his ways.
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-