And...to steal a line fom Brad Pitt in the movie "Seven" when he was talking to co star Kevin Spacey "When you are sitting around reading your guns and ammo magazine and masturbating in your own feces, do you ever stop and wonder just how insane you are?" piss in your own jug jackass! Are you a troll?
The interesting thing is that no one, on here or in the paper, seemed outraged by
1. 14 year old - professional thief, then "sure" like that's the norm.
2. How do you know? Why would the specific comment about him being to scared to aim at the grass come up?
3. Raised by his older brother (one of eight children), not by his mother... A brother who thinks it is normal that the 14 year old is a "professional thief", and proud that he is scared of guns.
-
-Do I think we know the whole story? no.
-Do I think he overreacted? not enough info.
-Did the kid look 14 in the photo? maybe, but he looked like a 14yr old wannabe thug. At 2am this would be amplified.
-Would I be more concerned with his age or his actions a 2am in my fenced yard? hmmm.
-Would I go outside to confront him? probably not, but if my dog was barking his head off I would probably want to know why, which might lead to a confrontation.
-If he saw me and then reached for something (considering he didn't run away when the dog started barking) would I shoot? I would give a verbal command of some sort depending on the situation. "stop!", "hands up!" something. but I would definitely be drawn and on target. His non-compliance while on my property inside my fence at 2am would probably force my hand.
-
There was no way for the homeowner to know that the kid was unarmed, just like there was no way for the homeowner to know that he had a criminal record.
This may have something to do with why the homeowner reacted the way he did. Not sayin' it couldn't or shouldn't have been handled better.
Do you always rely on news stories to bring truth into your life?
Sent from my NSA screened Smartphone
Not always, but hey, while we are still at it....Here's yet another recent example;
ABC says it's reviewing arrest of UVa student who bought bottled water - The Daily Progress: Local
So either shoot or sell my firearm? The civil liability is federal, for which SC law cannot interfere. Show me any book or curriculum that says shoot a trespasser and I'll accept it. That's the person who needs to surrender their firearm. There are people in this world, myself included, who would destroy your life, your family, your assets and your kids financial futures for shooting my family member over trespass. You gotta believe I'm only limited by my own imagination. And everything would be legal. I never go away. My sole purpose to financially destroy such a person.Several comments:
1. Yes there are lawyers and $$ and everything else under the sun when it comes to this asylum known as the US. A good shoot has absolution of any civil liability in the State of SC. That does not mean you cannot sue. Then again, if this is your basis for deciding what to do, then I would advise selling your firearm--in this asylum literally anything you will do with your firearm will get you into court one way or another so the argument on a "large price to pay" will come up regardless of anything you do short of letting the BG get his way.
2. Liberals? Antigunners?--SC is a very very red state. Its governor will support any and all bills designed to increase the ability to own and use a firearm for self defense. Heck if it ever got passed she would support OC. BTW during the big hooha over Sandy Hook, SC was debating extension of CC to include restaurants/bars. We also have a tax-free weekend for the purchase of firearms--so much for anti-gunners.
So either shoot or sell my firearm? The civil liability is federal, for which SC law cannot interfere. Show me any book or curriculum that says shoot a trespasser and I'll accept it. That's the person who needs to surrender their firearm. There are people in this world, myself included, who would destroy your life, your family, your assets and your kids financial futures for shooting my family member over trespass. You gotta believe I'm only limited by my own imagination. And everything would be legal. I never go away. My sole purpose to financially destroy such a person.
.
In the end you shot a trespasser. Not a dangerous person. Not a person who posed imminent harm or a deadly threat. A trespasser. You lose.
.
"This man wanted to shoot me down... over NOTHIN. He lost"... Kevin Costner; Wyatt Earp.
So either shoot or sell my firearm? The civil liability is federal, for which SC law cannot interfere.
I still believe the home owner is in trouble. He should have stayed inside and called police then continued watching the thief. If you run outside after someone you better be sure he has a gun before you shoot. But to be honest if you can avoid a confrontation then you should. Let police handle it. The thief was no threat to him as long as he stayed in the house. I believe he will lose his CCW permit and do some jail time. He had the chance to avoid confrontation by staying inside but chose to go outside and shoot the guy. Not a good choice. He could have let the dog out after the thief also. Your weapon is to protect your life or lives of others, not property.
I do not understand why the homeowner should be in trouble. Did the homeowner invite this guy on HIS property and then shoot him? All this talk on what the homeowner could have done to prevent this does not make sense to me. The trespasser could have and should have avoided all this by staying on his side of the fence.
I think this kid is a problem and you never know what his true intentions were - most likely no good. However, here is the 'real' legal aspect of this. In order to shoot to kill, the shooter may only use deadly force if he "reasonably" believes he is in danger and will suffer "severe" bodily injury or life threatening injury. Or you can use deadly force in the instances of rape, arson, or robbery. Protection of an inanimate object does not afford the shooter any protection under 'self defense' or 'make my day' laws. Now, everyone has their own personal belief of what is reasonable, but it comes down to what is reasonable to the "normal" majority of the population. Since this kid was outside the house and unarmed (irrelevant here), I'm guessing this guy will not get away with a self defense plea because he had the option of returning to his home and locking his door. If this kid broke into through the locked door, then this story would be different. Hey, I'm all for self defense, but just because you own a gun, doesn't give you the right to shoot to kill. Sorry but any idiot can own a gun, but gun ownership comes with a lot of responsibility and you must always be able to think clearly and act justifiably.
PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT
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.
I do agree with your last sentence. As such it is your responsibility to be familiar with the laws in your state, as they are very different. For you to make a blanket statement that "that's illegal" or "you can't do that" is also irresponsible. For example, here is the SC law:
When the kid reached for something in his pants, game over. You don't have to wait until he shoots at you. Good form would be to issue a verbal command such as "show me your hands" or something just so you can more easily articulate why you were forced to shoot. The phrase in this law "to prevent...a violent crime" could be simple battery. The fact that he was on the guys property inside a fence changes the whole ball game.
With that intro, let me state that in my SC class we were told "You never use deadly force to protect property." Element (3) of the above quote of SC's law specifies "a violent crime. This was not a violent crime...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?