Hwy 78 Ladson Shooting

[melloyello]

I am surprised this hasn't been shared with the group...

Link Removed

"Major Brady said the Castle Law, which states someone has the right to protect themself against an intruder, will apply in this case."

 

[rrman12280]

First I've heard of it. Based on the information provided in the news report, which isn't much, I would agree the Castle Law would apply. Some unanswered questions though.

I"m glad SC has the Castle Law.

 

[paguy]

I am sad that someone had to senselessly have his life taken away but, at the same time am glad that someone has stood up to be counted when they had to.

 

[The_Outlaw]

According to Major Jim Brady, with the Charleston County Sheriff's Office, the man who opened fire claimed he felt threatened when the man pulled up behind him in another car at the intersection, got out, and tried opening his door.

Note to all scumbags...
Do Not try to forcefully open another persons vehicle at 4 in the morning while the person is still inside said vehicle.
You may end up getting shot.

 

[Keykutter]

This has been here on USAC the day it happened.

The dead guys Grandmother has come forward telling the world he has always been a troubled person. He has been in a lot of crap since day one and she is not surprised he died the way he did.

The guy who he was with drove away after the shooting. Tell me they weren't up to no good!

KK

 

[wallyb]

I learned something new from this. I did not know that a "castle law" protected you inside a vehicle. I have to make sure Ohio law is similar.

 

[jhodge83]

I learned something new from this. I did not know that a "castle law" protected you inside a vehicle. I have to make sure Ohio law is similar.

for SC:

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.


Definitely a state by state thing.

 

[jhodge83]

also, here is the previous discussion on this...

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/deadly-force-law/23817-last-carjacking.html

 

[melloyello]

Sorry I didn't mean to repeat the posting, I usually don't browse the main categories.
I just like to keep up with things within our state.

I was under the impression the BG had to cross the Castle threshold, i.e. get into the car, break the glass, etc.

 

[jhodge83]

Sorry I didn't mean to repeat the posting, I usually don't browse the main categories.
I just like to keep up with things within our state.

I was under the impression the BG had to cross the Castle threshold, i.e. get into the car, break the glass, etc.

i think in these situations it gets somewhat gray. he was in his car and had no reason to retreat, but the law also says he can use deadly force to prevent death, great bodily injury, or a violent crime. knowing he was about to be atleast car jacked could fit in there and also assuming that the BG would cause bodily harm to him during or after the car jacking. it would be a decision by the sheriff and in this case he sided with the shooter. the BGs past doesnt help his situation.

 

[Foxhound]

Good for him. Even if it turns out there's something else to the story , that's one more BG we don't have to watch out for.

 

[melloyello]

i think in these situations it gets somewhat gray. he was in his car and had no reason to retreat, but the law also says he can use deadly force to prevent death, great bodily injury, or a violent crime. knowing he was about to be atleast car jacked could fit in there and also assuming that the BG would cause bodily harm to him during or after the car jacking. it would be a decision by the sheriff and in this case he sided with the shooter. the BGs past doesnt help his situation.

Totally agreed and I am very glad that the law supported him.

However, I think that there is another law that might is more applicable.
There was one with regards to events after dark in James Island last year...
Link Removed

SECTION 17-13-20. Additional circumstances where citizens may arrest; means to be used.

A citizen may arrest a person in the nighttime by efficient means as the darkness and the probability of escape render necessary, even if the life of the person should be taken, when the person:

(a) has committed a felony;
(b) has entered a dwelling house without express or implied permission;
(c) has broken or is breaking into an outhouse with a view to plunder;
(d) has in his possession stolen property; or
(e) being under circumstances which raise just suspicion of his design to steal or to commit some felony, flees when he is hailed.

Section 17-13-20-e is what I am referencing.

This section is much more broad than Castle Doctrine when events occur after dark.

Regardless, BZ for the Good Guys!!!