they circle, get in my face, hold onto my wife, and ask the usual questions concerning money. I am CC but they are right next to us. I fail to see an "out" other than submittal and possible loss of my CCW, if searched. Let's assume they have not shown any weapon other than their presence and numbers. Any comments?
My first comment is that you have no duty to retreat
- wait till you feel you are in imminent danger and see a weapon or they force their will (not uncomfortable)
- they have accosted your spouse
- your spouse cannot retreat
- retreat could mean surrender of your CCW
- retreat could mean increased danger to your spouse
- "Stand in the Shoes" doctrine (Defense of Others)
And as my friend tells me, better tried by twelve than carried by six.
I've been in two similar situations myself, but without my spouse.
A little background, I'm Vietnamese American and back then 5'8", ~160 lbs.
Once in downtown Atlanta where 2 men stopped me, another one about 2' behind them.
One grabbed my arm and the other blocked my path when I came off out of the metro.
The asked for money, spare change and I told them get off of me and out of my face.
Put my hand in my pocket and they backed off (don't know if they noticed or not).
Had this happen another time with my spouse but no one physically touched us.
Other situation was in a gas station store in North Georgia.
4 men surrounded me, blocked me from the counter as well as an exist.
Asked me what I was doing up here; looked them directly in the face and said hunting and camping.
They looked at my truck where I had a rifle in the gun rack (wife was there too).
They said cool and good luck and got out of my way.
Both situations I was very uncomfortable and intimidated, thought imminent danger, but saw no weapons or was forced against my will.
SLED is not the best source since they don't actively update their pages..
Link Removed
9. you need not retreat “if to do so would apparently increase danger.” State v. McGee, 185 S.C. 184, 190, 193 S.E. 303, 306 (1937).
South Carolina has adopted the so-called “alter-ego” rule with respect to the defense of others. In State v. Cook, 78 S.C. 253, 59 S.E. 862 (1907), the Court summarized this rule:
If you intervene on behalf of another, you will not be allowed the benefit of the plea of self-defense, unless that plea would have been available to the person you assisted if he himself had done the killing.
In other words, the person intervening is deemed to “stand in the shoes” of the person on whose behalf he is intervening. If that individual “had the right to defend himself, then the intervening party is also protected by that right. If, however, the party [victim] had no right to use force…then the intervening party will also assume the liability of the person on whose behalf he interfered.” McAninch and Fairey, p. 494.