Latest Castle Doctrine Shooting in SC--Sort of - Page 2

Latest Castle Doctrine Shooting in SC--Sort of

This is a discussion on Latest Castle Doctrine Shooting in SC--Sort of within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The owners should have called the police first and had them clear the home. This should have been avoided....

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Latest Castle Doctrine Shooting in SC--Sort of

  1. #16
    Member Array ponchsox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    472
    The owners should have called the police first and had them clear the home. This should have been avoided.


  2. #17
    Distinguished Member Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,967
    Home-owners are not free and clear yet. The solicitor is still deciding on whether or not to charge them.

  3. #18
    Distinguished Member Array kelcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    charleston, SC
    Posts
    1,876
    Hey phreddy: Obviously the prosecutor makes the final call. I would be surprised to find that charges are filed; the owners have every right to be in that house with no duty to retreat if they come across a trespasser who entered the house forcibly (it must have been locked)--that activates all aspects of SC law leading to actually shooting the trespasser. As said on several replies, this begged for a 911 call and police intervention as the only responsible and safe thing to do. Somehow I can possibly see that the owners of the house, being oriental, may have a very different take on whose responsibility it should be with regards to a home they own.

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414
    IANAL, but I like to play like one 'cause it irritates MitchellCT.

    Here's a thought for you:

    If the law actually says dwelling, the legal definition can mean: a structure where a person lives and especially sleeps.

    Castle Doctrine would apply if it was your dwelling, where you sleep.

    Stand Your Ground law(s) would apply in any place you have a right to be that wasn't your dwelling, with no duty to retreat.

    As for me, I'da called the law. Here's why:
    If the law finds a person dwelling in a vacant house I own, the person will be charged with a crime, I will (most likely) not. If I have the house insured, my insurance may pay any damages caused by the interloper (after a deductible). It is also possible that the victim compensation funds of some states may pay for any damages by the squatter.

    Something else to consider... What if the interloper was using your vacant house as a meth lab? (not infrequent or out of the realm of possibility). In some states, you could be charged with a "disorderly house" (not very likely but possible). You could have the house taken under seizure laws for drug activity (less likely, but stranger things have happened). By calling the law, you are doing everything in your power to make certain that any such activity is stopped, and CYA with LEO call and action.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array TedBeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bay City
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    IANAL, but I like to play like one 'cause it irritates MitchellCT.
    Now thats funny!

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array TedBeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bay City
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    IANAL, but I like to play like one 'cause it irritates MitchellCT.

    Here's a thought for you:

    If the law actually says dwelling, the legal definition can mean: a structure where a person lives and especially sleeps.

    Castle Doctrine would apply if it was your dwelling, where you sleep.

    Stand Your Ground law(s) would apply in any place you have a right to be that wasn't your dwelling, with no duty to retreat.

    As for me, I'da called the law. Here's why:
    If the law finds a person dwelling in a vacant house I own, the person will be charged with a crime, I will (most likely) not. If I have the house insured, my insurance may pay any damages caused by the interloper (after a deductible). It is also possible that the victim compensation funds of some states may pay for any damages by the squatter.

    Something else to consider... What if the interloper was using your vacant house as a meth lab? (not infrequent or out of the realm of possibility). In some states, you could be charged with a "disorderly house" (not very likely but possible). You could have the house taken under seizure laws for drug activity (less likely, but stranger things have happened). By calling the law, you are doing everything in your power to make certain that any such activity is stopped, and CYA with LEO call and action.
    Umm, unless trhe police come, find the meth lab, search to see who is resposible, (owner of house) and arrest the owner for running a meth lab. Does it matter what prompted the police to go to the house in the first place?

  7. #22
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    May be legal but real stupid. It was a VACANT house. Let the law handle it. I wouldn't want to lose a single nights sleep over some bum caught in one of my vacant rentals. Let the local PD take care of it....it's not like the guys gonna steal the house.
    You think one night wouldn't make a difference. I have seen what a homeless man can do to a house in one night like rip all the copper out of the walls and steal the a/c unit. They can destroy an interior of a home and cause lots of damage. A home is a home and you don’t invade it. A homeless man in it is going to fight when confronted; that’s the way of the street so I do believe that he was aggressive

  8. #23
    Distinguished Member Array kelcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    charleston, SC
    Posts
    1,876
    Hwy Oak: Good comment on "dwelling". It may not be Castle Doctrine (possible) but it is still my property and not the BG who forcibly entered my property. Try it in SC and see what happens to you. I'll tell you what will happen--you will receive a letter of commendation from the county sheriff or town police dept. As I said, you don't screw around with other people's property in SC. It is just one lower step than hanging a horse thief.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

can you shoot a trespasser in sc
,
castle doctrine in sc
,
castle doctrine iowa
,

castle doctrine sc

,

castle doctrine south carolina

,
castle law sc
,
castle law south carolina
,

sc castle doctrine

,
sc castle doctrine law
,
sc castle law
,

south carolina castle doctrine

,
south carolina castle law
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors