S.C. Stand your Ground

This is a discussion on S.C. Stand your Ground within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; COLUMBIA, SC: S.C. Supreme Court puts some limits on state “Stand Your Ground” law | Crime | The State...

Results 1 to 11 of 11
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By Manderinobyebye
  • 1 Post By GeorgiaDawg
  • 1 Post By Manderinobyebye

Thread: S.C. Stand your Ground

  1. #1

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,148
    WHERE does the press get this notion that SYG allows deadly force as "a first resort?"

    No SYG law I have seen allows for deadly force because one "feels" threatened.... Most of them apply the same "reasonable man" language that any justifiable homicide law has.

    It (SYG) ONLY precludes the duty to retreat. So, if I "feel" threatened by an idiot with skittles, canned juice, and a pool noodle, I can't shoot him under SYG. Once, however, he is on top of me, having dropped his aforementioned accoutrement, and beating my head into the pavement, SYG no longer applies, but I can shoot him in self defense.

    Under the latter circumstance, it is quite possible, even in a SYG state, that I may be incarcerated while I await trial.

    Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
    It could be worse.
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams
    "A gun is kind of like a parachute. If you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again".

  4. #3
    Ex Member Array Manderinobyebye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,029
    If i can avoid a situation and not have to use my gun i will. If i have to use deadly force to protect myself i am.I will just have to deal with whatever happens after that.
    BlackStallion29 likes this.

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    After reading the article, I'm not exactly sure what limits were put on the SYG law. I see where the court said that someone denied immunity from SYG can appeal but only after the trial and that if someone is granted immunity that the prosecution can appeal that ruling.

    It sounds like it affects the process for granting, denying, and appealing an immunity ruling rather than changing who has a right to claim immunity under SYG.

    Perhaps I'm just not getting it?
    Manderinobyebye likes this.
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

    “The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand

  6. #5
    Ex Member Array Manderinobyebye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,029
    Honestly GeorgiaDawg,i don't either.That's one reason i said i will do what i think i have to.I love breathing and not ready for the dirt hotel.I will cross that bridge when i get to it.
    GeorgiaDawg likes this.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array Brent95's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    S.C.
    Posts
    699
    You said it M&pgrl.We have to protect ourselves and do what we think is best and whatever happens after that,happens.Hopefully,none of us will ever have to find out.

  8. #7
    Member Array EdJean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaDawg View Post
    Perhaps I'm just not getting it?
    Same here. The article title is very misleading.

    What's up with a criminal claiming SYG, killing someone while attempting to rob his home. Now in Great Britain, yes, the criminals have more rights then the law-abiding citizen.


    PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY

    SECTION 16-11-410. Citation of article.

    This article may be cited as the "Protection of Persons and Property Act".

    HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.

    SECTION 16-11-420. Intent and findings of General Assembly.

    (A) It is the intent of the General Assembly 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.

    (B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.

    (C) The General Assembly finds that Section 20, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed.

    (D) The General Assembly finds that persons residing in or visiting this State have a right to expect to remain unmolested and safe within their homes, businesses, and vehicles.

    (E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack.

    HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.

    SECTION 16-11-430. Definitions.

    As used in this article, the term:

    (1) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including an attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging there at night.

    (2) "Great bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.

    (3) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

    (4) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

    HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.

    SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.

    (A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

    (1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

    (2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

    (B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:

    (1) against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or

    (2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used; or

    (3) who uses deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

    (4) against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.

    (C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

    (D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

    (E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder.

    HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.

    SECTION 16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions; law enforcement officer exception; costs.

    (A) A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, 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 that the person is a law enforcement officer.

    (B) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of deadly force as described in subsection (A), but the agency may not arrest the person for using deadly force unless probable cause exists that the deadly force used was unlawful.

    (C) The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of a civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (A).

    HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.

  9. #8
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,088
    The bottom line to SYG laws - no matter how the so-called "news" media spin it - is that a person who is legally entitled to be where they are has no duty to retreat if threatened, even if they are not on their own property.

    As Alan Korwin has pointed out numerous times, we need to overcome the misleading language of the Left in order to level the public relations playing field. The libs love to call it "Stand Your Ground"; I would encourage those of us here to call it "No Duty To Retreat".
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

  10. #9
    Distinguished Member Array BlackStallion29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    1,531
    I'm looking into having another back surgery, and since I can't run, duty to retreat is out of the question. I will SYG as long as I can. I'll die for something I believe in before I let some hoodlum take me out without a fight...gun fight that is.
    "Everybody gets knocked down in life. How you choose to get back up is up to you!"
    *NRA* *BFA*
    *GOA* *SAF*
    *NAGR*

  11. #10
    Member Array flphotog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clearwater,FL
    Posts
    305
    I'm certainly not bad lawyer but it seems to me that in this case the count completely ignored the facts of the case and made a general ruling about SYG when they should have basically just laughed this case out the front door and down the steps. The idea of a home invader using SYG as a defense is just ludacris.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,331
    Quote Originally Posted by gasmitty View Post
    The bottom line to SYG laws - no matter how the so-called "news" media spin it - is that a person who is legally entitled to be where they are has no duty to retreat if threatened, even if they are not on their own property.

    As Alan Korwin has pointed out numerous times, we need to overcome the misleading language of the Left in order to level the public relations playing field. The libs love to call it "Stand Your Ground"; I would encourage those of us here to call it "No Duty To Retreat".
    I call it "Not Required To Lay On The Ground."
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

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

sc court limits self defense law

Click on a term to search for related topics.