Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > General Topics > Concealed Carry & Self Defense
o

Notices

Concealed Carry & Self Defense All aspects of Concealed and Open Carry, Home and Self Defense.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-05-2016, 03:21 AM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 30,907
Likes: 41,495
Liked 29,149 Times in 13,779 Posts
Default There were several shootings...

There were the usual shootings and burglaries in our area today, but one that caught my eye was a burglar that got into a man's house and was surprised by the man and chased out of his house. But when he was running away, he turned and fired shots at the man. That pretty much seals it for me. No "What are you doing here?" or "Get out of my house". The only 'surprise' an intruder is going to get is when he's blacking out due to loss of blood.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-05-2016, 08:09 AM
rjm6120's Avatar
rjm6120 rjm6120 is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Xtrm Northern KY
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 5,506
Liked 2,898 Times in 653 Posts
Default

I understand your position, RW, and I assure you I think these scum deserve exactly that fate, but I highly suggest you make sure that SC laws support deadly force in a protection of property/B & E scenario (if you haven't already of course!). If you or your family members are facing imminent injury or worse, then fine but if not I'd hate to see you get in major trouble and losing everything you've worked hard for if you don't check the legalities of your new P & P!! Some jurisdictions' laws are REAL cloudy about these kinds of scenarios.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-05-2016, 08:41 AM
Decker Decker is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 336
Likes: 9
Liked 312 Times in 125 Posts
Default

rjm, the incident described in the OP was that the perp had actually broken into and was IN the man's house.

Castle Law or not, there isn't a Grand Jury in America that would even let this go to court if the homeowner had fatally "stopped" the intruder even if the intruder was unarmed (when an intruder forces his way into your home, you MUST assume that he is ARMED and therefore deadly dangerous).

I cheer everytime I here another one of these thugs killed by a citizen defender, not because I wish death on anyone, but because I know that for every crime a perp is caught committing, he has committed dozens before that and will continue to victimize people until he is stopped permanently.

So I don't ponder the death of a thug, I instead ponder the lives of upstanding citizens that won't be affected by that thug in the future.

I never want to be the person pulling the trigger on a thug. I maintain situational awareness to avoid that (read "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin deBecker).
I just like to sit on the sidelines while other people do the hard work of ridding thugs from the world that I would rather not do myself (but most assuredly would if forced to by an attacking thug).

Last edited by Decker; 01-05-2016 at 08:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-05-2016, 08:49 AM
Old cop Old cop is online now
US Veteran
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 4,206
Liked 15,129 Times in 4,142 Posts
Default

Sage advise in Post #2. In some jurisdictions if the bad guy is running away, i.e. not posing an immediate threat, then using deadly force can land you in a world of legal trouble.
__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-05-2016, 09:08 AM
rjm6120's Avatar
rjm6120 rjm6120 is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Xtrm Northern KY
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 5,506
Liked 2,898 Times in 653 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker View Post
rjm, the incident described in the OP was that the perp had actually broken into and was IN the man's house.

Castle Law or not, there isn't a Grand Jury in America that would even let this go to court if the homeowner had fatally "stopped" the intruder even if the intruder was unarmed (when an intruder forces his way into your home, you MUST assume that he is ARMED and therefore deadly dangerous).

I cheer everytime I here another one of these thugs killed by a citizen defender, not because I wish death on anyone, but because I know that for every crime a perp is caught committing, he has committed dozens before that and will continue to victimize people until he is stopped permanently.

So I don't ponder the death of a thug, I instead ponder the lives of upstanding citizens that won't be affected by that thug in the future.

I never want to be the person pulling the trigger on a thug. I maintain situational awareness to avoid that (read "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin deBecker).
I just like to sit on the sidelines while other people do the hard work of ridding thugs from the world that I would rather not do myself (but most assuredly would if forced to by an attacking thug).
Decker, I agree with everything you said about what the fate of these ne'er-do-wells should be, (I'll cheer right beside you), and that they have undoubtedly victimized a number of people, etc., etc.
I don't know if South Carolina has a castle doctrine or not, if they do then there's not an issue, of course. I do know there are places that don't have one and I was merely suggesting to RW that if SC is not one of those locales (I guess I would be surprised if they did not have this), to be fully informed. A call to the sheriff's office and/or county attorney is all that's needed.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #6  
Old 01-05-2016, 10:10 AM
HalfStack's Avatar
HalfStack HalfStack is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,063
Likes: 0
Liked 526 Times in 288 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old cop View Post
Sage advise in Post #2. In some jurisdictions if the bad guy is running away, i.e. not posing an immediate threat, then using deadly force can land you in a world of legal trouble.
That's the point to consider so be sure of the law in your state in using deadly force. If the perp is running away with your property then it changes so see the law concerning that fact.
__________________
_It was love at first shot_
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #7  
Old 01-05-2016, 11:33 AM
bigwheelzip's Avatar
bigwheelzip bigwheelzip is offline
Absent Comrade
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 12,990
Likes: 17,229
Liked 41,503 Times in 9,146 Posts
Default

The OP's scenario was recently played out, in his town. I can find no mention of any repercussion to the "Castle Defender" even though it appears he initiated the exchange by firing through the back door.

South Carolina Boy, 13, Fatally Shoots Burglar, Scares Off Second Suspect: Police - NBC News
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #8  
Old 01-05-2016, 11:39 AM
Jhamblen86 Jhamblen86 is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 141
Likes: 140
Liked 145 Times in 52 Posts
Default

To anyone on the thread who decides to make a post based on assumptions. Please remember, everything you say on the the internet CAN be used against you in a court of law. Tread lightly and carefully here with the subject matter. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it can be used to make you the bad guy.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-05-2016, 12:13 PM
dougb1946 dougb1946 is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Southern MN
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 159
Liked 1,949 Times in 725 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker View Post
rjm, the incident described in the OP was that the perp had actually broken into and was IN the man's house.

Castle Law or not, there isn't a Grand Jury in America that would even let this go to court if the homeowner had fatally "stopped" the intruder even if the intruder was unarmed (when an intruder forces his way into your home, you MUST assume that he is ARMED and therefore deadly dangerous).

I cheer everytime I here another one of these thugs killed by a citizen defender, not because I wish death on anyone, but because I know that for every crime a perp is caught committing, he has committed dozens before that and will continue to victimize people until he is stopped permanently.

So I don't ponder the death of a thug, I instead ponder the lives of upstanding citizens that won't be affected by that thug in the future.

I never want to be the person pulling the trigger on a thug. I maintain situational awareness to avoid that (read "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin deBecker).
I just like to sit on the sidelines while other people do the hard work of ridding thugs from the world that I would rather not do myself (but most assuredly would if forced to by an attacking thug).
Actually this is wrong. In MN you have a duty to retreat if possible.
Man in MN had two misguided youths into his home and shot them. They broke a window to enter. He killed them. He will die in prison. They were unarmed and posed no physical threat to him. Granted, he did bias the jury pool when he admitted to putting one "out of her misery" when the first shot only incapacitated her
What you feel is right might be illegal.

Last edited by dougb1946; 01-05-2016 at 12:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Like Post:
  #10  
Old 01-05-2016, 12:39 PM
BigBlueSix's Avatar
BigBlueSix BigBlueSix is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 93
Likes: 7
Liked 43 Times in 20 Posts
Default

I always find these exchanges very interesting, if only to weigh other people's opinions and presumed actions on these matters against my own. I think we have a duty and responsibility to know where our "line" is.

For instance if I'm walking down the street and a mugger wants my wallet - He gets my wallet. Nothing in there worth a human life... even that particular human.

But if you're in my home, bets are off. Shoot first, ask questions later. This is easy for me. I have no kids, no close family and my wife and I agree, no engineered "surprises" that could lead to tragedy.

In this case the "fleeing" perp fired shots demonstrating clear intent to do you great bodily harm in your home. You shoot to kill. Castle Doctrine applies where enacted, but many other common sense statutes apply where an overarching Castle Doctrine is not in force.

I live in a wonderful, diverse neighborhood with amazing neighbors and a tight sense of community. We are bordered by communities, in which live people of all stripes who do not have such respect for community. The possibility of waking up to someone illegally in my home is what I consider the most likely of all self-defense scenarios I may find myself in. I am mentally prepared to do what needs to be done in that case. And I pray vehemently I am never put in that position.
BBSix
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #11  
Old 01-05-2016, 02:20 PM
rjm6120's Avatar
rjm6120 rjm6120 is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Xtrm Northern KY
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 5,506
Liked 2,898 Times in 653 Posts
Default

This thread prodded me to double check the Kentucky Revised Statutes on this matter---a refresher never hurts to make sure one knows/understands the law correctly! In short, in Kentucky we have no duty to retreat and...
"503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle --
Exceptions.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or
great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is
intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of
unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a
dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was
attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling,
residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an
unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had
occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or
is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner,
lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from
domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against
that person;
(b) The person 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 defensive force is used;
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is
using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful
activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer, as
defined in KRS 446.010, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling,
residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties, and the
officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or
the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person
entering or attempting to enter was a peace officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any
other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right
to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or
she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm
to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving
the use of force.
(4) 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 violence."
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Created 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 2, effective July 12, 2006.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #12  
Old 01-05-2016, 09:20 PM
Smoke's Avatar
Smoke Smoke is offline
US Veteran
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,462
Likes: 3,179
Liked 7,840 Times in 2,818 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker View Post
Castle Law or not, there isn't a Grand Jury in America that would even let this go to court if the homeowner had fatally "stopped" the intruder even if the intruder was unarmed (when an intruder forces his way into your home, you MUST assume that he is ARMED and therefore deadly dangerous).
What school did you get your law degree at?
__________________
Retired Career Security Guard
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #13  
Old 01-05-2016, 09:36 PM
Gamecock's Avatar
Gamecock Gamecock is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SC
Posts: 3,533
Likes: 589
Liked 3,637 Times in 1,627 Posts
Default

'Davidson and two others teenagers, 18-year old Lloyd Ryan Jeffries, of Gaffney, and an unidentified 16-year old, entered the business at 3 am and robbed the employees. Investigators say that as the three suspects began to leave, two employees at the business, who were armed with guns, exchanged fire with the teenagers and all three teens shot as well as one employee.'

Davidson's family complained that "he was shot in the back!"

The solicitor responded, "So?"

The solicitor was Trey Gowdy.
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Like Post:
  #14  
Old 01-05-2016, 09:42 PM
DevilDog72's Avatar
DevilDog72 DevilDog72 is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mansfield, Texas
Posts: 1,528
Likes: 11,499
Liked 2,888 Times in 947 Posts
Default

for me, a perp shoots in my direction, well..... I shoot back.... easy
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #15  
Old 01-05-2016, 10:01 PM
andyo5's Avatar
andyo5 andyo5 is offline
Member
There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Posts: 2,370
Likes: 497
Liked 943 Times in 518 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwsmith View Post
The only 'surprise' an intruder is going to get is when he's blacking out due to loss of blood.
Better discuss this with your lawyer or someone else familiar with the laws of your state. If the crook is trying to run away and you shoot him, you may be prosecuted for murder. It is a dicey situation since, as you pointed out, he could turn around and take some shots at you. If he is still in possession of a weapon when you shoot him, that may mitigate in your favor. But if he is unarmed when shot, you might be in deep doo-doo.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #16  
Old 01-05-2016, 10:29 PM
model70hunter's Avatar
model70hunter model70hunter is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sante Fe Trail, Kansas
Posts: 5,350
Likes: 14,441
Liked 6,562 Times in 2,597 Posts
Default

Remember boot camp or Basic, even the Scouts, be prepared. Look ahead, have your plan of action thought out before hand, your reaction must be the best one for the given scenario.

When someone surprises you in a robbery there probably will only be milliseconds to decide if they will take the wallet and run, but then recently robbers have received the money and shot the victim dead anyway, re the ex world champ boxer in Atlanta.

Your actions can be pre programmed into your head before you get out of the car, go into a dark parking garage or walk into your own home.

I know about it taking milliseconds, 3 times I have been the robbery target, none were successful. None were shot, 2 were given an option to take it further. I saw all 3 approaching before they got to me. My reaction was not what they expected and they were put on the defensive.

All 3 happened in large cities, after dark. My wife was with me on 1, a niece on another and a friend on the first one. All wondered how I reacted so quickly. Again I had prepared mentally before the incident even happened.

3 deer seasons ago as we were returning from Missouri after the season our neighbor called, a deranged person killed a single woman and her 3 children at the end of our block, the PD was looking for him in the neighbor hood. Our house had not been searched. I took my Maglite and checked out the windows from an angle on all 4 sides, the PD was going door to door. I had my 1911 loaded with self defense loads ready, thumb under the safety. I unlocked the door, yes I did have this training as an LE, I opened the door from the side and then I sent in my 2 Labs. I love them and would not want them hurt but they ran around and did not bark. I then went thru the house while my wife waited in the truck.

I was still holding my 1911 next to my leg when the PD guys came up, I said my house is clear. They looked at the 45, nodded and said thanks then moved to another house. The guy had taken her car and was arrested in another city a few hours later.

Why do I prep myself? As an LE I knew we were always called after the incident. In the 3 robbery attempts there wasn't any LE there to stop it.

One has to be ready at all times. Why did I go in my house knowing there may have been a suspected mass murderer inside?

Well it is my house and I was prepared.

In today's environment it probably is best not to say what one might do and it may be construed as intent. I did what I had to in the past. Going forward I may just hand over the fake wallet that has a couple of 1's sticking out.

Until the moment arrives one cannot forecast what actions one will take. Just be prepared and that includes several different scenarios.

I'm not a Dr of Jurisprudence but, it would behoove one to only shoot if you felt threatened, if the thief runs let them go. There are now policemen charged for shooting runners in the back.

OK, how many of you have a plan each time you walk to your car or walk into a store? Better get busy. Your millisecond may happen at anytime. It is not paranoia it is called planning.

Last edited by model70hunter; 01-06-2016 at 12:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-05-2016, 11:57 PM
Gamecock's Avatar
Gamecock Gamecock is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SC
Posts: 3,533
Likes: 589
Liked 3,637 Times in 1,627 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueSix View Post

For instance if I'm walking down the street and a mugger wants my wallet - He gets my wallet. Nothing in there worth a human life... even that particular human.
You have no legal duty to do otherwise. So if he kills the next person he mugs, it's not your problem.

It is good to resist crime, else crime persists. You don't have to, but it is not virtuous as you believe.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #18  
Old 01-06-2016, 12:22 AM
moosedog moosedog is online now
SWCA Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,851
Likes: 11,782
Liked 13,762 Times in 3,346 Posts
Default

Those magic words that you say after conferring with your lawyer.........

"I was fearing for my life"
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #19  
Old 01-06-2016, 12:47 AM
BC38's Avatar
BC38 BC38 is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 13,475
Likes: 1,145
Liked 18,398 Times in 7,280 Posts
Default

The way I read the OP, the homeowner chased the burglar from the home and as the burglar was fleeing he (the burglar) fired shots at the homeowner. In what jurisdiction is shooting BACK in self defense at a burglar who is shooting at YOU (even as he retreats) considered unjustified?

Sure, if the burglar just runs away, shooting at him is unjustified - there's no threat to you or yours. But if the criminal is shooting at you? Even if he's running away and TURNS to shoot at you, the threat is real and immediate. You are totally justified in returning fire. How could you not be?

Did I misunderstand something?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #20  
Old 01-06-2016, 01:13 AM
Decker Decker is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 336
Likes: 9
Liked 312 Times in 125 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke View Post
What school did you get your law degree at?
Refer to post #11..."The Law".
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-06-2016, 02:46 AM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 30,907
Likes: 41,495
Liked 29,149 Times in 13,779 Posts
Default I've checked....

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjm6120 View Post
I understand your position, RW, and I assure you I think these scum deserve exactly that fate, but I highly suggest you make sure that SC laws support deadly force in a protection of property/B & E scenario (if you haven't already of course!). If you or your family members are facing imminent injury or worse, then fine but if not I'd hate to see you get in major trouble and losing everything you've worked hard for if you don't check the legalities of your new P & P!! Some jurisdictions' laws are REAL cloudy about these kinds of scenarios.
In SC we have a 'duty to retreat' in an attack but in the home we have the 'castle doctrine'. In the past that meant the police came and determined whoever it was that broke in and calling self defense, don't pursue it further. You can be questioned or beat with rubber hoses, but around here if somebody has broken into your home, it never goes further.

It's a bit like the law that says if you hit somebody from behind in your car, it's YOUR fault no matter what and circumstances have to be REALLY in your favor to get out from under this, and they will still probably say it's you're fault.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Last edited by rwsmith; 01-06-2016 at 02:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #22  
Old 01-06-2016, 02:52 AM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 30,907
Likes: 41,495
Liked 29,149 Times in 13,779 Posts
Default Yep....

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwheelzip View Post
The OP's scenario was recently played out, in his town. I can find no mention of any repercussion to the "Castle Defender" even though it appears he initiated the exchange by firing through the back door.

South Carolina Boy, 13, Fatally Shoots Burglar, Scares Off Second Suspect: Police - NBC News
In SC it usually plays out this way. Everybody go home, there's nothing to see here. Back to business as usual. Don't step on the body on the way out.

There are some things NOT to like in this state, but laws concerning guns and HD are straightforward.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Last edited by rwsmith; 01-06-2016 at 02:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-06-2016, 09:33 AM
Gamecock's Avatar
Gamecock Gamecock is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SC
Posts: 3,533
Likes: 589
Liked 3,637 Times in 1,627 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwsmith View Post
In SC we have a 'duty to retreat' in an attack but in the home we have the 'castle doctrine'. In the past that meant the police came and determined whoever it was that broke in and calling self defense, don't pursue it further. You can be questioned or beat with rubber hoses, but around here if somebody has broken into your home, it never goes further.
No, sir. You have no duty to retreat if you are where you have the right to be:

'SECTION 16-11-440
(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.'

Castle Doctrine extends beyond the castle walls!
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #24  
Old 01-06-2016, 09:45 AM
Ranger17's Avatar
Ranger17 Ranger17 is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Back in WI
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 624
Liked 1,845 Times in 837 Posts
Default

in the 6 years we lived in SC, seems every time there was a civilian involved shooting there were not any charges brought against them where protection came into play (whether in their home, work, etc). So while i was just getting into gun ownership at the time it did seem the state was behind the victim and not the criminal.

That said, taking into account the OP's location; my one concern (only speaking hypothetically of course) would be shooting someone running away if it went to a jury trial. Those in the peer group may have somewhat skewed opinions, based on the officer involved shooting last spring that took on national coverage.
Never been part of a jury trial so not speaking from experience, only wondering out loud if public perception there for shooting someone from behind could affect a civilian case.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #25  
Old 01-06-2016, 04:01 PM
model70hunter's Avatar
model70hunter model70hunter is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sante Fe Trail, Kansas
Posts: 5,350
Likes: 14,441
Liked 6,562 Times in 2,597 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger17 View Post
in the 6 years we lived in SC, seems every time there was a civilian involved shooting there were not any charges brought against them where protection came into play (whether in their home, work, etc). So while i was just getting into gun ownership at the time it did seem the state was behind the victim and not the criminal.

That said, taking into account the OP's location; my one concern (only speaking hypothetically of course) would be shooting someone running away if it went to a jury trial. Those in the peer group may have somewhat skewed opinions, based on the officer involved shooting last spring that took on national coverage.
Never been part of a jury trial so not speaking from experience, only wondering out loud if public perception there for shooting someone from behind could affect a civilian case.
Juries, one never knows how they will perceive trial information. Most servers are ignorant of the law. Many believe if a person is arrested and charged they are guilty. Peer groups may be the worst case scenario if you are innocent.

I've served twice and my wife once. We discussed after the trials of course, how some folks act. Some don't want to make a decision either way for fear of being wrong. Some don't understand what went on in the courtroom and some biased their own mind before listening to witnesses.

Some had to have the court record of a witness read over and over yet still heard it different than the other 11 folks.

A hole in the back might only work today if they were going for your spouse/child. If they are going for the door and there was not a capitol crime committed it would be in your best interest to let them flee.

If you are threatened, decision time. I am now older and gray headed. My appearance may make me look like a target but I'm prepared.

Think it out clearly today so you will be ready if it happens.

Go over action plans for your family. Ok I did this with wife and daughter. They, thinking it would never happen to them, only half fast listened. My daughter worked at a bank in HS and through Masters in college. I told her if a robbery happens faint, drop and never move. Beautiful blondes don't do well as hostages. Luckily it never happened.

My wife, bless her, I went over some defensive plans if we were robbed. Well when the fan browned up in STL when getting off the metro late one night with no one around. I saw the guy tiptoe behind me and just as he went to grap my collar I slid right spun, grabbed his hand in a front fanny pack and put my Gerber that already had the easy open opened, against his throat, I yelled at my wife to put her back against the wall and get her phone out, I had to tell her this twice because she was not thinking about her current location.

She saw me holding a knife to a guys throat, I did give th eguy a leer look, sort of a cross between Jack Nicholson and Jack Palance in Shane. I said things like picked the wrong gray hair guy, dint cha, know what cher gonna do? I do as I pushed the knife harder against his throat. I asked him if he wanted to go, he never spoke, his eyes said yes. He left the prem pretty quickly. I do not think the seriousness of this ever sunk in on my wife.

I felt if I told her to jump in and scratch his eyes out she would, I hope.

we have to make sure others understand this can happen to you and it has never nor will it ever happen to me is not valid.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #26  
Old 01-06-2016, 05:27 PM
Gamecock's Avatar
Gamecock Gamecock is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SC
Posts: 3,533
Likes: 589
Liked 3,637 Times in 1,627 Posts
Default

Model70hunter, you also have the state solicitor to consider. In parts of SC that I know, the solicitor won't be inclined to bring charges against someone who acted in self defense. Ergo, no trial is likely to occur.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #27  
Old 01-15-2016, 05:22 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyo5 View Post
Better discuss this with your lawyer or someone else familiar with the laws of your state. If the crook is trying to run away and you shoot him, you may be prosecuted for murder. It is a dicey situation since, as you pointed out, he could turn around and take some shots at you. If he is still in possession of a weapon when you shoot him, that may mitigate in your favor. But if he is unarmed when shot, you might be in deep doo-doo.
Big difference between an "intruder" and a "fleeing felon". Have you ever heard of a someone being charged with a crime for shooting someone who broke into their house and was still there? Other than a guy who shoots his wife and says: "I thought she was a burglar?"
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-15-2018, 10:50 PM
Dvan34 Dvan34 is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: So. CA-Imperial Valley
Posts: 410
Likes: 459
Liked 479 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Even if there is Castle Law, when the man flees, the threat ceases, I don't see how a defensive claim would stand up firing at a fleeing individual? The same situation occurs when the robber or burglar is fleeing the police or leaving the scene of the crime - unless he continues to represent a threat to someone's life. Of course if he is firing back while he is fleeing- that is another matter, but still may be sticky, unless you are an LEO attempting to arrest him and take him into custody.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #29  
Old 02-15-2018, 11:37 PM
Absalom's Avatar
Absalom Absalom is offline
SWCA Member
Absent Comrade
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,834
Likes: 10,103
Liked 27,995 Times in 8,452 Posts
Default

I’m not a lawyer and won’t pretend to be, but in at least a few posts here I sense a misunderstanding of the “Castle Doctrine” that could get you in big trouble:

The doctrine as generally applied (and you obviously want to check the exact wording of your state law) does NOT mean that you can shoot anyone who has broken into your “castle”. It simply means that in your house you can defend yourself in place and have no obligation to jump out of a window and run instead, even if that opportunity exists.

But standards of self-defense and criteria for the legitimate use of deadly force still apply.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #30  
Old 02-16-2018, 07:14 AM
Gamecock's Avatar
Gamecock Gamecock is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SC
Posts: 3,533
Likes: 589
Liked 3,637 Times in 1,627 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Absalom View Post

The doctrine as generally applied (and you obviously want to check the exact wording of your state law) does NOT mean that you can shoot anyone who has broken into your “castle”. It simply means that in your house you can defend yourself in place and have no obligation to jump out of a window and run instead, even if that opportunity exists.
I fail to see a distinction.
__________________
I've still got it made.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-16-2018, 12:17 PM
TomkinsSP's Avatar
TomkinsSP TomkinsSP is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: May 2017
Location: E of America's Great Lake
Posts: 2,774
Likes: 1,416
Liked 4,377 Times in 1,654 Posts
Default

Situation 1: perp is running away, not displaying a weapon.
Situation 2: perp is running away, displaying a weapon but not turning (or pointing behind his back or over his shoulder) to fire at you.
Situation 3: perp is FIRING A DEADLY WEAPON AT YOU (I'm no lawyer but I will bet it doesn't make a wits difference if he is standing, jogging, dancing, facing you or away from you, or standing on his hands and shooting at you with his feet). HE IS SHOOTING A WEAPON CAPABLE OF KILLING YOU. HE IS FIRING AT YOU. HE IS an IMMEDIATE threat.

If you are an innocent party who interrupted the commission of a crime and the criminal fires a deadly weapon at you, the rest are just minute irrelevant details.
__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

Last edited by TomkinsSP; 02-16-2018 at 12:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-16-2018, 12:29 PM
federali's Avatar
federali federali is offline
Absent Comrade
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 3,082
Likes: 12,877
Liked 7,548 Times in 2,081 Posts
Default Know Your Tactics

Regardless of what your state law says, if the intruder flees, do not give chase. First, it could then degenerate into a shots-fired situation and the intruder's lucky shot thrown over his shoulder can find you.

If you chase after the intruder, you are no longer acting in self defense but are attempting a citizen's arrest. Criminal lawyers will usually advise you to not make citizen's arrests. You have left the homeowner-friendly statutes applicable within your home and have stepped out into the legal mine field applicable to self-defense situations outside the home (or your place of business).
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Like Post:
  #33  
Old 02-16-2018, 01:55 PM
ColbyBruce ColbyBruce is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 7,854
Likes: 3,767
Liked 11,624 Times in 3,642 Posts
Default

Looking out for one's self and belongings has certainly gotten tricky. I do; however, like "federalis" idea about a mine field.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #34  
Old 02-16-2018, 01:58 PM
MichiganScott MichiganScott is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: God's Country
Posts: 4,711
Likes: 1,235
Liked 3,535 Times in 1,770 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dougb1946 View Post
Actually this is wrong. In MN you have a duty to retreat if possible.
Man in MN had two misguided youths into his home and shot them. They broke a window to enter. He killed them. He will die in prison. They were unarmed and posed no physical threat to him. Granted, he did bias the jury pool when he admitted to putting one "out of her misery" when the first shot only incapacitated her
What you feel is right might be illegal.
I don't know of any jurisdiction where administering a finishing shot on an incapacitated perpetrator is legal.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #35  
Old 02-16-2018, 02:06 PM
murphydog's Avatar
murphydog murphydog is offline
Moderator
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 26,782
Likes: 936
Liked 18,875 Times in 9,241 Posts
Default

What, a two year old thread and we still haven’t decided all the potential scenarios of self-defense?

Know you state laws, train and have a plan, with the understanding that nothing will go the way of the plan.
__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-16-2018, 06:05 PM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Banned
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 2,661
Liked 4,324 Times in 1,793 Posts
Default

Are you guys going soft in the head?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwsmith View Post
But when he was running away, he turned and fired shots at the man.
The homeowner didn't use lethal force, the burglar was just surprised and ran off.

As he was running away, the burglar turned around and fired at the homeowner. Castle doctrine and duty to retreat have nothing to do with it. Burglar was, in essence, attacking with lethal force as he ran away. That's all that matters.

Now, would lethal self-defense be the best course of action? Probably not, if the guy is legit leaving and taking potshots on his way out. It'd be dumb, it'd risk prosecution, and it'd put other people in jeopardy unnecessarily.

Prosecution would be based on your zip code. The lucky among us wouldn't be charged, because the deceased moron was shooting at us at the time. The unlucky would be faced with the argument that using lethal force was unnecessary and unjustified, because the guy was leaving and cover was available and blah-blah.

Last edited by Wise_A; 02-16-2018 at 06:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #37  
Old 02-16-2018, 06:57 PM
SMSgt's Avatar
SMSgt SMSgt is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 6,555
Likes: 3,343
Liked 9,152 Times in 3,432 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise_A View Post
Are you guys going soft in the head?



The homeowner didn't use lethal force, the burglar was just surprised and ran off.

As he was running away, the burglar turned around and fired at the homeowner. Castle doctrine and duty to retreat have nothing to do with it. Burglar was, in essence, attacking with lethal force as he ran away. That's all that matters.

Now, would lethal self-defense be the best course of action? Probably not, if the guy is legit leaving and taking potshots on his way out. It'd be dumb, it'd risk prosecution, and it'd put other people in jeopardy unnecessarily.

Prosecution would be based on your zip code. The lucky among us wouldn't be charged, because the deceased moron was shooting at us at the time. The unlucky would be faced with the argument that using lethal force was unnecessary and unjustified, because the guy was leaving and cover was available and blah-blah.
No, we're not, but check your mirror.

This discussion is attempting to revolve around the OP's statement that could be termed a ""Shoot on sight" declaration for anyone found in his house without warning.

Your reference is about a break-in that brought on his declaration.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-17-2018, 02:31 AM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Banned
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 2,661
Liked 4,324 Times in 1,793 Posts
Default

I read it the other way. But nonetheless--tell me again where there's a duty to warn an intruder. IN some instances, it may be prudent (the classic drunk who walked into the wrong house) but otherwise, once you've identified the threat, I don't see any particular need to issue a warning if it's not tactically-prudent. For instance, if I've already retreated as far as possible and said intruder is still looking for me.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-17-2018, 10:30 AM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 30,907
Likes: 41,495
Liked 29,149 Times in 13,779 Posts
Default I am a reasonable person...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjm6120 View Post
I understand your position, RW, and I assure you I think these scum deserve exactly that fate, but I highly suggest you make sure that SC laws support deadly force in a protection of property/B & E scenario (if you haven't already of course!). If you or your family members are facing imminent injury or worse, then fine but if not I'd hate to see you get in major trouble and losing everything you've worked hard for if you don't check the legalities of your new P & P!! Some jurisdictions' laws are REAL cloudy about these kinds of scenarios.
Thanks for the concern. I'm not going to shoot somebody running away, the turning and shooting puts it in a grey area. Fortunately, at least for now, SC is a 'castle doctrine' state. But even a 'clear cut' case can be blown into a legal mess where even if you are vindicated, you can't get back the time and money spent on legalities.

That reminds me of the guy in AZ that clearly defended himself on a hiking trail, but used a 10mm. The law said he used 'excessive force' and he spent two years in jail before they got around to changing the law and releasing him.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-17-2018, 10:44 AM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 30,907
Likes: 41,495
Liked 29,149 Times in 13,779 Posts
Default Let's not speculate..

This is the law in SC:

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).
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #41  
Old 02-17-2018, 11:13 AM
steelslaver's Avatar
steelslaver steelslaver is offline
US Veteran
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Central Montana
Posts: 13,624
Likes: 12,739
Liked 39,091 Times in 9,966 Posts
Default

Here is what I do know for sure.

Anything you say here can be used in a court of law.

Being careless about statements here is no better than being careless about statements to the police after any kind of shooting.
I don't have a law degree, but, I am sure any good attorney would say DON'T
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #42  
Old 02-17-2018, 01:41 PM
Steve K Steve K is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Southwest Virginia
Posts: 273
Likes: 348
Liked 291 Times in 104 Posts
Default

I read a lot of banter and good advise. The bottom line is it is hard to justify shooting someone who is running away from you. You also have to consider what the bullet will strike if not the suspect. I know LEOs who took legal shoots and hit innocent people. It just doesn't turn out good.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #43  
Old 04-19-2018, 04:20 PM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 30,907
Likes: 41,495
Liked 29,149 Times in 13,779 Posts
Default Don't get me wrong..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve K View Post
I read a lot of banter and good advise. The bottom line is it is hard to justify shooting someone who is running away from you. You also have to consider what the bullet will strike if not the suspect. I know LEOs who took legal shoots and hit innocent people. It just doesn't turn out good.
I'm not looking for what I can't get prosecuted for as an excuse to shoot somebody. Unless one of us is hurt, the guy hauling behind to the out door pretty much means that the threat is stopped.

I'm just proud of the fact that in this state, at this time, we have laws that protect the homeowner more than criminals.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-19-2018, 07:12 PM
leeniowa leeniowa is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1
Likes: 5
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

What is not to like about Trey Gowdy.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #45  
Old 04-19-2018, 07:15 PM
ImprovedModel56Fan ImprovedModel56Fan is offline
US Veteran
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 7,330
Likes: 7,502
Liked 5,556 Times in 2,547 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiganScott View Post
I don't know of any jurisdiction where administering a finishing shot on an incapacitated perpetrator is legal.
Don't know what a DA would think or what a jury would vote, but it is not clear at all to me. What I think probably doesn't matter, because at my age and state of BPH, I am probably not going to be a juror, but many scenarios strongly suggest that a finishing shot on an allegedly incapacitated felon may be a reasonable response.

When a burglar is legally shot and finds the floor, does the homeowner always know that he is the only potential assailant? Should he turn his back on him? A prudent homeowner would kill the first assailant before attending to his accomplices, if, in fact, that is what he reasonably intends to do next. Whatever the reason for turning his back on a burglar, if the turning is reasonable, killing him is ordinarily reasonable. While I will probably not be a juror, I would hope that other potential jurors would see it the same way.

Lawyers' opinions to the contrary don't count. That's how the law works in the US of A, at least until jury trials go away.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-19-2018, 08:55 PM
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
Banned
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelslaver View Post
Here is what I do know for sure.

Anything you say here can be used in a court of law.

Being careless about statements here is no better than being careless about statements to the police after any kind of shooting.

I don't have a law degree, but, I am sure any good attorney would say DON'T
I'm glad someone mentioned this, even though this thread is over a year old now.

Keyboard Kommandos don't seem to realize their words will live in cyberspace forever. People think they're anonymous on Internet forums because they use a screen name, or use software or apps that can change their IP address every time they log on. It simply doesn't work that way in real life.

Stuff like "I'll make sure he's dead!" or "Mine will be the last house/business he breaks into!!" and so many other bravura comments might not simply come back to haunt you, they might come back to convict you.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #47  
Old 04-20-2018, 06:53 AM
Gamecock's Avatar
Gamecock Gamecock is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SC
Posts: 3,533
Likes: 589
Liked 3,637 Times in 1,627 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Collects View Post

Why, yes, I have a law degree, 38+ years as an attorney (35 years of trial/litigation practice), and I have studied the law of self defense extensively. I give a legal seminar that I call "What To Do After Your Self Defense Shooting."
Well good for you!

You left out what state you practice in. In fact, you left out the disclaimer that law varies widely from state to state.

And you endorse Ayoob.

And you leave out the miniscule change that any of us would ever actually have to shoot someone.

Your advice is not bad, but it borders on paranoia.
__________________
I've still got it made.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-20-2018, 03:18 PM
buzzkillbob buzzkillbob is offline
US Veteran
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 159
Likes: 313
Liked 107 Times in 60 Posts
Default

I see a lot of people in this thread going to jail if they are ever involved in a shooting...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #49  
Old 04-20-2018, 04:42 PM
lrrifleman's Avatar
lrrifleman lrrifleman is online now
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Southern NJ
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 18,929
Liked 4,185 Times in 1,862 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjm6120 View Post
I understand your position, RW, and I assure you I think these scum deserve exactly that fate, but I highly suggest you make sure that SC laws support deadly force in a protection of property/B & E scenario (if you haven't already of course!). If you or your family members are facing imminent injury or worse, then fine but if not I'd hate to see you get in major trouble and losing everything you've worked hard for if you don't check the legalities of your new P & P!! Some jurisdictions' laws are REAL cloudy about these kinds of scenarios.
I can understand your caution. However, as RW stated, the intruder turned and fired while fleeing! I believe that this would change the rules of the game. It could be a challenge proving that the intruder fired while fleeing if they aren't dropped on the spot. However, a body with a firearm and spent cartridges in the proximity of the body help to substantiate the claim that the fleeing intruder fired which will lend justification to firing on a fleeing suspect.
__________________
Judge control not gun control!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-20-2018, 04:47 PM
BigSky! BigSky! is offline
Member
There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings... There were several shootings...  
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Montana
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Liked 151 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dougb1946 View Post
Actually this is wrong. In MN you have a duty to retreat if possible.
Man in MN had two misguided youths into his home and shot them. They broke a window to enter. He killed them. He will die in prison. They were unarmed and posed no physical threat to him. Granted, he did bias the jury pool when he admitted to putting one "out of her misery" when the first shot only incapacitated her
What you feel is right might be illegal.
If you are referring to the Bryon Smith case, he deserved to go to prison. Equating him to the rest of us law abiding gun owners does us a disservice. I know you didn't assert that; but, if you want to have chills run up and down your spine, listen to his recordings of these killings and look in to the whole story. Very, vey chilling.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mass Shootings and CCW jimmyj The Lounge 28 12-24-2012 06:16 PM
The Shootings & the Forum Engineer1911 FORUM OFFICE 0 12-18-2012 09:57 AM
Accidental Shootings highaltitude Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 16 10-05-2012 11:34 AM
Shootings in Chicago JcMack The Lounge 25 09-29-2010 11:31 AM
Ft. Hood shootings Sam McCord The Lounge 99 11-11-2009 05:26 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)