We have a 'test case'....

[BAM-BAM]

Similar story in the news here too.Couple of 14 yr olds stealing pot plants from a backyard.Both shot with a 22,one dead.The owner sniped them from a second story window.How dumb can a guy be?

Well he was growing pot in his back yard and the neighbors knew it !!!!!!!

LOL


To the OP....too many unknown facts.................

Like:

for all we know the 15 year old had the gun in his hand when confronted by the home owner..... dropped it when he was shot ... and the homeowner felt the 13 year old was going for the gun.............who knows.................

lets wait and see/hear more!!!!!

 

[federali]

A Murky Case

Use-of-force laws vary state by state. Here in New York, you may not use deadly force to stop a property crime except for arson of an occupied dwelling.

Car theft should not be confused with a carjacking which, in most cases, can justify deadly force as the perp is committing a robbery.

The law makes no distinction regarding the value of the property, whether it's my pocket change or the Rolex on my wrist. Forcible taking is a felony.

 

[16thVACav]

If the jury believes the resident knew the perps were armed and that he was in fear of death or great bodily harm, he will be exonerated. However, SC tends to be a conservative, law and order state, and I doubt the resident will be indicted.

There was another SC case a few months back where a resident shot and killed a fleeing unarmed teenage car thief. If I remember correctly, he was not indicted.

 

[Longhorn1986]

Thank god I live in Texas. Yes, my F350 is worth a helluva lot more to me than a teenage felon's life. A cockroach's life is worth more to me than a teenage felon's.

 

[Warren Sear]

I've read each post twice and give them serious thought and I have reached the conclusion that the 2 young men were in the process of turning their lives around. (as most criminals are, according to their family)

You are ON it. I'll bet the young fellers needed a vehicle to get to church, and were just going to borrow it for a few hours.

 

[Duckford]

A lot to hash through to get a final answer. In North Dakota, one can use non lethal force to stop property crime, i.e. tackling someone running away with your television, or fighting someone trying to steal your car. One is not allowed to use deadly force in those situations. Some states and jurisdictions may be somewhat similar or not....

So, here's the legal hypothetical, John Joe is a conceal carry permit holder, and has his firearm concealed when he comes across two hoodlums trying to steal his car. He does not pull his concealed handgun, he simply confronts the two thieves with his verbal threats to call the police and that he will stop them himself if they continue. The two thugs turn and attack him, young and fast, so that good old Johnny Joe cannot reasonably retreat. He then pulls out his revolver and shoots them.

In this hypothetical, because he reserved his lethal force all the way to the end, were his actions legally justifiable or not? He has the right to confront the criminals, he did not threaten them with lethal force, did not present his weapon, and was well within his rights to do what he did. Because the situation turned after the fact, and his lethal force became justifiable at the end, was this is a relatively 'clean" scenario? Was he a man acting within his rights and only used proper force when the situation demanded, or is he in the wrong for escalation?

I agree that when we carry weapons, we have to be more careful than those who don't. Yet, we hit a point also where carrying a weapon can almost mean we have no rights and somehow we are liable for literally everything, even if we are in the legal and moral right. Does that mean if I carry a pistol, that I am now barred from trying to at least chase people away from my vehicle if they are trying to break in and steal it? If you are at home, and burglars show up and begin to steal all of your tools from your separate garage, and the police do not show up for a long period of time, that you are forced to not at least make an attempt to make a presence and defend your property within proper legal bounds?

We can eventually reach an insane point where literally everything can be abused by anti gunners and those who seek to disarm and disable innocent people as proof that you escalated the situation and/or are total fault. Did you really need to go down to the grocery store for milk? If you hadn't of left the house, the robbery would have never happened, because you wouldn't have been in the parking lot where your attacker was picking out victims if you had not, so therefore your aggressive act of fetching food puts you in direct fault.

Beware the road we go down. Neither a future of justifying wrongful murder, or a world where no man is allowed to defend himself, is the world we seek.

 

[Kid44]

​

Thank god I live in Texas. Yes, my F350 is worth a helluva lot more to me than a teenage felon's life. A cockroach's life is worth more to me than a teenage felon's.

When you have some spare time would you please sit down and tell us how you really feel about teenage felons??

 

[Dvan34]

Thank god I live in Texas. Yes, my F350 is worth a helluva lot more to me than a teenage felon's life. A cockroach's life is worth more to me than a teenage felon's.

IT's wise to be careful posting some comments to forums, Twitter or Facebook since prosecuters screen them for information in the event of a criminal case. They can come back to haunt us.

 

[southcoast]

This is not a "test case," as the laws of self defense in South Carolina are well established. Test cases are deliberately filed to establish law. Kinda like calling a M&P Sport an assault rifle.

This is simply an unfortunate unplanned incident, not unique in nature, where the facts are yet to be established as to whether or not this was a justified shooting or criminal action.

 

[rwsmith]

Thugs get kids.......

And we have a similar situation here. Not in my town but the metro area. Kids steeling cars. But in this case they are going after cars where the owner has just gotten into the car or just opened the car door. So far they've only went after female owners. Luckily this ended better. Several of the boys were caught by police. All 13 - 15 years old. One 14 year old had a sawed off Remington 700 in his pants.

As far as the OP's story. I would have called the cops. It's why I pay insurance for.


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Thugs get kids to do their dirty work for them because they will only get juvenile charges. Unless they are tried as adults or get shot and killed as in this case.

 

[rwsmith]

Has that case been resolved??

Similar story in the news here too.Couple of 14 yr olds stealing pot plants from a backyard.Both shot with a 22,one dead.The owner sniped them from a second story window.How dumb can a guy be?

Has that case been resolved? If not keep us posted.

 

[rwsmith]

Thanks...

This is not a "test case," as the laws of self defense in South Carolina are well established. Test cases are deliberately filed to establish law. Kinda like calling a M&P Sport an assault rifle.

This is simply an unfortunate unplanned incident, not unique in nature, where the facts are yet to be established as to whether or not this was a justified shooting or criminal action.

Thanks for keeping us technically straight, but I meant it as a test case for us home/gun owners to see if the well established laws concerning self/property defense in SC render the same result in 2016 as they would have 50 years ago. That's why I put 'test case' in quotes.

 

[southcoast]

Thanks for keeping us technically straight, but I meant it as a test case for us home/gun owners to see if the well established laws concerning self/property defense in SC render the same result in 2016 as they would have 50 years ago. That's why I put 'test case' in quotes.

Gotcha.

Carry on.

 

[Lee's Landing Billy]

I am willing to bet a delicious local seafood dinner to any that IF he is tried, he will be released. We have the largest county in S.C., larger than Rhode Island. Armed thieves are NOT tolerated when we can catch them.

 

[rwsmith]

My worry is that things change........

Take the case of the hiker in AZ who was attacked and defended himself with a 10mm. He spent two years in jail for 'excessive force' for using a such a 'deadly' gun. Would that have happened in AZ 50 years ago????

What's going to happen in my state in time? Right now, it's old conservative SC but people are pouring in here due to jobs, which also means that they could be moving in a lot of people that want thing to change. Like in TX, CO and AZ.

Believe me I don't want to decide this case ourselves from the little we know, which would be pretty darn stupid in my book. But I do want to see how it is handled and the end result.

 

[Yaworski]

You're right. The homeowner was in no danger till he escalated the situation. No one likes to see their property stolen or vandalized, but that's what insurance is for. Laws vary from state to state, but I'd say this homeowner is in deep excrement.

Insurance, meh. Let's say that it was a $40,000 car originally and the guy makes around $40,000 a year. That car represents a year of his life. That *** was trying to steal a year from the car owner. Insurance won't replace the car. Insurance will give you enough to buy a clapped out version of your old car.

They used to hang horse thieves. Sadly, our society has become more progressive.

 

[SMSgt]

I have little if any sympathy for criminals, regardless of age. You play, you pay.

 

[Muss Muggins]

They used to hang horse thieves. Sadly, our society has become more progressive.

They did, but it was always vigilante justice. Search the internet and point me to a documented government sanctioned hanging of a horse thief . . .

(whose sole crime was horse stealing . . . )

 

[Wise_A]

Thank god I live in Texas. Yes, my F350 is worth a helluva lot more to me than a teenage felon's life. A cockroach's life is worth more to me than a teenage felon's.

Insurance, meh. Let's say that it was a $40,000 car originally and the guy makes around $40,000 a year. That car represents a year of his life. That *** was trying to steal a year from the car owner. Insurance won't replace the car. Insurance will give you enough to buy a clapped out version of your old car.

Bumper-sticker warnings aside, I can't imagine anything I own being worth somebody's life. Or the mental anguish of knowing that I made decisions which led to a life being ended.

I will always argue that those who are killed in the commission of a crime are culpable, to greater or lesser extents, in their own demise.

I will also always argue that a core tenet of the armed lifestyle is the preservation of life.

We can eventually reach an insane point where literally everything can be abused by anti gunners and those who seek to disarm and disable innocent people as proof that you escalated the situation and/or are total fault. Did you really need to go down to the grocery store for milk? If you hadn't of left the house, the robbery would have never happened, because you wouldn't have been in the parking lot where your attacker was picking out victims if you had not, so therefore your aggressive act of fetching food puts you in direct fault.

I once had a college philosophy professor who kept us very slightly late one day, to the tune of about five minutes.

On the way home, a 90-year-old woman pulled out of the driveway of her apartment complex, crossed four lanes of traffic without signaling, and struck my car just forward of the driver's door.

This presented an enormous ethical conundrum for my professor. She felt personally responsible , thanks to her whacky, hippy-dippy understanding of causality.

Anyways, people don't want the middle. That would leave room for error and judgment, and would require thought. They want absolutist rules.

What I would suggest, if you want to go the route of actually being a sane, rational person, is that you have to separate legally-allowable from ethical/moral, and also from tactically-sound. Otherwise you'll drive yourself mad with all of the inconsistencies of our legal system.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Bumper-sticker warnings aside, I can't imagine anything I own being worth somebody's life. Or the mental anguish of knowing that I made decisions which led to a life being ended.

Break in to my home, regardless of your intent, and risk your life. Screw with the stuff outside my house, and after being confronted present a threat to my well being, risk your life. Confront me on the street and demand my car, my phone and my wallet, risk your life. I paid a lot of money for my stuff, and insurance is always a very poor backup. The Constitution says I get to keep my stuff. Not a bumper sticker warning. Leave me alone. I'll leave you alone.