Another SC Home Defense Shooting

[kelcarry]

Hey mappow: My last reply and GOV state it correctly. In your house or in your car, theft can be fraught with ultimate danger by a perp. As far as this particular incident is concerned 1) the old man did not call 911 or local LEO before he went outside to confront this supposed thief--wrong, wrong, wrong. 2) the kid did not have a firearm and, quite frankly, I find it convenient for the old man that this kid was doing all this reaching and not following orders--fits into "reasonable fear of imminent danger and peril" too neatly and nicely and 3) SC is one of those states that has a broad tolerance forthe behavior of this old man--this is not the first case that never went to criminal exposure and it will not be the last. As a forum writer I have no problem with anyone caught stealing getting anything and everything he deserves--including, if you try to extend "reasonable fear" and "imminent dange" to every instance similar to this one. As a juror, however, if this case had come to trial, I would have a hard time just letting the old man off the hook--mainly because he did not even bother to call 911. I do not have all the facts since all we got was the cursory facts based on prosecutor not seeking any criminal charges but I did have a problem with what I perceived as an act by this old man that was beyond "reasonable" and beyond "imminent danger", which he initiated and not the kid. Let me be clear, I understand and support any and all actions against any kind of perp--I am sick and tired of the kind of crimes and behavior that take place here in SC by the "more entitiled" among us, but these are my thoughts on the forum, not on a jury. "Stuff" is just "stuff", as GOV said, and it just it not worth the life of a sleazebucket, and possibly your life. This old man could just as easily been killed if that kid had whirled around with a big 45--over what?--the kid had not even started to take "stuff", he was just in the snooping mode, from what I gather about the story. We will never know the full, true story so all we can do is talk, but I do agree with GOV--IMHO "stuff" ain't worth your life or mine or even that of a sleaze.

[dster72340]

Here in toledo we have had three such episodes where the carriers were cleared. one a man came home from work and there were three men in his house he shot and killed a 21 year old running out the door. two a 39 year old man held a gun to a clerks head the owner of the store heard the nervosness in her voice came around the corner with a gun the perk then started shooting at the owner, the owner returned fire severaly injuring the man.( music store) the third a carryout owner was robbed at gun point by a 16 year old black male the store owner than shot and killed him.All in the last three weeks.

[G50AE]

Let me be clear, I understand and support any and all actions against any kind of perp--I am sick and tired of the kind of crimes and behavior that take place here in SC by the "more entitiled" among us, but these are my thoughts on the forum, not on a jury.

Welcome to the People's Republic of South Carolina, where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

[kelcarry]

Hey dster: your 3 examples are a lot more clear cut for SC laws then the case in point (see my last reply), where I have questions concerning the reasonable fear of imminent peril to the old man's life. SC law, for all its ambiguities, is pretty clear on castle doctrine whether it is in your home or IN your car. Someone stealing from your unoccupied vehicle is, IMO, based on my understanding of SC law, not a green light for firing a weapon.
Hey G50: I'm not quite sure what is going on in your life that you have this unbridled anger or some kind of problem with/over the State of SC. Something "ticked" you off badly and I do not understand why you cannot get over whatever it is; you continually have these similar angry comments about the State. Sounds like you are going to get into something that will cause you more problems in the future. Wish you well and hope you can learn to chill a bit but your anger together with a CCWP and a firearm is a recipe for bad consequences.

[G50AE]

I am not realy sure where you are getting that I have some type of unbridled anger towards the People's Republic of South Carolina, but then again on another thread you had stated that I was being hostile toward SC LEO's because I explained to another poster that Cane-guns fell under NFA rules. I guess I'll just remained confused on this one.

[kelcarry]

With all due respect G50, People's Republic of South Carolina?--what is that all about? Read some of your other comments--it may just be your style and I apologize if that is the case; obviously I do not know you and I would hope I am wrong about assumptions I have made purely on the basis of the printed word. I just sense (and, if not mistaken several other members have made comments) an anger and for a forum about firearms, I do not think anger is the proper mode of operation. Sorry if I am wrong and I apologize.

[theicemanmpls]

I am not realy sure where you are getting that I have some type of unbridled anger towards the People's Republic of South Carolina, but then again on another thread you had stated that I was being hostile toward SC LEO's because I explained to another poster that Cane-guns fell under NFA rules. I guess I'll just remained confused on this one.

I am just calling this as I see it. It's Trolling. G50AE was suspended for a week by the site admin. Perhaps he don't quite get it. G50ae, if you want to know the in's and out's, do's and don't's, just ask. This is a drama free site, and I for one wish to keep it that way.

[ConditionOne]

I agree with you, kelcarry. In this case it was just "stuff" and I personally wouldn't find it worth killing over.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand me, I'm not arguing the older gentleman didn't have the right to protect his property, nor would I judge any of you for protecting yours as you saw fit. It's just that I don't think I'd personally be willing to draw my weapon unless I felt my life was at stake. If I walk into my residence and someone is there stealing stuff, or if I wake up to hear an intruder, you're damned right I will be armed and ready to pull the trigger; by that point confrontation is almost certainly unavoidable. If I woke up and heard or saw someone rummaging through my vehicle, I'd call 911, wait and watch. If they made a move to enter my residence, I would be prepared to defend myself.

I know, I know... you could argue that I don't know if there is anyone else out there, perhaps another BG already trying to enter the premises and I don't know who's armed and who's not. You may argue it's best to shoot first and ask questions later. There are a whole lot of "what ifs" and the situation can change drastically with a single variable. I've never drawn my gun on someone (and I honestly hope I never, ever have to). I'm also not currently a homeowner, nor is my vehicle especially nice. I don't have a wife and kids to worry about. My perspective is obviously going to be different from those of you in different situations.

Booga asked, "is there such a thing as a good bad guy?" I don't think the answer to that question is as black-and-white as we may like it to be. In some cases perhaps the "BG" isn't really all that bad. I don't advocate being soft on criminals, and I understand and totally agree that by even attempting to steal someone else's property this kid was breaking the law and falls under the "BG" moniker. However, what if that 19-year-old was one of your sons, making an incredibly bad decision in an otherwise decent life? Good people can make stupid choices, especially when they're young and don't have a great deal of life experience. Add in peer pressure, maybe a poor home situation or some kind of emotional trauma like a parent dying, and you have a formula for a very crappy decision-making process. The bad guy in a case like that may just be a guy, making bad decisions. Saying, "all BGs are evil and wrong and I will exercise my right to defend my property with deadly force no matter what" makes about as much sense to me as the "zero tolerance" gun and drug policies in force in our public school system; that is to say, none at all. We have good heads on our shoulders, and we should use them... even if other people are not.

None of that excuses the act mentioned in the OP, and it doesn't put the older gentleman defending his property in the wrong. The kid obviously made a series of poor decisions, but that doesn't mean he's instantly a hardened career criminal who will only ever be out to deprive honest people of the fruits of their labors. He needs to pay for any crimes he committed, but not necessarily with his life.

I don't think you're a "big *****" for stating you'd at least be given pause, JJ, were you put into the same situation. I personally believe you can be morally justified in shooting and killing someone who threatens you, but also believe you can be saddened it came to that, and have sympathy for the life you were forced to end. These things are not mutually exclusive.

[kelcarry]

Condition One is Condition OK in my book. Well said. Bottom line is "reasonable fear that imminent death or bodily injury can occur"--it is the cornerstone of most of the defensive gun laws in this country and truly sets the boundaries IMHO of when a firearm can be presented and discharged. Someone out by your unoccupied truck is not that.

[GOV5]

[QUOTE=ConditionOne;122793]I agree with you, kelcarry. In this case it was just "stuff" and I personally wouldn't find it worth killing over.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand me, I'm not arguing the older gentleman didn't have the right to protect his property, nor would I judge any of you for protecting yours as you saw fit. It's just that I don't think I'd personally be willing to draw my weapon unless I felt my life was at stake. If I walk into my residence and someone is there stealing stuff, or if I wake up to hear an intruder, you're damned right I will be armed and ready to pull the trigger; by that point confrontation is almost certainly unavoidable. If I woke up and heard or saw someone rummaging through my vehicle, I'd call 911, wait and watch. If they made a move to enter my residence, I would be prepared to defend myself.

I know, I know... you could argue that I don't know if there is anyone else out there, perhaps another BG already trying to enter the premises and I don't know who's armed and who's not. You may argue it's best to shoot first and ask questions later. There are a whole lot of "what ifs" and the situation can change drastically with a single variable. I've never drawn my gun on someone (and I honestly hope I never, ever have to). I'm also not currently a homeowner, nor is my vehicle especially nice. I don't have a wife and kids to worry about. My perspective is obviously going to be different from those of you in different situations.

Booga asked, "is there such a thing as a good bad guy?" I don't think the answer to that question is as black-and-white as we may like it to be. In some cases perhaps the "BG" isn't really all that bad. I don't advocate being soft on criminals, and I understand and totally agree that by even attempting to steal someone else's property this kid was breaking the law and falls under the "BG" moniker. However, what if that 19-year-old was one of your sons, making an incredibly bad decision in an otherwise decent life? Good people can make stupid choices, especially when they're young and don't have a great deal of life experience. Add in peer pressure, maybe a poor home situation or some kind of emotional trauma like a parent dying, and you have a formula for a very crappy decision-making process. The bad guy in a case like that may just be a guy, making bad decisions. Saying, "all BGs are evil and wrong and I will exercise my right to defend my property with deadly force no matter what" makes about as much sense to me as the "zero tolerance" gun and drug policies in force in our public school system; that is to say, none at all. We have good heads on our shoulders, and we should use them... even if other people are not.

None of that excuses the act mentioned in the OP, and it doesn't put the older gentleman defending his property in the wrong. The kid obviously made a series of poor decisions, but that doesn't mean he's instantly a hardened career criminal who will only ever be out to deprive honest people of the fruits of their labors. He needs to pay for any crimes he committed, but not necessarily with his life.

I don't think you're a "big *****" for stating you'd at least be given pause, JJ, were you put into the same situation. I personally believe you can be morally justified in shooting and killing someone who threatens you, but also believe you can be saddened it came to that, and have sympathy for the life you were forced to end. These things are not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE

Thank you so much for that post. That was as good an explanation as anybody will ever read about the correct mindset for protection and personal defense. This should be required reading at this site, and in CCW classes!

WE, as CCW holders, are not "associate" cops or vigilantes. And having the "right" to shoot someone doesn't give you a moral/religious "right" to end someone's life. There are young folks out there that have been influenced by misguided people, and those young folks need someone to show them the LIGHT. They are still young and most of them, not all, are still salvageable. I would hate to snuff out of the life of someone that GOD isn't finished with yet. Remember, there is a difference between "KILL" and "MURDER".