Another SC Home Defense Shooting - Page 7
Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 208

Thread: Another SC Home Defense Shooting

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by GOV5 View Post
    " Whichever of you members said there is a difference between murder and killing is exactly right..."

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

    It was me. I hate when two different terms are tossed around like they are the same thing. Either one though, has a serious consequence and effect on the one left living. It is a decision that very few will know of which they are certain, until the time the moment of truth comes. I can talk all day long about what I will do, but until the time faces me, I don't know how I will act.
    You are not alone in that and unless you have faced that time no one can actually say that they know. I know I am repeating myself but we should look for a reason to use a gun and not an excuse. Killing is not ths same as murder but killing when you do not need to is.

  2.   
  3. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northeastern United States.
    Posts
    64
    [quote=GOV5;122978]
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionOne View Post
    I agree with you, kelcarry. In this case it was just "stuff" and I personally wouldn't find it worth killing over.
    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".
    GOV5,ConditionOne.
    Maybe I missunderstood. It sounded to me like the answer to BG problems large/small is an armed confrontation. I do think that it is reasonable and prudent to prepare for the worst but hope for the best. Again I do not believe that propery damage should buy you a bullet. Doesn't mean you should get away with it either. GOV5 said " being hungry is not a reason to steal" I agree. I also believe that just being hungry or any other minor offence shouldn't buy you a bullet. So when Condition one said that " they are young and most of them, not all, are still salvageable" That was what I was trying to get at. Sorry for any missunderstanding.
    When I said that I didn't have any propery worth killing for that is true. If there was a serious threat of harm/death in the taking/damageing of that property, that would be a different story.
    Again...... SORRY for any missunderstanding.

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Many recent posts echo my thoughts---"stuff" is just not worth killing for, whether it is you against a slime or a slime against you. In either case both of you have a lot to answer for and will find that out in a court of law. At least in SC the law is pretty clear, although there have been cases like the one that started this thread that begs further clarification to me,---if you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury you've got a legal leg to stand on. The law gets a little "murky" when it continues to discuss "unlawful and forceful entry into a dwelling or occupied vehicle", which can be interpreted as saying that if this should occur, you immediately have a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury. In any case, I have insurance, I do not have any children or other family members living in another part of my home and see no reason to confront someone who has entered my home forcefull while I am behind a locked and secure bedroom door. 911, car alarm, preplanned defense with double zero---if they want into the bedroom, all bets are off, but I am not going to be looking for them.

  5. #64
    [quote=Bangba;126052]
    Quote Originally Posted by GOV5 View Post

    GOV5,ConditionOne.
    Maybe I missunderstood. It sounded to me like the answer to BG problems large/small is an armed confrontation. I do think that it is reasonable and prudent to prepare for the worst but hope for the best. Again I do not believe that propery damage should buy you a bullet. Doesn't mean you should get away with it either. GOV5 said " being hungry is not a reason to steal" I agree. I also believe that just being hungry or any other minor offence shouldn't buy you a bullet. So when Condition one said that " they are young and most of them, not all, are still salvageable" That was what I was trying to get at. Sorry for any missunderstanding.
    When I said that I didn't have any propery worth killing for that is true. If there was a serious threat of harm/death in the taking/damageing of that property, that would be a different story.
    Again...... SORRY for any missunderstanding.
    No problem mate. One of the things about the internet, when in discussions, is that the other person can't see or hear your voice inflections, and see the expression on your face when you are "talking" (typing). Therefore it is real easy to get confused on the intent or delivery of a message.

    Don't worry, as I said to another member here, we seem to be on the same page here. Neither one of us want to shoot someone and end their life for taking "stuff" that can be replaced. In fact, in our CWP class, we viewed a video, done by an attorney, that stated in S.C. it is unlawful to shoot someone for stealing 'stuff". You can't use deadly force if there isn't imminent danger to life or bodily harm.

    It sounds crazy, but someone can come into your driveway, break into your car, hot wire it, and drive away...and you can't shoot them! All you can do is call 911.

  6. #65
    It sounds crazy, but someone can come into your driveway, break into your car, hot wire it, and drive away...and you can't shoot them! All you can do is call 911.
    Actually you can do much more than that. Treu you can't just shoot them for trying to steal your car but you can go out and confront them, If they attack you then you can shoot them but to say that you have to stand there and watch is wrong.

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Hey GOV5 and others: The original thread posted by me relates the story of the 19 year old shot by the old man for doing nothing more than "rummaging" around at his truck and not listening to the old man upon confrontation, even though the old man NEVER called 911; the old man ended up shooting slime boy (he did not die) and was never prosecuted. No details on anything further on this story. As far as I am concerned, personally, he could have killed slime boy and I would not have raised an eyebrow. From my legal perspective and my own intended personal actions and if I was on a jury, I find this shooting to be indefensible. The old man caused the confrontation and put himself in the "imminent" danger role and this falls into the FN 1910 category, which I fail to understand as defensible, but this is SC. Botttom line: If their is a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury which comes from slime using deadly force on you or in the process of unlawfully entering or forcefully entering your home or occupied vehicle--you can use deadly force against the slime. It specifically says vehicle must be occupied and it does not say that the reasonable fear in all cases is based on your own independent actions and confrontation that caused the escalation to imminent peril---this is the rub as far as I am concerned, particularly in the old man/slime boy scenario. Hey guys, that's just me sayin.

  8. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    Actually you can do much more than that. Treu you can't just shoot them for trying to steal your car but you can go out and confront them, If they attack you then you can shoot them but to say that you have to stand there and watch is wrong.
    Confront them how? If they don't come after you, you can't do a darn thing. Call your local police dept and have them check with the city attorney, and then listen to their answer. That's what I did.

    Seriously, if you have a legal loophole, let me know about it. I can't believe a thief can come into my driveway, steal something of that kind of value, that I worked so hard to get, and I am powerless to do something about it, other than to call 911, and hope that a cop just happens to be right around the corner when he gets the call.

    I mean, the law is so wrong on this that it could be interpreted that even if you don't use a gun, and come after them with a baseball bat and hit them, THEY could sue YOU for Assault & Battery! How screwed up is that?

  9. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Hey Gov and FN: Reading the last few replies, a light bulb went off in my head when GOV complained that there was nothing he could do over the car theft scenario. In reality, if you feel you are good enough for it (armed with a big gun and very proficient at using it), there does not seem to be a reason why you should not be able to go outside and confront some slime with a "what the hell do you think you are doing?" It is your property and you, I would think, have a right to question someone who is fooling with your stuff. If the slime now turns on you and puts you in the "imminent danger" mode, you can defend yourself. I stand corrected on my previous comments. I believe the old man had every right to go outside and confront slime boy--it is his car and his property and by god he has a right to ask "what the hell do you think you are doing?"; I would think that this is the reason no charges were brought. If, as in this case, slime boy is slow to respond and does so in a manner that is a "reasonable" threat to "imminent danger", slime boy can suffer the consequences, which he did. YOU SHOULD AT LEAST CALL 911 AS A PRUDENT INITIAL EFFORT, and you should be aware that slime boy could be packin bigger than you and may be better at than you. Personally, "stuff" is not worth my life to find out that slime boy is indeed better at this "gun thing" than me, as I lie there dying.

  10. SC law is good

    I'm glad to hear SC has a sensible Castle Doctrine. I wish my state did. If legal in my state, I would have done exactly what the old man. If a BG sticks his hands in his pockets, instead of raising them high over his head, i would assume he is going for a weapon. I would have shoot him.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Ruger 327 View Post
    I'm glad to hear SC has a sensible Castle Doctrine. I wish my state did. If legal in my state, I would have done exactly what the old man. If a BG sticks his hands in his pockets, instead of raising them high over his head, i would assume he is going for a weapon. I would have shoot him.
    I would not shoot for putting his hands INTO his pockets (most likely)... but the hands better stay right there...

    I mean, I suppose , if he was wearing cargo pants, or shorts... He MIGHT be able to turn and point a mouse gun within the pocket... but if he were wearing the current "style" I doubt he'd even be able to reach into his pockets without hiking up the pants first.

    I would have called 911 on discovery of the kid rummaging in the truck. not for the initial noise.

Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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