| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
scmedic84
Senior Member
172 Posts |
 Posted - 03/25/2012 : 2:34:29 PM
|
I was wondering how people feel about the duty to retreat changes in the law. It was in today's paper, I know there are some attorney's and law enforcement officers who frequent the site, I think it would be interesting to get everyone's point of view.
I don't currently conceal and carry, but if i read it correctly, this law is not specifically about using a weapon. Simply the use of deadly force when presented with threat of death or serious injury. The change would require you to attempt to flee first.... I think if I'm presented with a treat, I certainly don't want to turn my back to that threat to retreat. I also can understand the vigilante argument. However now we are continuing to punish all for the actions of few.
"The Wet Dream"
20' Pioneer 197
150hp Suzuki 4-Stroke |
|
|
Fishb8
Senior Member
6164 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2012 : 2:51:28 PM
|
There is a big difference betweem pursuing someone and standing your ground. I don't agree with fleeing. Face the threat head on.
Fishb8 (Fish Bait)
23 Sea Hunt "My Last Boat V"
If you can't stand behind our soldiers, try standing in front of them. |
 |
|
|
Hurricane701
Senior Member
2107 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2012 : 3:02:31 PM
|
Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 .. Ask my Glock what I would do
Bragging may not bring happiness,
but no man having caught a large fish,
goes home through the alley.
-Anonymous |
|
|
|
justretired
Intermediate Member
75 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2012 : 3:59:01 PM
|
amen to the judged by 12.
people are getting tired of retreating.
|
|
|
|
joeboo
Senior Member
321 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2012 : 4:01:21 PM
|
when citizend are forced to retreat from a threat you start building strength with criminal element. I can't judge what happened in this latest killing but Florida's law states that you do not heve to retreat from a threat.
One thing about our black community, they do stick together.
working hard and playing harder |
|
|
|
stonoman
Prolific Poster
12338 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2012 : 6:44:13 PM
|
Sorry guys I am 76 and would haul ass.
Stonoman |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
12112 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2012 : 6:55:01 PM
|
| I think you should be able to stand your ground. People who prey on others deserve whatever they get. Maybe you stand your ground and save the life of the next guy who isn't so lucky to have a gun... When you take out a robber, rapist, etc, you are doing the world a favor. |
|
|
|
RussB
Senior Member
4202 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2012 : 7:38:27 PM
|
I believe (could be mistaken with the new law) that you have the duty to retreat while on property not owned by you, unless retreating would expose you to more harm. While on property I believe there is now duty to retreat, or was, not sure how the new law reads yet.
Russ B.
www.joinrfa.org
God is great, Beer is good, People are crazy
|
|
|
|
Bad Habit
Senior Member
2025 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2012 : 8:35:50 PM
|
they are only PROPOSED changes. long way to go until we have to run like a scared rabbit again.
OUR GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME THE ENEMY OF FREEDOM. |
|
|
|
scmedic84
Senior Member
172 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2012 : 8:50:21 PM
|
I know the changes are only proposed, was just curious to see what people's opinions were.
"The Wet Dream"
20' Pioneer 197
150hp Suzuki 4-Stroke |
|
|
|
JimIslander
Senior Member
1804 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2012 : 9:09:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by RussB
I believe (could be mistaken with the new law) that you have the duty to retreat while on property not owned by you, unless retreating would expose you to more harm. While on property I believe there is now duty to retreat, or was, not sure how the new law reads yet.
Thankfully no. Our right to self defense is very nicely protected, both against criminal and civil penalties. Note that Section 16-11-430 part C extends the right of defense to not only dwelling, vehicle, place of business, but ANYWHERE you have the legal right to be. What you may be thinking of is part D, which AUTOMATICALLY defines forced or unlawful entry into your dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, as intent on committing a violent crime, defensible by deadly force.
LINK: http://www.schouse.gov/sess116_2005-2006/bills/4301.htm
(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.
Tidewater 196DC
Yamaha F115
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pungo 120 |
|
|
|
Mandopickr
Senior Member
378 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2012 : 9:14:10 PM
|
This incident, as reported, would not have been covered under the "castle doctrine" in South Carolina. You would not have been allowed to pursue and individual.
There have been incidents where the SC castle doctrine protected individuals in the way it was meant. Without it, there may have been convictions of people only trying to protect there own life. |
|
|
|
13skulls
Senior Member
609 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2012 : 5:37:27 PM
|
| If you're stupid enough to threaten the lives of myself or family on my property it is highly likely that you will wind up with two in the chest and one in the head. |
|
|
|
SCARCHER220
Senior Member
1744 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 08:27:03 AM
|
amen skulls.... but to me not only on my property, but anywhere else as well. If I truly feel there is no other option but to use deadly force, then it is what it is.
" It is what it is".
The artist formerly known as BBDinSC |
|
|
|
ARGO
Senior Member
265 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 11:25:28 AM
|
I carry and I will protect myself and my loved ones.
ARGO |
|
|
|
Floater
Senior Member
307 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 11:50:30 AM
|
| it's hard to say what the law should be... but most of these incidences happen so quickly that stopping and thinking what i am allowed to do under the law will get you killed. when threatened with my life, i'm a big subscriber to the theory that "the best defense is a good offense". |
Edited by - Floater on 03/29/2012 11:50:58 AM |
|
|
|
First Born
Senior Member
777 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 12:51:32 PM
|
| I carry everyday and hope to never have to use deadly force. However, if myself, family or an unarmed person are ever put in a life threatening situation by another individual, I will not hesitate. BUT, if I where to draw my weapon and the attacker fled, I am no longer in danger at that point and have no right to then take a life based on the current situation. Odds of someone having time to flee before I get two rounds off is slim though. |
|
|
|
saltydog235
Senior Member
9749 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 1:07:32 PM
|
Personally, I hope that I never have to face a situation where I have to defend the lives of myself, family or others. I hope to never have to shoot or fight another individual for property either. Taking another person's life isn't on my bucket list nor anything that I feel would be glamorous in any way. I know people that have been faced with the situation and it took them a long time to get over and wrecked their lives in many ways.
Whether or not I carry or even own a firearm for that purpose is no one's perogative but my own. Advertising it, boasting about it, or saying what I'd do in an adverse situation as presented is stupid IMO. Letting someone/anyone know you carry isn't keeping you safer, its putting a target square on your back, which is where the bullet/attack will come from first. I'm 110% for the right to carry, the 2nd Amendment and protection of person and property, just not advertising it. However, too many times I've seen and heard people who get a CWP brag about it and seem to have a hard on for getting into an OK Corral shootout with a perp. People that go looking for trouble will eventually find it, I tend to not try and put myself in those situations or daydream about what I'd do if this or that happened.
Mark
Mako 262 Twin Yammaha F200s
Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
"Life's tough......It's even tougher if you're stupid" John Wayne
|
Edited by - saltydog235 on 03/29/2012 2:35:59 PM |
|
|
|
jstrange
Senior Member
3167 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 6:59:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Habit
they are only PROPOSED changes. long way to go until we have to run like a scared rabbit again.
OUR GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME THE ENEMY OF FREEDOM.
Thank you Bad Habit!!!!!
Notice the drive by media's slant and bias already trying to make like the changes have already happened.
I assure you, the next to the last thing I want to do is call 911 over my having to shoot some one. The very last thing I want to do is be breathing my last breath in a pool of blood because I hesitated over fear of repercussions on protocol in a life or death situation.
As far as I'm concerned, if you are acting questionable, thenh you are questionable. Flags are raised. Do they escalate or bow their heads and move along? I think this is a good place to stop for now.
Umm, you gonna eat that?
Thousands have died to save my freedom. Only one has died to save my soul! |
|
|
|
Palmetto Bug
Senior Member
1321 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 7:19:11 PM
|
From my understanding of the concept of self defense, at least as it is codified in SC law, you cannot claim self defense if you provoked the incident. In reference to the case in Florida, I think it could be argued that the neighborhood watch guy, Zimmerman, may have provoked the aggression of the dead victim, Martin. Nevertheless, from recent accounts, the victim, Martin, was beating him, Zimmerman, senseless and Zimmerman had no other option than to shoot to stay alive. I think the case will hinge on whether the jury believes the neighborhood watch guy did anything that would provoke an attack from a reasonable person.
My opinion is that Zimmerman probably didn't brandish his weapon because that would have made it unlikely for unarmed Martin to attack him. Furthermore, I don't think it is likely that Zimmerman would have been excessively bold either since he was armed and would have reasonably expected that a burglar, as he suspected, might have also been armed. If I were a judge and had to rule on this with only the scant testimony we have been given through the biased press, Zimmerman is lucky he is alive but he may have reasonably provoked the incident and therefore may not be able to invoke the "self defense" defense. If what we have heard is the whole story, he may be guilty of manslaughter. If testimony reveals that Martin was asked something innocuous like "what his business was in the neighborhood" and "what was he doing there"; reasonable questions if you are a visitor in a gated neighborhood, yet he attacked anyway because he was offended, the shooter was justified in using his weapon to save his life. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Feelings about Protection of Persons and Property
