A Cope man can’t use the defense that he was “standing his ground” during a fatal shooting incident at a public park, a judge says.Circuit Judge Ed Dickson issued an order on Friday stating that the state’s Protection of Persons and Property Act, sometimes called the “castle doctrine,” didn’t apply in the case…
…“Defendant’s interpretation of the act would elevate every public street, sidewalk and park to the special status of a person’s home, making each human being a castle unto himself. Such an interpretation would eviscerate the centuries-old and well-reasoned legal doctrine that a person must avoid using deadly force whenever possible, at least in the context of fights and ‘quarrels’” Dickson wrote.
Source: Judge: No standing ground | Local | thetandd.com
I am confused on this one. I thought SC did have Stand Your Ground already codified under S.C. Code Sections 16-11-410, et seq., the “Protection of Persons and Property Act,”
[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
But the judge did not stop there as he claims no SYG case has ever graced the South Carolina’s Courts or that the Legislature apparently did not say what Stand Your Ground says in the code mentioned above:
“This extreme shift in public policy is not authorized by the act, which states simply that its intent is to codify the common law castle doctrine and extend it to a person’s occupied vehicle and place of business. No case interpreting the act has held that it abrogates the duty to retreat in public places. Nor has any South Carolina case ever held that the castle doctrine’s application is unconnected to property or possessory interests,” he continued.
So, does South Carolina forces human life to go at a discount outside home?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I am gonna keep an eye on this case.