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.
Idiot judge can’t read plain English. He’s a prime candidate for impeachment based on incompetence.
I tried, but could not find his party affiliation.
I bet it’s Democrat.
[…] South Carolina: No Stand Your Ground Law? […]
Paragraph [a] above is clear in it’s meaning and should require no interpretation on the part of the Court. So long as one is in a place they are lawfully allowed to be, they should have no legal duty to retreat.
That said, nothing is stopping one from retreating if they can do so without risking harm to themselves or others in the process.
If, however, doing so would place oneself or others at significant risk of grievous bodily harm or death then they have no duty to retreat, regardless of what the law says, since the law can not require the impossible.
That said, it can, and often has proven difficult to show that one had no alternative other than lethal force. Hence, when armed one should take the same precautions in order to avoid known bad areas or situations that could escalate to violence as they would if unarmed. If not more so since it can lead one to becoming over confident or even viewed as looking for trouble and finding it, or it finding you and then having to justify the fact you were in a place you were lawfully allowed to be, especially if it’s a situation or place you could’ve avoided but felt the risk was acceptable simply because you were armed.
Doon’t forget that is its going to be either the police or the prosecutor who determines if you complied with the “spirit” of the law and retreated enough for legal purposes. That leaves too much leeway for interpretation and will lead to abuse.
too many chiefs trying to “interpret” a law. I can only hope that the judge runs into a situation while he is in his personal vehicle and is faced with like instance. BUT then again, it will be ok in his situation. Double standards.
I do not know what actually happened that day.
I could see that he should be tried because he instigated the fight, or he interfered with the fight, maybe? Was the defendant drunk and reckless? If so, the judge should have said so. Does the judge disagree with the law, or I wonder if the judge is applying the law in a consistent color blind manner?
The South Carolina law is very plain. Judge is wrong. If found guilty, appeal the case. Then impeach the judge who evidently doesn’t know the laws of the state of South Carolina.
But that is the beauty of what the judge did. If sent to appeals, it may not get reversed because the guy really does not have a whole lot going for him to claim Self Defense. The failure to reverse will be used for other cases. If it is not sent to appeal, then it is unchallenged which also can be used (with less “power of persuasion”) in other cases or just plain PR.
As usual, the judge was wrong again!
[…] […]
U.S. Supreme Court 1921 Brown vs. United States ruled that no retreat was or could be required. Many State laws violate this SCOUS ruling..
But judges are often political appointees and think they are lords or even gods.
Two cases before Brown:
Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895)
Rowe v. U S, (1896) No. 439
There are three SCOTUS case dating up 122 years.
Have you noticed that SYG has never been taken for a Challenge in a Superior Court? They know it too.