“(The Legislature’s) intent … was to provide law-abiding citizens greater protections from external threats in the form of intruders and attackers,” prosecutor Culver Kidd told the Post and Courier. “We believe that applying the statute so that its reach into our homes and personal relationships is inconsistent with (its) wording and intent.”
via South Carolina Prosecutors Say Stand Your Ground Doesn’t Apply To Victims Of Domestic Violence | ThinkProgress.
Some have accused me of being too negative against Prosecutors regarding Stand Your Ground and Immunity from Prosecution. If there is not a clearer example as to why they need to be reigned in, here is one.
In their hatred for SYG, South Carolina Prosecutors have no qualms in sending Women’s Rights 40 years in the past. To demand that a woman should sustain injury or death trying to retreat from an abusive partner because your butt is full of legal boils against a law that protects the innocent and tie your hands when you are trying to be an idiot is beyond contempt.
“But in the town, it was well known
When they got home at night, their fat and
Psychopathic wives would thrash them
Within inches of their lives.”
Pink Floyd. The Happiest days of Our Lives.
8 thoughts on “South Carolina Prosecutors Say Stand Your Ground Doesn’t Apply To Victims Of Domestic Violence | ThinkProgress”
Fortunately prosecutors are not the arbiters. Judges and juries will decide.
ThinkProgress must have nearly had an aneurism finding themselves defending SYG laws. That’s assuming they recognized the conflict in the first place.
NO, NO, NO!
Miguel, how could you possibly fall for this garbage?
#1. There is NO such thing as “Stand Your Ground Immunity.” It doesn’t exist. No matter how many times the Left and the Media (but I repeat myself) says “SYG Immunity!” it doesn’t make it true.
#2. Stand your Ground is NOT operative inside a home. That’s the Castle Doctrine. Inside a home, under the Castle Doctrine, a person may be presumed to be in reasonable fear of death, serious bodily injury, or sexual assault if another person forcibly and unlawfully enters or attempts to enter the dwelling. Let me quote directly from NORTH Carolina’s Castle Law.
(b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section shall be rebuttable and does not apply in any of the following circumstances:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.
You cannot claim that someone has forcibly and unlawfully entered a home that they still live in.
ThinkProgress (which is in favor of neither) probably knows this, but is just trying to gin up opposition to a law they hate by trying to claim that it’s sexist. It’s not. You MAY NOT SHOOT YOUR WIFE AND CLAIM CASTLE. If it was otherwise, ThinkProgress would be screaming about how it was “Free license to MURDER YOUR WIFE!!!111Eleventy!”
Except that Castle Doctrine does not apply to another lawful occupant of the dwelling. Seems it’s not possible to “invade” a space where you have a legal right to be. Just as it is not legally possible for one resident (name on the lease/deed most places, common law relationship some others) to bar/trespass another resident.
Getting a restraining order is little help, as the entry into the residence or assault on the one covered by the order is contempt of court and not something a non-LEO can enforce against.
Prosecutors have obviously figured out how to impose a Catch-44 (double a Catch 22) on domestic violence victims. And I’ve got some real money that says it is driven by the fact that an icky gun was used.
The problem is that a judge can be convinced to uphold this line of reasoning because an over-eager defense lawyer thought it would be better to press on the 2A/Constitutiionality issue instead of the applicability of SYG regardless of where or against whom. Sadly, I can see the 2A defense being brought up more than I can see the entitlement to SYG against all comers – related or not.
Actually, looking at the law, getting a restraining order restores the presumption of reasonable fear under the law. (section 16-11-440 (E))
To quote myself: “Stand Your Ground and Immunity from Prosecution” two different things.
I think what we have here is an issue of interpretation of the laws of each state. I don’t know about SC, but Fl had Duty to Retreat for Self Defense situations and that got knocked down with SYG.
That being said: “The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.”
That does not give that person the right to illegally exercise Grave Bodily Harm against another legal resident of the “home, motor vehicle, or workplace” nor the law expects the intended victim to disregard his/her safety in order to achieve the mythical goal of complying with Duty to Retreat.
I might be mistaken, but there is not a single state in the US that says a victim must relinquish any and all rights of Self Defense because the other party has “rights” too.
Again, it will depend on your particular state and its laws, but I doubt I am wrong on this.
This one is NOT going to end well… Probably about like those restraining orders working…
[…] -Miguel over at the Gun Free Zone Blog had a post this week discussing the story that South Carolina prosecutors are no longer allowing […]
Comments are closed.
Login or register to comment.