In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Solicitor got this WRONG! Update
mogley98
Member Posts: 18,291 ✭✭✭✭
http://www.live5news.com/story/37125011/argument-shooting-outside-of-columbia-mcdonalds-ends-with-1-hospitalized
Dude had committed crimes leading up to the "Justifiable Homicide"?
Odd, I would charge his *. Self defense is in a place you havev a right to be not guilty of doing anything illegal.
Requirement to use self defense in SC
A person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense when:
The defendant was without fault in bringing on the difficulty; (This says to me the guy can't use self defense)
The defendant?actually believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious * injury, or he actually was in such imminent danger;
If the defense is based upon the defendants actual belief of imminent danger, a reasonable prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the same belief?and;
The defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious * injury than to act as he did in this particular instance.
Dude had committed crimes leading up to the "Justifiable Homicide"?
Odd, I would charge his *. Self defense is in a place you havev a right to be not guilty of doing anything illegal.
Requirement to use self defense in SC
A person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense when:
The defendant was without fault in bringing on the difficulty; (This says to me the guy can't use self defense)
The defendant?actually believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious * injury, or he actually was in such imminent danger;
If the defense is based upon the defendants actual belief of imminent danger, a reasonable prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the same belief?and;
The defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious * injury than to act as he did in this particular instance.
Why don't we go to school and work on the weekends and take the week off!
Comments
It's a matter of taking your law into your own hands, which is illegal too.
It's a sad situation, but he should have let the police deal with it and not take the law in his own hands.
I do agree, that it really shouldn't be considered Justified... unless he thought he was being robbed himself. But the laws are the laws
Not saying the guy who pulled the gun wasn't also wrong but the shooter has no right to the claim of self defense by SC law when guilty of committing a crime. Therefore as OP states Solicitor still got it wrong.
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
I don't know, they shouldn't have tracked him down and demanded the stuff back. They should have just called the cops and had the cops track him down and demanded the stuff back and arrested him.
It's a matter of taking your law into your own hands, which is illegal too.
It's a sad situation, but he should have let the police deal with it and not take the law in his own hands.
I do agree, that it really shouldn't be considered Justified... unless he thought he was being robbed himself. But the laws are the laws
As has been said, once the location of the phone was identified they should have called police. Taking the law into his own hands resulted in Copeland getting himself killed. My guess is that they are all chitbags.
Law in SC is that self defense is only justifiable when you are not guilty of committing a crime.
Not saying the guy who pulled the gun wasn't also wrong but the shooter has no right to the claim of self defense by SC law when guilty of committing a crime. Therefore as OP states Solicitor still got it wrong.
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
I don't know, they shouldn't have tracked him down and demanded the stuff back. They should have just called the cops and had the cops track him down and demanded the stuff back and arrested him.
It's a matter of taking your law into your own hands, which is illegal too.
It's a sad situation, but he should have let the police deal with it and not take the law in his own hands.
I do agree, that it really shouldn't be considered Justified... unless he thought he was being robbed himself. But the laws are the laws
Are you sure it doesn't say committing a crime... Not... guilty of committing the crime
The crime was already committed and the Act was finished. So even though he committed a crime earlier, he was not committing a crime at the time.
I'm sure you're just misreading the laws. The district attorney probably knows better than you what the laws are, and I'm sure if he could have charge the guy with murder he would have. They love to do that
As you say the Solicitor may feel the unlawful activity was over. IMO having someones stolen property down the street from where you stole it is still engaged in a criminal act and he loses his right to self defense under that assumption. In no way am I saying the feloow who tried to regain the property was correct, I just don't accept self defense from a crook.
I hope the solicitor changes his mind on this one if that is possible.
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
quote:Originally posted by mogley98
Law in SC is that self defense is only justifiable when you are not guilty of committing a crime.
Not saying the guy who pulled the gun wasn't also wrong but the shooter has no right to the claim of self defense by SC law when guilty of committing a crime. Therefore as OP states Solicitor still got it wrong.
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
I don't know, they shouldn't have tracked him down and demanded the stuff back. They should have just called the cops and had the cops track him down and demanded the stuff back and arrested him.
It's a matter of taking your law into your own hands, which is illegal too.
It's a sad situation, but he should have let the police deal with it and not take the law in his own hands.
I do agree, that it really shouldn't be considered Justified... unless he thought he was being robbed himself. But the laws are the laws
Are you sure it doesn't say committing a crime... Not... guilty of committing the crime
The crime was already committed and the Act was finished. So even though he committed a crime earlier, he was not committing a crime at the time.
I'm sure you're just misreading the laws. The district attorney probably knows better than you what the laws are, and I'm sure if he could have charge the guy with murder he would have. They love to do that
I don't know, they shouldn't have tracked him down and demanded the stuff back. They should have just called the cops and had the cops track him down and demanded the stuff back and arrested him.
It's a matter of taking your law into your own hands, which is illegal too.
It's a sad situation, but he should have let the police deal with it and not take the law in his own hands.
I do agree, that it really shouldn't be considered Justified... unless he thought he was being robbed himself. But the laws are the laws
The cops generally won't act as collection agents for pimps. Pimping is a do it yourself business.