Other State ‘You shouldn’t have to shoot someone.’ SC could change ‘stand your ground’ law

[The Heretic]

‘You shouldn’t have to shoot someone.’ SC could change ‘stand your ground’ law

The bill is the latest attempt to expand gun rights in South Carolina.

www.yahoo.com

Read More

 

[Tinman357]

I would have though the concerns addressed in this were simple common sense. Then again, common sense among our elected is so rare it's damn near a freaking superpower.

But. They are fixing a perceived weak spot. But only a lawyer would argue that that you're not covered unless you shoot the Do-Bad.

 

[Legion489]

I don't know. I keep telling people this ain't Harry Potter and guns are not wands that you wave around to make bad things go away. Sometimes they do, sometimes the criminal takes it away from you and pistol whips you before shooting you. If you are in fear of your life and you pull a gun, you had better be ready to use it, and yes, been there, done that.

Of course, in today's insane courts, a career criminal is attacking and beating you, you pull your gun, and they runoff. YOU call the police, YOU are arrested, the CRIMINAL walks (been there done that). What I did wrong was I didn't shoot the criminal! Not making a stupid mistake like that again.

The law is set up to PROTECT THE CRIMINAL from harm, NOT the honest, law-abiding citizen. Honest, law-abiding citizens can't make money for the system (look at the courts, lawyers, judges, jails, prisons which are run as FOR-PROFIT corps! The judge - yes, I know, in 49 states and your state is the lone exception - get a salary AND a cut of the fines, from a little to a lot. If you go to court, ASK the judge! If he/she says "yes", ask for a judge that is unbiased and has no stake in the matter. That REALLY upsets the apple cart!) which is why everything is illegal, from gardening, collecting rainwater off your own property, cutting your own kid's hair, putting up a fence on your own property, etc. How can you control HONEST CITIZENS? You CAN'T! So make everything a crime. You literally break a dozen laws a day, even if you do nothing!

How do you turn an anti-gun liberal into a Pro-2nd Amendment Conservative? Drop them off in a bad area of town after dark and let them get mugged, beaten, robbed, raped, and all the other joys of freeing violent criminals back on the street and disarming honest citizens (you will note that the politicos ALL have ARMED guards with THEM of course! They only want YOU, the honest law-abiding citizen, disarmed and NOT the criminals!). If it doesn't work the first time, try it again. If they are that stupid, they deserve to experience the joys of their folly repeatedly.

 

[JohnnyMac]

"but said they wanted to revisit it once they'd created a few amendments for it."

Yes, like adding on a few tidbits from the Green New Deal, setting up a universal income and abolishing the police.

 

[po18guy]

‘You shouldn’t have to shoot someone.’ SC could change ‘stand your ground’ law

The bill is the latest attempt to expand gun rights in South Carolina.

www.yahoo.com

What? Common sense???
"Mr. Scott, beam me to South Carolina"

 

[DangerDog]

People shouldn't have to rob or threaten lives either. What a joke.

 

[Jonnyuma]

That article did a pretty bad job of explaining SYG and why an armed confrontation is often ended without a shot being fired.

SYG doesn't provide any "immunity" or legal protection beyond decriminalizing the very act of justifiable self defense involving deadly force.

Not being forced to fire one's weapon in a self defense situation is a whole lot different than brandishing or using it as a magic wand to make your current troubles disappear. If one is justified in drawing their weapon, SYG should most definitely provide legal protection from prosecution whether the weapon is subsequently discharged or not.

There's a reason that statistics regarding defensive uses of firearms vary so widely; the instances where no shots are fired still count but aren't necessarily reported to police. I mean, why WOULD you?

 

[uberguy]

From the article "
The South Carolina chapter of Moms Demand Action, a nationwide volunteer advocacy group that champions legislation to cut down on gun violence, took a stance against it ... "It would give people carte blanche to escalate situations to potentially deadly ones by brandishing firearms whenever they feel threatened, which is the last thing we need," Shelley said.

That IS the point of carrying a firearm. Only it's about reality, not feelings.

 

[The Heretic]

There's a reason that statistics regarding defensive uses of firearms vary so widely; the instances where no shots are fired still count but aren't necessarily reported to police. I mean, why WOULD you?

One reason comes to mind - some snowflake or criminal reports you for displaying your gun, and lies about the circumstances. It is probably better in most circumstances that you get your report in first and tell your side of the story?

 

[clearconscience]

And most common folks who would defend themselves dont pull out phones and start filming, its the people who want to push a narrative.

Just like that drill Sargent charged with assault.
Where's the video of why he confronted the guy in the first place

 

[Patriot1775]

‘You shouldn’t have to shoot someone.’ SC could change ‘stand your ground’ law

The bill is the latest attempt to expand gun rights in South Carolina.

www.yahoo.com

Yes, you sometimes have to.

 

[kbf64]

And most common folks who would defend themselves dont pull out phones and start filming, its the people who want to push a narrative.

Just like that drill Sargent charged with assault.
Where's the video of why he confronted the guy in the first place

he didn't make a good choice; should have call the non-emergency line for police to respond. If it was immediately life threatening he could respond ...but going outside your house to confront someone like that is a bad choice. It wasn't clear what law the kid broke from the video, but you will not gain the confidence from the police and the DA's office if the first thing they see is you pushing some kid on TV.

IMO, he should have known better, if he was the "neighborhood watch".

He failed big time in the court of public opinion, and that would foreshadow any legal aspects.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

‘You shouldn’t have to shoot someone.’ SC could change ‘stand your ground’ law

The bill is the latest attempt to expand gun rights in South Carolina.

www.yahoo.com

This is not too different from our laws in Oregon, would you agree? Basically if you point a weapon at someone, you'd better shoot to kill and be able to specifically articulate a lethal threat... or a threat of great bodily harm.

 

[The Heretic]

This is not too different from our laws in Oregon, would you agree? Basically if you point a weapon at someone, you'd better shoot to kill and be able to specifically articulate a lethal threat... or a threat of great bodily harm.

I think they are trying to clarify the intention of the law so some overzealous DA and/or judge doesn't use it to railroad someone into prison. Ideally the intention of SYG/etc. laws would cover someone who chose not to shoot (yet) in addition to someone who did, but given today's DAs, judges and juries, it is best to have the intention clearly spelled out. "Loopholes" work both ways.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I think they are trying to clarify the intention of the law so some overzealous DA and/or judge doesn't use it to railroad someone into prison. Ideally the intention of SYG/etc. laws would cover someone who chose not to shoot (yet) in addition to someone who did, but given today's DAs, judges and juries, it is best to have the intention clearly spelled out. "Loopholes" work both ways.

Yeah, can't argue with that. Makes sense.

 

[OldBroad44]

One reason comes to mind - some snowflake or criminal reports you for displaying your gun, and lies about the circumstances. It is probably better in most circumstances that you get your report in first and tell your side of the story?

Other reasons for reporting the event include that the bad guy may be caught if reported immediately, or you consider that the bad guy may present immediate danger to others. I've experienced four situations that required me to draw a gun on a bad guy. Two home invasions, one accidentally surprising a robber, and one stopping a would-be rapist who assaulted a young woman in the parking lot behind my apartment building. All ended by bad guy fleeing when presented with gun. I reported only two. One of the home invasions involved someone who was clearly enraged/deranged/semi-suicidal/zonked on drugs. I thought it likely deranged guy would attack anyone else in his path after I got him out of my house. So I called cops to protect my neighbors. And I reported the robber because I had complete description and thought cops might be able to catch robber. They didn't catch robber, but did catch fence and recover stolen goods.

 

[Legion489]

From the article "
The South Carolina chapter of Moms Demand Action, a nationwide volunteer advocacy group that champions legislation to cut down on gun violence, took a stance against it ... "It would give people carte blanche to escalate situations to potentially deadly ones by brandishing firearms whenever they feel threatened, which is the last thing we need," Shelley said.

That IS the point of carrying a firearm. Only it's about reality, not feelings.

I'm not sure, but it looks like you misspelled "anti-gun, pro-communist front group" there.

 

[po18guy]

Crises, such as losing a child, always and everywhere, lead to bad law. The hackneyed plea of "If we can save even one life" ultimately justifies total enslavement of society.

The amoral press jumps at the chance to exploit grieving family members.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Crises, such as losing a child, always and everywhere, lead to bad law. The hackneyed plea of "If we can save even one life" ultimately justifies total enslavement of society.

The amoral press jumps at the chance to exploit grieving family members.

You sure got that right! My goodness, we've destroyed a global economy to combat a virus with a 99.8% survival rate. And I say this having lost a friend to it...

 

[po18guy]

You sure got that right! My goodness, we've destroyed a global economy to combat a virus with a 99.8% survival rate. And I say this having lost a friend to it...

And what happened to the flu? It seems to have fled the planet! The old leftist mantra of "Never waste a crisis" is indeed true.