As if we needed another reason to question Stand Your Ground laws

[KabeRinnaul]

So, a convicted felon (which makes it illegal for him to own firearms in the first place) in South Carolina was abusing his wife. The wife got sick of his treatment of her, and called her brother to come get her. The husband confronted the brother on the front porch, and wound up shooting and killing him.

He successfully used Stand Your Ground as a defense, and has been granted immunity through it, even though he wasn't legally able to use the firearm he "defended himself" with in the first place.

Raw Story

One would think that being legally able to carry the firearm would be a prerequisite to legally using it to defend yourself with lethal force.

[Greenday]

One would think that being legally able to carry the firearm would be a prerequisite to legally using it to defend yourself with lethal force.

Why? Is he no longer allowed to defend himself?

[KabeRinnaul]

Why? Is he no longer allowed to defend himself?

Not with a firearm, no. That's one of those things that comes with being a felon.

[Gravekeeper]

Why? Is he no longer allowed to defend himself?

Ugh, really dude? You're going to start this here on this story? Yes, he's allowed to defend himself. But he's not legally allowed to possess a firearm and the judge granted him immunity from being charged with illegal possession of a firearm as well as any charges stemming from the shooting. He also lied to police and hid the weapon after the shooting among other bullshit.

Stand Your Ground requires that you be acting in a lawful manner. Which part of that sounds lawful?

And regardless of what the jackasses defense is, this is a case for a jury to decide. Not one judge granting sweeping immunity based on the defendant's rather ridiculous testimony. He testified that the victim was crouching down outside on his lawn and wearing a hat, sunglasses and a bandanna over his face so he didn't know who it was.

But still left his home and went outside to check despite "fearing for his life". Dude even posted to his Facebook that he was going to be charged with murder before he was arrested. >.>

[Greenday]

Not with a firearm, no. That's one of those things that comes with being a felon.

So felons aren't human being with rights? Got it.

Stand Your Ground requires that you be acting in a lawful manner. Which part of that sounds lawful?

Self-defense is always lawful, regardless of felon status.

[Hyena Dandy]

So felons aren't human being with rights? Got it.

Felons are LEGALLY FORBIDDEN to carry guns. This is on the ground that they have a tendency to use them to shoot people who don't deserve it. They don't get firearms for the same reason that drunk drivers don't get licenses.

Self-defense is always lawful, regardless of felon status.

And if we were talking about whether self-defense is acceptable, that might mean something.

[s_stabeler]

Self-defense is always lawful, regardless of felon status.

Um, while true, the fact of the matter is, felons are forbidden by law from owning or carrying guns. They CAN apply to have their gun owning rights lifted, but it isn't automatic on release from jail.

What KabeRinnaul was saying is that, regardless of if the felon used the gun in self-defense, he should not have been given immunity from prosecution for illegally owning the firearm in the first place.

That, and the shooting wasn't self-defense anyway. From the sounds of it, the shooter went out on the porch, saw someone out there- and his girlfriend could apparently identify who was there, so I doubt that the shooter couldn't- and immediately shot them. At no point does it say the victim was armed in any way, let alone threatening the shooter. What this judgement does is say that, if you feel even remotely threatened, you are allowed to shoot someone dead.

[Gravekeeper]

So felons aren't human being with rights? Got it.

Ok, seriously. If you're not even going to elevate your "arguments" above that of a random Youtube commentator why even involve yourself in these threads? These sorts of comments are borderline childish at this point. Just strawman after strawman or putting words in the mouths of other forum goers.

[Greenday]

Ok, seriously. If you're not even going to elevate your "arguments" above that of a random Youtube commentator why even involve yourself in these threads? These sorts of comments are borderline childish at this point. Just strawman after strawman or putting words in the mouths of other forum goers.

I'm the one fighting for human rights in this thread. I don't want to hear comments from those frothing from the mouth about "OMGZ GUNS!" telling me I'm the insane one.

The right to self-defense supercedes all other laws. If you truly believe someone is trying to kill you, no law should prevent you from protecting yourself.

[NecCat]

The right to self-defense supercedes all other laws. .

I don't follow. It's illegal (I assume) to build a back yard nuclear bomb. If you're using it for self defence that doesn't negate the illigality of building it. (I know that's not a real word, I just don't know the actual word to use )

The right to self defence assumes you are following the law when you need to defend you self from harm. You are not allowed to use force to protect yourself if the people trying to harm you are doing it to stop you from robbing the bank you are currently holding up. You are not allowed to protect you self from harm if the people harming you are doing it to stop you from continuing to assault the person you are harming. And you can't have an illegal weapon in case you might one day need it for self defence purpose.

[s_stabeler]

I'm the one fighting for human rights in this thread. I don't want to hear comments from those frothing from the mouth about "OMGZ GUNS!" telling me I'm the insane one.

The right to self-defense supercedes all other laws. If you truly believe someone is trying to kill you, no law should prevent you from protecting yourself.

a) we're not arguing- IF this guy WAS defending himself- that he should be prosecuted for murder. what we are saying is that it does not provide immunity for having an illegal firearm.
b) the murderer (and yes, I am going to call him a murderer) literally opened the door, and immediately shot the guy. There are very few circumstances where that would be acceptable, none of which apply as far as I can tell.
c) self-defense isn't a magic word that gets you out of a murder charge. As far as I can tell, said felon was let off because he said "I was in fear for my life" and was in his own home. At an absolute minimum, he would need to explain why he felt his life was in immediate peril, since there is nothing in the article suggesting the victim had a weapon, let alone one on the point of being used on the murderer.)
d) what this amounts to is the judiciary saying that an abusive partner has the right to use lethal force to ensure they can continue to abuse their victims. See the problem? (which is one reason why this really needed to go to a jury trial)

[NorthernZel]

I'm the one fighting for human rights in this thread.

Huh? Last time I checked, the right to bear arms is NOT approved by the UN as a basic human right. The Constitution may give you that right by being a US citizen, but please don't pull the rest of the world into this.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm the one fighting for human rights in this thread. I don't want to hear comments from those frothing from the mouth about "OMGZ GUNS!" telling me I'm the insane one.

Annnnd another strawman. This borders on parody.

The right to self-defense supercedes all other laws. If you truly believe someone is trying to kill you, no law should prevent you from protecting yourself.

A) No, it doesn't actually.

B) No, that's not how the law works in regards to self defense outside of the bullshit that is Stand Your Ground. Your belief that your life is endanger must be reasonable. Hence the other asshole that tried to use SYG in Texas to defend shooting an unarmed person just got convicted again on appeal for murder.

Also there is a difference between protecting yourself and killing someone else. Normal self defense laws are based on reasonable force. Outside of an SYG state you couldn't just shoot an unarmed relative in the face on your front lawn because he was scary.

You do not have carte blanche to kill other human beings because you were "afraid".

[Kara_CS]

I'm the one fighting for human rights in this thread. I don't want to hear comments from those frothing from the mouth about "OMGZ GUNS!" telling me I'm the insane one.

The right to self-defense supercedes all other laws. If you truly believe someone is trying to kill you, no law should prevent you from protecting yourself.

No one in this thread has suggested that he didn't have a right to defend himself. No one has suggested that convicted felons are not people or that they do not have the right to defend themselves. The issue is that he is not legally permitted to own a firearm. He used the firearm, which he was not legally permitted to own, to murder another human being. In fact, neither the article on Raw Story nor the original report from News 5 Alive indicate that any kind of altercation occurred at all. The brother-in-law came to the door, the husband grabbed his gun, and shot him in the face. This doesn't appear to be a case of self-defense, or "Stand Your Ground" at all, it seems to be a case of a man illegally possessing a firearm and using it to kill another man, which is also illegal. According to the Manning, SC newspaper, the shooting happened after an argument. Not a fight, not an attack.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, the brother-in-law attacked him. He had every right to defend himself from harm. But was his life in danger? Did the nature of the attack leave him with no choice but to kill another person? It is possible to not only defend yourself without killing your attacker, but it's possible to do so without a gun. The husband, being a convicted felon, may or may not have a reasonable argument for defending himself, but he is not legally permitted to own a firearm because of his previous felony conviction. If he could successfully argue that he defended himself, he could avoid a murder charge because of the state's Stand Your Ground laws. But he should still be charged for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm under South Carolina law. His prior felony convictions were for possession of a stolen vehicle and third-degree arson. Third-degree arson is classified as a violent offense because it presumes a malicious intent.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Greenday - usually I can follow your arguments. But in this thread I'm pretty lost. People who have been convicted of a crime have specific rights stripped away as punishment - freedom, privacy, gun ownership to name a few. If you're going to keep arguing what you are in this thread, then you are arguing against forbidding violent felons from possessing firearms.

They can still defend themselves, that's not the argument. The argument is that he should not have been granted immunity from being punished for illegally owning a firearm. A right that he had taken away because he was a violent felon, and could not be trusted to own one safely and responsibly. Considering what happened here, he just proved that assumption 100% correct.

I'm sorry, but if someone has proven themselves to be a violent criminal, society has every right - and even the duty - to make it much harder for them to cause such damage. Be that by locking them up in prison, forbidding the use of firearms/other implements they had used in the past to cause such damage, or forbidding them from being outside of work/home during certain hours.

You commit a crime, you are forfeiting some your rights. That is how society works. Everyone - even felons - have the right to defend themselves, but that doesn't mean they can do something illegal in preparation for defending themselves. I don't get to have a ballista on the roof of my house just in case someone tries to break in.