« Zero tolerance = zero brains, part 2,356 | Main | Robbery in AZ has its risks »
"ThinkProgress" has second thoughts on no-retreat
"South Carolina Prosecutors Say Stand Your Ground Doesn't Apply To Victims Of Domestic Violence." Sounds like the argument is a variant of "the statute on its face says this, but we can't believe the legislature meant this to happen." Amusing to see prosecutors arguing that. It's usually argued by defense counsel, when the prosecutor comes up with a theory that the statute, if applied very literally, would turn a jaywalking charge into a ten year felony sentence.
UPDATE in light of comment: thanks for the citation. It looks to me as if ยง16-11-400 breaks down:
A. Presumption of reasonable fear if home is illegally entered.
B. Exceptions: (A) does not apply if other person is a lawful resident, etc.
C. A person who is in a place where he has a lawful right to be has no duty to retreat if attacked.
The article may have gotten it wrong (lots of reporters think (A), which is castle doctrine, is no-retreat. But if the defense is based on (C), that subsection has no exemption for the attacker being a co-resident. And I could see why the Legislature might want to create an exemption for A but not for C.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
This section here seems to be the part in question. While i doubt that the legislature intended for Victims of Domestic Violence, not to have the right of self defense, or the right to Stand their ground.
(B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:
(1) against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or
This is what happens when we allow attorneys to violate the separation of powers and legislate. All attorneys who are members of the bar are officers of the court and therefore are members of the judicial branch. In holding a legislative or executive office, these persons violate the central concept of separation of powers. The only legitimate action is for the attorney who wishes to hold office in a branch other than the judicial branch to resign from the bar. Should the person wish to reengage in practice they can retake and pass the bar exam in order to be reinstated.
It those four years of Ambiguity courses that foul the mind.
It appears that the prosecutors actually may have a point. Check out section 16-11-440, the text of the statute.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c011.php
I would say that it was poorly drafted, except reading it, it sounds like domestic disputes, disputes with landlords, disputes with exes over children, etc., were precisely what they intended to exclude.