Stand Your Ground claimed as defense by intruder

[Seth]

I've been wondering when some crook was going to assert this, and I'm glad the S.C. Supreme Court is going to look at it...and probably dispose of the question once and for all, at least in S.C.

It would be incredible if the Court held that a person involved in a violent criminal attack within someone's home has a statutory defense against murdering the homeowner merely because he feared for his life. That's an ordinary and expected risk one assumes when invading homes...as expressed no doubt by the "Stand Your Ground" and/or "Castle Doctrine" statute itself somewhere in the legislative declaration. I know Colorado has such a statement of intent and purpose.

Crime
S.C. Supreme Court Abruptly Halts Murder Trial to Hear Arguments on ‘Stand Your Ground’ — After an Armed Intruder Uses It to Justify Killing a Homeowner
Jul. 12, 2013 9:10am Madeleine Morgenstern

The South Carolina Supreme Court had made the unusual move of halting a murder trial to hold a hearing on the state’s so-called “stand your ground” law — but it’s who’s claiming the defense that’s likely to turn heads: an armed intruder who shot and killed the man whose home he broke into.
S.C. Supreme Court Hearing Arguments on Stand Your Ground After an Armed Intruder Uses It to Justify Killing a Homeowner

South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal (AP)

Gregg Isaac testified in court this week that he entered the apartment of Antonio Corbitt in 2005 with another man, Tavares World, after World kicked in the door, The State newspaper reported. Isaac testified that as World and Corbitt fought, it looked like Corbitt was going to pull a gun and shoot Isaac, so instead, Isaac shot Corbitt twice. Corbitt stumbled outside and died.

Isaac said he also feared for his life from World, because World had threatened to kill him unless he went along with him.

Isaac’s defense attorney Mark Schnee argued that his client should be granted immunity from prosecution because South Carolina’s 2006 “stand your ground” law allows people to use deadly force if they fear for their lives.

“It borders on the preposterous for the defendant in this case to claim he was acting lawfully and had the right to kill Mr. Corbitt,” Judge Clifton Newman said in court.

Newman turned down a petition by the defense to hold a hearing on the matter, but after the trial began, Schnee filed an emergency petition with the South Carolina Supreme Court requesting a stay in the trial. The stay was granted Tuesday, the trial’s second day.

The state Supreme Court wants to hear arguments on the “stand your ground” law, specifically about when in a trial a judge should hold a hearing about evidence that a defendant used deadly force because he claimed he feared for his life, according to The State. If a judge were to rule the “stand your ground” law applied, he could grant the defendant immunity and no trial would be held.

Dan Johnson, the 5th circuit solicitor whose office is responsible for criminal prosecutions, told The State he’s “glad it’s an issue that the court is taking a look at.”

Johnson said holding full pretrial hearings every time a “stand your ground” defense is used could slow the entire trial process.

“As you know, court time is at a premium. In essence, you’ll have to have a mini-trial before you go ahead with the full trial. It makes it more difficult to have a trial in a speedy fashion when you have to have mini-trials in factual scenarios that might be absurd, in my opinion,” he said.

[Audley Strange]

Well they are an invader, so I can't see how it could be considered "their ground" at all. I'm sure the rhetoricians of the lawyer set will find a way to make money out of it, so I guess it depends which is the most profitable.

[Jason]

Reported.

[mistermack]

The "stand your ground" concept is misty and murky.

They are saying that Zimmerman can't use that as a defence, because he chased Martin. The principle being that you can't go after someone, and then claim that you aren't obliged to retreat from aggression.

If a homeowner goes after a burglar with lethal intent, is the burglar obliged to let himself be killed?
Depends how they worded the law.

It would be surprising, if this situation had not been dealt with when the law was debated and passed.
It's not rocket science.

[Svartalf]

Murky as it is, it cannot be an acceptable defence for someone already caught in the commission of a crime, an aggravating circumstance more like.

[laklak]

It would be surprising, if this situation had not been dealt with when the law was debated and passed.
It's not rocket science.

Depends on the state, I guess. Under Florida law there is a legal presumption that anyone breaking into your home means you harm. Since it's a presumption it cannot be argued, meaning the perp can't claim he was only after a loaf of bread or didn't intend to harm anyone or was just drunk. If you break into someone's home you're fair game, full stop. The resident is also indemnified against any civil action, so the perp can't sue, no matter what extenuating circumstances might exist.

Now that differs from stand your ground, though SYG is part of the same legislation. All stand your ground does is remove the legal requirement to retreat when threatened. You still must have a "reasonable" fear of death or great bodily harm in order to justify lethal force.

[mistermack]

It would be surprising, if this situation had not been dealt with when the law was debated and passed.
It's not rocket science.

Depends on the state, I guess. Under Florida law there is a legal presumption that anyone breaking into your home means you harm. Since it's a presumption it cannot be argued, meaning the perp can't claim he was only after a loaf of bread or didn't intend to harm anyone or was just drunk. If you break into someone's home you're fair game, full stop. The resident is also indemnified against any civil action, so the perp can't sue, no matter what extenuating circumstances might exist.

Now that differs from stand your ground, though SYG is part of the same legislation. All stand your ground does is remove the legal requirement to retreat when threatened. You still must have a "reasonable" fear of death or great bodily harm in order to justify lethal force.

You always get problems and abnormalities, when the law departs from the real world.
Making burglars fair game means that burglars will know that, and take precautions.
If the law presumes that burglars mean you harm, then the burglars will probably presume that YOU mean THEM harm.
I would, anyway. You'd have to be pretty crazy going burgling without a gun of your own, in Florida. And of course, the burglar will be on the edge, ready to shoot, at the slightest threat. I would.

Lovely place, Florida. I think I'll give it a miss, though.

[Seth]

It would be surprising, if this situation had not been dealt with when the law was debated and passed.
It's not rocket science.

Depends on the state, I guess. Under Florida law there is a legal presumption that anyone breaking into your home means you harm. Since it's a presumption it cannot be argued, meaning the perp can't claim he was only after a loaf of bread or didn't intend to harm anyone or was just drunk. If you break into someone's home you're fair game, full stop. The resident is also indemnified against any civil action, so the perp can't sue, no matter what extenuating circumstances might exist.

Now that differs from stand your ground, though SYG is part of the same legislation. All stand your ground does is remove the legal requirement to retreat when threatened. You still must have a "reasonable" fear of death or great bodily harm in order to justify lethal force.

You always get problems and abnormalities, when the law departs from the real world.
Making burglars fair game means that burglars will know that, and take precautions.

Yes, they do. The primary precaution they take in the US is to be very careful not to burgle occupied homes, whereas in the UK, what we call "home invasions" of occupied dwellings is rampant because the burglars know that the occupants are NOT going to be armed with a gun and that they have been carefully indoctrinated by the police and government that they are to submit to criminal victimization rather than fight it.

In the US, in general, burglars try to avoid occupied dwellings precisely because the homeowner may well be armed and the law allows him to kill the burglar and be immune from prosecution. It's called "deterrence."

It is also true that the really bold home invasion crew will storm homes using SWAT-like tactics of sudden attack and intimidation, but those are fairly rare and are generally limited to inner-city urban areas where the local laws prevent homeowners from being armed, like Chicago.

In any event, the point and purpose of Castle Doctrine laws is to give the homeowner an edge and protect him from a miscarriage of justice should he kill an intruder because the states that have enacted Castle Doctrine laws acknowledge and respect the right that every person has to absolute safety and security in their home. But it's always up to the homeowner whether or not he or she chooses to exercise the rights protected by the Castle Doctrine. When and how you respond to an attack is a personal matter of tactical analysis and response. It's not something a legislature can dictate or second-guess, which is why retreat-to-the-wall statutes have fallen out of favor.

If the law presumes that burglars mean you harm, then the burglars will probably presume that YOU mean THEM harm.

As well they should, because I do.

I would, anyway. You'd have to be pretty crazy going burgling without a gun of your own, in Florida. And of course, the burglar will be on the edge, ready to shoot, at the slightest threat. I would.

Lovely place, Florida. I think I'll give it a miss, though.

Except they don't. Probably because they are mostly drug-addled addicts looking for a few bucks to get high with and they are not stone-cold killers looking to execute a family in their beds. Burglars are less of a concern than are violent home invaders who ARE likely to be armed and who ARE likely to use extreme violence. The strategic plan for them is to reinforce entry points and early-warning systems so that they will delay entry long enough for the non-armed family members to get to a safe room and the armed occupants to arm themselves and take up defensive positions from which they can fire on the intruders as they enter.

But again, it's up to the individual to decide in the moment whether to resist or capitulate, not you and not the government. Therefore it is prudent for the homeowner to have at his disposal defensive equipment sufficient to any threat he anticipates, which would include shotguns, semi-automatic rifles (or machine guns if you've got the money), handguns, body armor, OC spray, dogs, etc.

It all depends on the individual's personal risk analysis.

Oh, and do us all a favor and give the entire United States a pass. We don't need or want you here at all.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Seth, There are no reliable stats to support your claim that "home invasion" in the UK is any more rampant than in the States (unless you're prepared to believe Ann Coulter, that is). - If you're able to provide some, I'd be interested.

Also, as far as I'm aware (and I'm sure I'm correct), there is no duty to retreat in UK law. A householder is entitled to defend their property/family using force proportional to any threat (this may include lethal force under a clear and present threat to life).

[mistermack]

Seth, There are no reliable stats to support your claim that "home invasion" in the UK is any more rampant than in the States (unless you're prepared to believe Ann Coulter, that is). - If you're able to provide some, I'd be interested.

Seth's posts are full of invented shit. Home invasion is incredibly rare in the UK. It makes the tv news when it happens, which might give the impression of it happening frequently, but actually, that's just a sign of how rare it is.

[Daedalus]

Seth, There are no reliable stats to support your claim that "home invasion" in the UK is any more rampant than in the States (unless you're prepared to believe Ann Coulter, that is). - If you're able to provide some, I'd be interested.

Seth's posts are full of invented shit. Home invasion is incredibly rare in the UK. It makes the tv news when it happens, which might give the impression of it happening frequently, but actually, that's just a sign of how rare it is.

Home invasion when the homeowner is present is rare EVERYWHERE, but it's the FAVORITE fantasy of the "only safe people are heavily armed people," crowd. After all, it's a nightmare of asymmetric power, in which an unquestionably BAD person violated your only truly private property to take your shit, and maybe have a good raping while they're at it.

No shock that more people blow away relatives and friends by accident as "intruders" than actual... you know... intruders.

Makes a responsible gun-owner like myself cringe a bit.

[Audley Strange]

Seth, There are no reliable stats to support your claim that "home invasion" in the UK is any more rampant than in the States (unless you're prepared to believe Ann Coulter, that is). - If you're able to provide some, I'd be interested.

Also, as far as I'm aware (and I'm sure I'm correct), there is no duty to retreat in UK law. A householder is entitled to defend their property/family using force proportional to any threat (this may include lethal force under a clear and present threat to life).

I've got deja-vu. I'm sure this has been pointed out time and time again to Seth. I'm almost certain I pointed it out here, not so long ago.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it before, too.

[Seth]

Seth, There are no reliable stats to support your claim that "home invasion" in the UK is any more rampant than in the States (unless you're prepared to believe Ann Coulter, that is). - If you're able to provide some, I'd be interested.

Why shouldn't I believe Ann Coulter? She's a very intelligent and articulate person who happens to hold a different opinion from you, and I believe much better informed than you are. She's also a nice, funny lady...I've met her several times. Wouldn't say we're friends, but we are acquainted. And Ann Coulter is hardly the only or primary source for this information.

It is axiomatic in the United States that burglars avoid occupied homes. As an introductory criminology textbook explains, "Burglars do not want contact with occupants; they depend on stealth for success." [FN8] Only thirteen percent of U.S. residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes. [FN9] But this happy fact of life, so taken for granted in the United States, is not universal.

The overall Canadian burglary rate is higher than the American one, and a Canadian burglary is four times more likely to take place when the victims are home. [FN10]

In Toronto, forty-four percent of burglaries were against occupied homes, and twenty-one percent involved a confrontation with the victim. [FN11] Most Canadian residential burglaries occur at night, while American burglars are known to prefer daytime entry to reduce the risk of an armed confrontation. [FN12]

Research by the federal government's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention found that, based on 1994 data, American youths 10 to 17 years old had much higher arrest rates than Canadian youths for every category of violent and property crime. The lone exception was burglary, for which Canadian youths were one-third more likely to be involved. [FN13] In cities such as Vancouver, home invasion burglaries aimed at elderly people have become endemic, and murders of the elderly during those burglaries all too frequent. [FN14] Unfortunately, help from the government is not always available. In Quebec, the provincial police (Sureté du Québec) are under orders from their commander to reduce arrests for burglary, because the jails are full. [FN15]

*348

A 1982 British survey found fifty-nine percent of attempted burglaries involved an occupied home. [FN16] The Wall Street Journal reported:

Compared with London, New York is downright safe in one category: burglary. In London, where many homes have been burglarized half a dozen times, and where psychologists specialize in treating children traumatized by such thefts, the rate is nearly twice as high as in the Big Apple. And burglars here increasingly prefer striking when occupants are home, since alarms and locks tend to be disengaged and intruders have little to fear from unarmed residents. [FN17]

In Britain, seventy-seven percent of the population was afraid of burglary in 1994, compared to sixty percent in 1987. [FN18] The London Sunday Times, pointing to Britain's soaring burglary rate, calls Britain "a nation of thieves." [FN19] In the Netherlands, forty-eight percent of residential burglaries involved an occupied home. [FN20] In the Republic of Ireland, criminologists report that burglars have little reluctance about attacking an occupied residence. [FN21]

Of course, differences in crime-reporting and crime-recording behavior between nations limit the precision of comparative criminal data. Nevertheless, the difference in home invasion burglary rates between the United States and other nations is so large that it is unlikely to be a mere artifact of crime data quirks. [FN22]

*349Source

Also, as far as I'm aware (and I'm sure I'm correct), there is no duty to retreat in UK law. A householder is entitled to defend their property/family using force proportional to any threat (this may include lethal force under a clear and present threat to life).

Technically yes, but the UK police are adamant about "informing" victims that it's "better" for them to capitulate to criminals, and that is in their official literature. Brits are by nature a servile people, having been raised generationally to take a knee and tug the forelock when authority speaks.

And they are cowards when it comes to intervening in crime, as witnessed by the idle gawkers who stood by and watched a soldier have his head chopped off while shooting phone video.

[Animavore]

And they are cowards when it comes to intervening in crime, as witnessed by the idle gawkers who stood by and watched a soldier have his head chopped off while shooting phone video.

Tell me again how American citizens intervened in the Virginia Tech massacre?

Also, this video proves you wrong.