What, exactly, is the Stand Your Ground law in SC?

[MyWifeSaidYes]

I read this article:

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

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ruder-uses-it-to-justify-killing-a-homeowner/


Doesn't the SYG law in SC require that the shooter be someplace he/she has the right to be?

 

[hp-hobo]

I read this article:

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

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ruder-uses-it-to-justify-killing-a-homeowner/


Doesn't the SYG law in SC require that the shooter be someplace he/she has the right to be?

You've been duped by sensational media reporting. This has little to do with stand your ground and everything to do with court procedure. The real story is several paragraphs deep in the article;

"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."

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Thanks! This is the part I was looking for...

SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.

(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

(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

(2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used; or

(3) who uses deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

 

[OC for ME]

SYG is not what the cited statue above is addressing. SYG, as I understand it means that you have no duty retreat when you are attacked no matter where you are ad SYG does not only apply to firearms, nor does SCs castle doctrine. Splitting hairs? Maybe.