Uber-liberal “news columnist” John Monk at The (Columbia, S.C.) State newspaper has a lengthy piece up this week detailing the story of accused murderer Gregg Isaac – who is attempting to beat a 2005 murder rap by arguing the “Stand Your Ground” defense.
Of course there’s a twist in Isaac’s case: He had just invaded the home of his victim – which he freely admits.
Quite correctly, a South Carolina circuit court judge rejected Isaac’s argument – determining that individuals who break into another person’s home have surrendered their right to protection under the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law. However S.C. Supreme Court chief justice Jean Toal has now intervened in the case – stopping the prosecution and permitting Isaac to make his argument before her.
Yeah …
Wonder if this has anything to do with someone wanting some publicity in light of the George Zimmerman trial in Florida – which began as the high-profile “Stand Your Ground” case.
Anyway …
Here’s how we see it: If you forcibly enter another person’s residence without their permission, you have given up the right to “Stand Your Ground.” In fact we’re pretty sure there are laws which authorize the use of deadly force when it comes to citizens defending themselves against home invaders.
That South Carolina’s highest court is wasting time to entertain a discussion of this “right” is ludicrous.
Of course we suspect there are a few hoodlums in the state paying very close attention to this ruling … as it might afford them an excuse for their murderous ways.
“See what had happened wuz …”
Personally, if someone breaks into our home or business without permission we suspect they would wind up preferring a quick death – as our founding editor is from the Marcellus Wallace school of retribution.
***
92 comments
From the article:
“Without commenting on the merits of the case, 5th Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson – whose high-profile violent crime prosecutor Luck Campbell was prosecuting the case – said in an interview, “I’m glad it’s an issue that the court is taking a look at.””
How fucked up is this that Solicitor (and gun-pointer-at-FBI-agent) Johnson is glad the Supremes intervened to stop a murder trial. Does Johnson want the murderer to go free?
No, Dan does not want murderers to go free. He recognizes — as does the Supreme Court — that the “Stand Your Ground” law requires an evidentiary hearing before the trial can go forward. This is a procedural issue. Most likely the Supreme Court rules the Defendant is entitled to his evidentiary hearing — which was denied by Judge Young. If so, the case is remanded for the hearing — the hearing is held; the motion is denied — and then the case gets tried.
The interesting thing is whether the admissions by the Defendant are privileged or whether they are heard by the jury. If the jury hears them, then the State is virtually assured of a conviction. Dan ain’t dumb and neither is the Supreme Court.
I don’t give a flying shit what the court rules are. It does not make this any less stupid on any level.
This is a perfect example of why and how lawyers and judges have fucked over the basic concept of justice in our country. The justice system has become just one big game of “see how clever I am”, played by those who profit by it. And it isn’t just in criminal cases, but civil cases also. It permeates schools, businesses, and even child rearing.
Get fucking judges and lawyers out of lives and oh how happy we’d all be!
I’ll grant you it would make justice a lot quicker and simpler if you could just take accused criminals out back and shoot them. After all, it worked for Joe Stalin.
You’re right about civil cases, too. In hindsight, Union Carbide was pretty darn smart to build their chemical plant in Bhopal instead of Batesburg. Don’t want all those dead and maimed people hurting profits with frivolous lawsuits.
And it’s a good thing all our textile plants moved to Bangladesh. No doubt the families of the 1,127 dead textile workers from the building collapse are much happier without having to worry about workers’ compensation benefits.
Yep, not only do we not need lawyers and judges — we need to get rid of those pesky laws altogether. Stupid Constitution.
I agree Castle. MGTT is correct. :)
Toal just wants to stick her big fat ass nose up some big fat ass legislators asses
It’s a terriblely written law. You should have an obligation to flee or retreat – and do in most states – “to the wall,” but don’t have such a duty in your own home/castle.
The idiots who push for these “stand your ground laws,” have no idea that the application leaves in doubt the issues where someone essentially instigates the event – but doesn’t actually “strike first” so they don’t enter into mutal combat.
The stand your ground laws in some states would literally give a guy holding up a liquor store the right to shot a cop who responds to the scene and draws down on them. After all, the liquor store robber is just doing his job, and the cop is a trained killer, who clearly puts the liquor store robber in fear for his life…
The real problem is legislators with no idea how the law will ultimately be applied who write poorly worded and highly misguided laws. Such as “stand your ground” laws which are “manly” and well intended tough guy bullshit that winds up in situations like this – and more to come.
That’s either a really poor attempt at sarcasm, I mean REALLY bad or everything you read or hear is read or heard through the filter of your own psychosis.
SC’s statute is pretty clear. You must not be committing a crime and you must be in your home, your place of business or a place where you are allowed to be and NOT BREAKING THE LAW. By your explanation you would be committing at minimum a misdemeanor by “instigate”ing an event. I would surmise that (at least for the politicos buddies) that if your cussing someone out, the defense would be precluded.
To be clear, if I were a Supreme Court Justice, I would rule that a criminal defendant who raises the “Stand Your Ground” doctrine is entitled to a pre-trial evidentiary hearing — which is just what they appear to have done.
However, I also would rule that the doctrine does not apply to a defendant who shoots someone — even in self-defense — while committing a robbery. The Supreme Court likely won’t address that issue as it goes to the merits — but they might, albeit in dicta. This may seem obvious — but as you can see from the Zimmerman trial, while laws are written generally by the legislature, we must have courts to test their application to real life situations as they arise.
The hard thing for people to understand is that the essence of the law is due process. The only way to reach the right result is to go through the process — and ensure that the process has rules that apply equally to everyone. It’s more cumbersome and takes longer than just shooting people in the head, but it is essential to the rule of law on which all civilized countries are based. Somalia does not have a better system.
And how does what you say make MGTT or myself wrong? Name one instance where a confessed felon is in anyway entitled to this hearing? The law is clearly written ‘…UNLESS YOU ARE COMMITTING A FELONY…’. This guy fully admits he is committing a felony.
We’re both on the same page here with FELONY, RIGHT???
A “confessed felon” is not the same as a “convicted felon.” The trial is going forward because the defendant pled not guilty. Most people accused of crimes do plead guilty — in return for a reduced sentence on a lesser charge, i.e., plea bargain. Cases usually go to trial when there is either a real defense to the charges — which can be legal or factual — or when the defendant has nothing to lose.
Death penalty cases always go to trial because the State offers no compromise. Murder cases and other felonies with a mandatory life sentence generally go to trial as well. If you have nothing to lose, you might as well go to trial. Maybe you’ll be acquitted, maybe get a hung jury, maybe get it reversed on appeal or PCR. Point being, this guy has nothing to lose.
As to the raising the “stand your ground” defense, it may be the last option for an acquittal — albeit a desperate one. The lawyer probably already tried to keep the confessions out of evidence in a pre-trial motion. Having lost that motion, a conviction is a virtual certainty. The only other option is “stand your ground” immunity. While at first blush it may sound frivolous, in reality it is a pretty good strategy when you’ve run out of options. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
The murderer is going down — it will just take a little while longer. He gets this hearing for the same reasons he gets a jury trial and a pre-trial hearing to limit the evidence presented against him. He also gets pre-trial discovery.
People charged with crimes have legal rights — rights which exist to protect the innocent and the public at large from the authority of the state. A civilized society needs laws and a legal system. Without laws, lawyers and judges, you would have chaos.
You failed. You failed to address the simple question by obfuscation. You either a lawyer (THE esquire in question?) or one that uses similar BS to bend and break where you think its appropriate.
dwb619, I’m disappointed. Fact is this guy confessed. Legalezze aside, he knows he’s guilty as sin and has told the rest of the world he’s guilty as sin and now he’s trying to cut a deal. Shame on you.
There is no reason an appeal of this matter shouldn’t be heard at the same time as every other appeal…after the trial. Stopping it in the middle of a trial is grandstanding. No two ways about it.
Defense attorney Mark Schnee should be mocked by his peers relentlessly, until the embarrassment is so severe that there’s no way he would suggest something so asinine ever again.
I guessed wrong. I sure thought it was that despicable low life J. Moore! My bad….
From the article:
“Without commenting on the merits of the case, 5th Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson – whose high-profile violent crime prosecutor Luck Campbell was prosecuting the case – said in an interview, “I’m glad it’s an issue that the court is taking a look at.””
How fucked up is this that Solicitor (and gun-pointer-at-FBI-agent) Johnson is glad the Supremes intervened to stop a murder trial. Does Johnson want the murderer to go free?
No, Dan does not want murderers to go free. He recognizes — as does the Supreme Court — that the “Stand Your Ground” law requires an evidentiary hearing before the trial can go forward. This is a procedural issue. Most likely the Supreme Court rules the Defendant is entitled to his evidentiary hearing — which was denied by Judge Young. If so, the case is remanded for the hearing — the hearing is held; the motion is denied — and then the case gets tried.
The interesting thing is whether the admissions by the Defendant are privileged or whether they are heard by the jury. If the jury hears them, then the State is virtually assured of a conviction. Dan ain’t dumb and neither is the Supreme Court.
I don’t give a flying shit what the court rules are. It does not make this any less stupid on any level.
This is a perfect example of why and how lawyers and judges have fucked over the basic concept of justice in our country. The justice system has become just one big game of “see how clever I am”, played by those who profit by it. And it isn’t just in criminal cases, but civil cases also. It permeates schools, businesses, and even child rearing.
Get fucking judges and lawyers out of lives and oh how happy we’d all be!
I’ll grant you it would make justice a lot quicker and simpler if you could just take accused criminals out back and shoot them. After all, it worked for Joe Stalin.
You’re right about civil cases, too. In hindsight, Union Carbide was pretty darn smart to build their chemical plant in Bhopal instead of Batesburg. Don’t want all those dead and maimed people hurting profits with frivolous lawsuits.
And it’s a good thing all our textile plants moved to Bangladesh. No doubt the families of the 1,127 dead textile workers from the building collapse are much happier without having to worry about workers’ compensation benefits.
Yep, not only do we not need lawyers and judges — we need to get rid of those pesky laws altogether. Stupid Constitution.
I agree Castle. MGTT is correct. :)
Toal just wants to stick her big fat ass nose up some big fat ass legislators asses
It’s a terriblely written law. You should have an obligation to flee or retreat – and do in most states – “to the wall,” but don’t have such a duty in your own home/castle.
The idiots who push for these “stand your ground laws,” have no idea that the application leaves in doubt the issues where someone essentially instigates the event – but doesn’t actually “strike first” so they don’t enter into mutal combat.
The stand your ground laws in some states would literally give a guy holding up a liquor store the right to shot a cop who responds to the scene and draws down on them. After all, the liquor store robber is just doing his job, and the cop is a trained killer, who clearly puts the liquor store robber in fear for his life…
The real problem is legislators with no idea how the law will ultimately be applied who write poorly worded and highly misguided laws. Such as “stand your ground” laws which are “manly” and well intended tough guy bullshit that winds up in situations like this – and more to come.
That’s either a really poor attempt at sarcasm, I mean REALLY bad or everything you read or hear is read or heard through the filter of your own psychosis.
SC’s statute is pretty clear. You must not be committing a crime and you must be in your home, your place of business or a place where you are allowed to be and NOT BREAKING THE LAW. By your explanation you would be committing at minimum a misdemeanor by “instigate”ing an event. I would surmise that (at least for the politicos buddies) that if your cussing someone out, the defense would be precluded.
To be clear, if I were a Supreme Court Justice, I would rule that a criminal defendant who raises the “Stand Your Ground” doctrine is entitled to a pre-trial evidentiary hearing — which is just what they appear to have done.
However, I also would rule that the doctrine does not apply to a defendant who shoots someone — even in self-defense — while committing a robbery. The Supreme Court likely won’t address that issue as it goes to the merits — but they might, albeit in dicta. This may seem obvious — but as you can see from the Zimmerman trial, while laws are written generally by the legislature, we must have courts to test their application to real life situations as they arise.
The hard thing for people to understand is that the essence of the law is due process. The only way to reach the right result is to go through the process — and ensure that the process has rules that apply equally to everyone. It’s more cumbersome and takes longer than just shooting people in the head, but it is essential to the rule of law on which all civilized countries are based. Somalia does not have a better system.
And how does what you say make MGTT or myself wrong? Name one instance where a confessed felon is in anyway entitled to this hearing? The law is clearly written ‘…UNLESS YOU ARE COMMITTING A FELONY…’. This guy fully admits he is committing a felony.
We’re both on the same page here with FELONY, RIGHT???
A “confessed felon” is not the same as a “convicted felon.” The trial is going forward because the defendant pled not guilty. Most people accused of crimes do plead guilty — in return for a reduced sentence on a lesser charge, i.e., plea bargain. Cases usually go to trial when there is either a real defense to the charges — which can be legal or factual — or when the defendant has nothing to lose.
Death penalty cases always go to trial because the State offers no compromise. Murder cases and other felonies with a mandatory life sentence generally go to trial as well. If you have nothing to lose, you might as well go to trial. Maybe you’ll be acquitted, maybe get a hung jury, maybe get it reversed on appeal or PCR. Point being, this guy has nothing to lose.
As to the raising the “stand your ground” defense, it may be the last option for an acquittal — albeit a desperate one. The lawyer probably already tried to keep the confessions out of evidence in a pre-trial motion. Having lost that motion, a conviction is a virtual certainty. The only other option is “stand your ground” immunity. While at first blush it may sound frivolous, in reality it is a pretty good strategy when you’ve run out of options. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
The murderer is going down — it will just take a little while longer. He gets this hearing for the same reasons he gets a jury trial and a pre-trial hearing to limit the evidence presented against him. He also gets pre-trial discovery.
People charged with crimes have legal rights — rights which exist to protect the innocent and the public at large from the authority of the state. A civilized society needs laws and a legal system. Without laws, lawyers and judges, you would have chaos.
You failed. You failed to address the simple question by obfuscation. You either a lawyer (THE esquire in question?) or one that uses similar BS to bend and break where you think its appropriate.
dwb619, I’m disappointed. Fact is this guy confessed. Legalezze aside, he knows he’s guilty as sin and has told the rest of the world he’s guilty as sin and now he’s trying to cut a deal. Shame on you.
There is no reason an appeal of this matter shouldn’t be heard at the same time as every other appeal…after the trial. Stopping it in the middle of a trial is grandstanding. No two ways about it.
Defense attorney Mark Schnee should be mocked by his peers relentlessly, until the embarrassment is so severe that there’s no way he would suggest something so asinine ever again.
I guessed wrong. I sure thought it was that despicable low life J. Moore! My bad….
That guy’s lawyer is an idiot. He just took a big gamble by having his client admit on the stand that he burglarized a home and committed murder during the commision of that burglary on the theory that he could utilize this defense. If the Supreme Court rules against his client, he is stuck with this under-oath admission for which there will be no remedy, even in post-conviction relief. A monumental gamble where the house holds all the cards.
The guy’s lawyer is also 15 inches tall. Maybe Toal wants to hear the appeal just to watch the wee barrister in action.
That guy’s lawyer is an idiot. He just took a big gamble by having his client admit on the stand that he burglarized a home and committed murder during the commision of that burglary on the theory that he could utilize this defense. If the Supreme Court rules against his client, he is stuck with this under-oath admission for which there will be no remedy, even in post-conviction relief. A monumental gamble where the house holds all the cards.
The guy’s lawyer is also 15 inches tall. Maybe Toal wants to hear the appeal just to watch the wee barrister in action.
It is absolutely ridiculous for any reasonable person to accept the argument that a person in the commission of a violent crime can then shield their violent and illegal actions behind this law – Stand Your Ground. Isaac and his cohort CHOSE to take the actions they did and then knew or should have known people could resist or fight back. This could and does take the form of potential deadly force from a victim to protect life, limb and property. Gee, if someone is in my living room robbing, harming me and I have a weapon, I am sure as hell going to use it if I could. Committing a crime should automatically invalidate the use of Stand Your Ground as a defense, period.
If you think sound reasoning comes from a court you are lost!
It is absolutely ridiculous for any reasonable person to accept the argument that a person in the commission of a violent crime can then shield their violent and illegal actions behind this law – Stand Your Ground. Isaac and his cohort CHOSE to take the actions they did and then knew or should have known people could resist or fight back. This could and does take the form of potential deadly force from a victim to protect life, limb and property. Gee, if someone is in my living room robbing, harming me and I have a weapon, I am sure as hell going to use it if I could. Committing a crime should automatically invalidate the use of Stand Your Ground as a defense, period.
If you think sound reasoning comes from a court you are lost!
Don’t be dumb. The statute requires an immediate appeal once there is a ruling against the stand your ground defense. The supreme court is required to do exactly what it did–regardless of the frivolous nature of the motion.
The defense lawyer better bring his KY Jelly to the supreme court.
Thanks for the insight. A little research before reporting isn’t a lot to ask.
Don’t be dumb. The statute requires an immediate appeal once there is a ruling against the stand your ground defense. The supreme court is required to do exactly what it did–regardless of the frivolous nature of the motion.
The defense lawyer better bring his KY Jelly to the supreme court.
Thanks for the insight. A little research before reporting isn’t a lot to ask.
It is possible that they want to take it up in order to issue a swift and definitive ruling on the issue. Often issues/cases are identified with a predetermined outcome in mind. That can be good and bad. Probably good in this instance.
It is possible that they want to take it up in order to issue a swift and definitive ruling on the issue. Often issues/cases are identified with a predetermined outcome in mind. That can be good and bad. Probably good in this instance.
I understood that the issue the Supreme Court is going to clarify is when it is, or is not, appropriate to have a full hearing on the merits of the affirmative defense. The argument is that if you request a hearing on the merits of the affirmative defense of “Stand Your Ground,” and are denied, you’re being denied due process.
You should really try and get a copy of the record on appeal before jumping to conclusions about what the Court is up to.
Russ Cassell’s fat dumb ass was talking about this article yesterday on that Greenville station, and surprise, surprise, taking it entirely out of context, just as Will is doing for his own narrative.
But that is what brings the knuckledraggers out in full force.
Russ Cassell is probably the ultimate in Dumbassery on talk radio.
“You should really try and get a copy of the record on appeal before jumping to conclusions about what the Court is up to.”
Talk to anyone in the judiciary department or in Toal’s inner circle.
This is a political move on Toal’s part. She’s desperate to get some legislator’s votes right now.
I understood that the issue the Supreme Court is going to clarify is when it is, or is not, appropriate to have a full hearing on the merits of the affirmative defense. The argument is that if you request a hearing on the merits of the affirmative defense of “Stand Your Ground,” and are denied, you’re being denied due process.
You should really try and get a copy of the record on appeal before jumping to conclusions about what the Court is up to.
Russ Cassell’s fat dumb ass was talking about this article yesterday on that Greenville station, and surprise, surprise, taking it entirely out of context, just as Will is doing for his own narrative.
But that is what brings the knuckledraggers out in full force.
Russ Cassell is probably the ultimate in Dumbassery on talk radio.
“You should really try and get a copy of the record on appeal before jumping to conclusions about what the Court is up to.”
Talk to anyone in the judiciary department or in Toal’s inner circle.
This is a political move on Toal’s part. She’s desperate to get some legislator’s votes right now.
After hearing this on the news, I laughed my ass off. There should be a new law.
Let it be known now and forever more. Any attorney that presents a Stand Your Ground defense, appeal or any other filing before the court asserting such for a defendant that has admitted to a felony is immediately eligible for the death penalty.
:P
After hearing this on the news, I laughed my ass off. There should be a new law.
Let it be known now and forever more. Any attorney that presents a Stand Your Ground defense, appeal or any other filing before the court asserting such for a defendant that has admitted to a felony is immediately eligible for the death penalty.
:P
Based upon his admission to breaking in, I’m not really understanding how the defense lawyer can even argue that without fearing sanctions. The statute could not be more clear “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force…” SC Code Ann. 16-11-440 (emphasis added). http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c011.php
BBBwwwahahahahahahahahahaha Place of business. Funny
CL, I believe this particular scum bag (we’ll call him #2) was alleging that he was coerced under threat of death by scum bag #1 to go commit the crime. Interesting scum bag number #2 had the gumption to kill home/apartement owner simple enough when he “felt his life was threatened,” but somehow couldn’t muster the ability to shot/fight back to scum bag number #1 who was also allegedly threating his life in order to get him to help join in the home invasion.
Now I ask you, haven’t we all been there when were going to commit a violent crime or a few felonies and can’t get a willing associate to joint us? And think to ourselves, “well fuck this, I am already going to break several laws – why do it alone, why not get someone at gun point to join me in the escapade.” It seems really plausible, so the judge should have to have a hearing on it, right? Toal’s lack of knowledge of the law is only matched – and far superseded by Justice Beaty – who still thinks he’s counsel the Plaintiff(s) in any given case.
Still does not change the obvious problem that he is not where he is legally entitled to be. Co-conspirator #1’s threat cannot confer lawful status. If I were the trial judge, the only hearing I would have been scheduling was on whether to sanction the defense attorney.
Based upon his admission to breaking in, I’m not really understanding how the defense lawyer can even argue that without fearing sanctions. The statute could not be more clear: “A person who is NOT ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY and who is attacked in another place WHERE HE HAS A RIGHT TO BE, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force…” SC Code Ann. 16-11-440 (emphasis added). http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c011.php.
Unless he is claiming that, as a robber, the victim’s home was his place of business, I do not see much to work with.
BBBwwwahahahahahahahahahaha Place of business. Funny
CL, I believe this particular scum bag (we’ll call him #2) was alleging that he was coerced under threat of death by scum bag #1 to go commit the crime. Interesting scum bag number #2 had the gumption to kill home/apartement owner simple enough when he “felt his life was threatened,” but somehow couldn’t muster the ability to shot/fight back to scum bag number #1 who was also allegedly threating his life in order to get him to help join in the home invasion.
Now I ask you, haven’t we all been there when were going to commit a violent crime or a few felonies and can’t get a willing associate to joint us? And think to ourselves, “well fuck this, I am already going to break several laws – why do it alone, why not get someone at gun point to join me in the escapade.” It seems really plausible, so the judge should have to have a hearing on it, right? Toal’s lack of knowledge of the law is only matched – and far superseded by Justice Beaty – who still thinks he’s counsel the Plaintiff(s) in any given case.
Still does not change the obvious problem that he is not where he is legally entitled to be. Co-conspirator #1’s threat cannot confer lawful status. If I were the trial judge, the only hearing I would have been scheduling was on whether to sanction the defense attorney.
When you’re in someone’s home uninvited, it is THEIR ground, not yours.
The defendant admitted to intruding, and the circuit court made the right decision based on that admission. What else is there to look at?
When you’re in someone’s home uninvited, it is THEIR ground, not yours.
The defendant admitted to intruding, and the circuit court made the right decision based on that admission. What else is there to look at?
Make sure you drag the body in and make sure only 1 story is told (YOURS)
The cops tell you to do that because it makes their jobs much easier, and saves the investigator’s time to let them work on more important cases.
Make sure you drag the body in and make sure only 1 story is told (YOURS)
The cops tell you to do that because it makes their jobs much easier, and saves the investigator’s time to let them work on more important cases.
Castle, Swingline and Misstate, it’s a nice breath of fresh air to hear solid opinions that are based in fact and actual knowledge of legal procedure, kudos to you. While I understand and share some of the sentiments (and common sense understanding of “justice”) of the other posters here, Castle, Swingline and Misstate have backed their arguments with LEGAL understanding. Following due process and allowing this motion will only strengthen the statute and further case law for “stand your ground”, which is generally a well written law for SC.
Castle, Swingline and Misstate, it’s a nice breath of fresh air to hear solid opinions that are based in fact and actual knowledge of legal procedure, kudos to you. While I understand and share some of the sentiments (and common sense understanding of “justice”) of the other posters here, Castle, Swingline and Misstate have backed their arguments with LEGAL understanding. Following due process and allowing this evidentiary hearing will only strengthen the statute and further case law for “stand your ground”, which is generally a well written law for SC.
Queen Toad has confirmed that she truly is bat shit crazy
My recommendation is that her family seek an order from the Probate Court to mandate an immediate two week confinement to Baptist’s bat shit crazy ward
For those cockroach Legislators who haven’t decided on their vote for Chief Justice what are you waiting for……Queen Toad to strip butt nakkied and run down Main Street yelling the British are coming, the British are coming…………………
Jim, one of the benefits of Fitsnews is its educational value. You made me research “bat shit”, and it seems that you are actually giving the QT a compliment. You may want to reconsider using that reference to her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano
Queen
Jim, one of the benefits of Fitsnews is its educational value. You made me research “bat shit”, and it seems that you are actually giving the QT a compliment. You may want to reconsider using that reference to her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano
After reading the comments previously posted, GrandTango has hired me as his bodyguard to protect him against any and all threats to his person. In other words, that means I will have to take the hits (or fall) for him if his person is endangered.
GT also states that he will no longer leave his residence carrying any weapons such as a firearm, bayonet, shovel, axe, knife (folding or pen) or his baseball bat. However, he does insist on carrying his nose hair clippers.
After reading the comments previously posted, GrandTango has hired me as his bodyguard to protect him against any and all threats to his person. In other words, that means I will have to take the hits (or fall) for him if his person is endangered.
GT also states that he will no longer leave his residence carrying any weapons such as a firearm, bayonet, shovel, axe, knife (folding or pen) or his baseball bat. However, he does insist on carrying his nose hair clippers.
It is illegal to be in possession of a firearm while committing a crime.
If a person is in possession of a firearm or visibly displays what appears to be a firearm or visibly displays a knife during the commission of a violent crime and is convicted of committing or attempting to commit a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60, he must be imprisoned five years, in addition to the punishment provided for the principal crime.
Furthermore, the only argument could be that the person shot and killed was defending their property, and considering the intruder was armed, their life. Considering that “self defense” would be in the case of the deceased person, how could he be “standing his ground?” There is no such thing as self defense against self defense.
It is illegal to be in possession of a firearm while committing a crime.
If a person is in possession of a firearm or visibly displays what appears to be a firearm or visibly displays a knife during the commission of a violent crime and is convicted of committing or attempting to commit a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60, he must be imprisoned five years, in addition to the punishment provided for the principal crime.
Furthermore, the only argument could be that the person shot and killed was defending their property, and considering the intruder was armed, their life. Considering that “self defense” would be in the case of the deceased person, how could he be “standing his ground?” There is no such thing as self defense against self defense.
Where can I get a brass crowbar like that
also —- no damage to door or crowbar, and all new clothes for (is that Will Folks?)
Where can I get a brass crowbar like that
also —- no damage to door or crowbar, and all new clothes for (is that Will Folks?)
Stand your ground doesn’t apply it is the Castle Doctrine you have a right to defend yourself in your home. Try one in my home you better by quick and accurate as there will only be a burial of the asshole. Johnson is a tool of the black political power in Richland County.
Stand your ground doesn’t apply it is the Castle Doctrine you have a right to defend yourself in your home. Try one in my home you better by quick and accurate as there will only be a burial of the asshole. Johnson is a tool of the black political power in Richland County.
I’m fairly confident that the SC Supreme Court simply wants a chance to rule on the issue so that this defense is not raised again in a similar situation.
I’m fairly confident that the SC Supreme Court simply wants a chance to rule on the issue so that this defense is not raised again in a similar situation.
How does Stand Your Ground apply to someone who chose to break into a home? That just doesn’t make any sense, does it?
How does Stand Your Ground apply to someone who chose to break into a home? That just doesn’t make any sense, does it?
Police should be thinking about the “Stand Your Ground” before this law allows police to be shot because someone applies it to “Stand Your Ground” because they think they are cornered and have no other choice. Police especially undercover operations might not have a leg to stand on.
Police should be thinking about the “Stand Your Ground” before this law allows police to be shot because someone applies it to “Stand Your Ground” because they think they are cornered and have no other choice. Police especially undercover operations might not have a leg to stand on.