# Positive Gun News of the Day **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 22, 2015, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490 "2015-10-22T22:57:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 39
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/761 "2016-05-12T13:23:01Z")
A does. But since the whole situation was provoked by a criminal act by A - and thus could easily have been prevented by him just paying the damn cab fare - this is not remotely a “positive gun use” and you’re really stretching to characterize it as such. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/762 "2016-05-12T13:25:55Z")
Seems quite simple to me. The cabbie should have called the cops about the theft. It was a very poor decision to chase a thief/robber into a building. Let the cops arrest the guy. > [@](#): > > So A has no right to defend himself when his home is invaded? Sure he does. But if he gets arrested, it is a much tougher battle to convince a prosecutor and jury that it was done in self defense. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/763 "2016-05-12T14:33:06Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > A does. > [@Orwell](#): > > Sure he does. And that’s why I think it is a positive gun use. Stiffing the cabbie, then burning the bodies are both crimes. But defending himself is not. DGU, two dead. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/764 "2016-05-12T15:31:42Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > And that’s why I think it is a positive gun use. > > Stiffing the cabbie, then burning the bodies are both crimes. But defending himself is not. > > DGU, two dead. Really? That’s slicing it very fine. By that argument, if someone’s mugging me and I pull out my gun to shoot them, it’s a “positive gun use” if they then shoot me to defend themselves against me. I mean, if we’re going to remove all context from the incident, it makes perfect sense. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/765 "2016-05-12T15:42:58Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I did. What is wrong with shooting someone who breaks into my home? The fact that I owe a cab driver money is irrelevant. That is a civil issue for the courts, or the police. How is breaking and entering justified? As with everything, the fact pattern is critical. There are two issues here. The actions of the cab driver, and the actions of the shooter. The fact that money is owed to the cab driver is indeed irrelevant to the breaking and entering. But that is from the perspective of the cab driver. From the perspective of the shooter, according to the article he is invoking stand your ground. The fact that he owes the cab driver money is entirely relevant to that scenario in that not paying for a cab fare is theft. The Stand your Ground statutes in South Carolina are covered in [South Carolina Code SECTION 16-11-440](http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c011.php): > [@](#): > > 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: > > … > > (B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person: > … > > (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** > … (my bold) The law in South Carolina contemplated a scenario like this, where someone engaged in an unlawful activity seeks shelter in a residence. In other words, the shooter was not simply an innocent. Defending oneself is fine, it’s what the thread is mostly about after all. What is not fine is being an aggressor, or initiator. It would not be appropriate at all if a criminal or someone engaged in unlawful acts has a magic shield by hiding in their house immediately after committing a crime. Based on the fact pattern, the Stand Your Ground law in South Carolina would not apply. That being said, the presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury is not present. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/766 "2016-05-12T15:48:40Z")
In other news, [Father rushes to help daughter after men break into Pulaski Co. home](http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/Father-rushes-to-help-daughter-after-men-break-into-Pulaski-Co-home-368673331.html) > [@](#): > > She says she woke up to the sounds of the two inside her home at 7:30 Friday morning, but she questions how long they had been inside. > … > “So I picked up the phone and called my dad, they were people in the house. And to come up here,” she said at her home on Piney Grove Rd. in the White Lily community. > > Her dad showed up, one ran into the woods, the other down the driveway. > … > David M. Lafavers, 39, was held at gunpoint until police arrived. > > A nearby house caught fire moments after the home invasion. Police say the second intruder set it on fire. > … > In fact police say Lafavers was arrested just last month in another home invasion……but was released after posting a large property bond. DGU with no injuries. So a person that was arrested for home invasion in the month prior was released and did the same thing. Setting fire to a house to keep warm is not a sign of a great thinker. Hopefully the person is not released and convicted after this. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/767 "2016-05-12T16:24:42Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Really? That’s slicing it very fine. By that argument, if someone’s mugging me and I pull out my gun to shoot them, it’s a “positive gun use” if they then shoot me to defend themselves against me. Not at all the same. If they break into your house, they have no basis to claim self defense. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/768 "2016-05-13T09:32:25Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Not at all the same. If they break into your house, they have no basis to claim self defense. And as **Bone** pointed out, if you’re hiding in your house to facilitate your crime (as this guy was), you have no basis to claim self-defense either. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/769 "2016-05-13T10:48:09Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > And as **Bone** pointed out, if you’re hiding in your house to facilitate your crime (as this guy was), you have no basis to claim self-defense either. No where in the law does it equate staying your house with facilitating a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/770 "2016-05-13T11:38:21Z")
He hid in his house to escape paying his cabfare. But fine - you’ve got an entire thread of examples of normal law-abiding people defending themselves with guns against legitimate threats but if this is the hill you want to die on, go ahead and have this one. And the next time there’s a conversation about DGU on this board I’ll remember how many straws were grasped just to add one dubious example to the total and wonder how many others like it are out there. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/771 "2016-05-13T12:23:24Z")
This is why there will be a trial. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/772 "2016-05-13T16:13:52Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > No where in the law does it equate staying your house with facilitating a crime. The law doesn’t state this specifically, but it does say that the presumption of fear that would justify self defense doesn’t apply if the person who uses deadly force is either engaged in unlawful activity OR is using the residence to further an unlawful activity. Theft is an unlawful activity, therefore the presumption does not apply. In the case where that presumption does not apply, the standard to evaluate whether self defense is a valid affirmative defense contains 4 elements. Those elements are: First, **the defendant must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty**. Second, the defendant must have actually believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily injury, or he actually was in such imminent danger. Third, if his defense is based upon his belief of imminent danger, a reasonably prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the same belief. If the defendant actually was in imminent danger, the circumstances were such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save himself from serious bodily harm or losing his own life. Fourth, the defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance. Based on the fact pattern, I do not believe the first element is satisfied. Because there is no presumption of imminent danger, the fact pattern will control whether this belief was held, and if so, was reasonably held. I think these elements fail too. Self defense is not established if any one of the four elements can be disproven. See [South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion No. 4769.](http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=4769) Do you contend that each of the four elements exist? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/773 "2016-05-13T16:15:14Z")
In other news, [Homeowner Fatally Shoots Would-Be Burglar in Ontario: Police](http://ktla.com/2016/02/14/homeowner-fatally-shoots-burglar-in-ontario-police/) > [@](#): > > The incident was reported about 5:15 a.m. in the 800 block of West Mission Boulevard, according to a statement from the Ontario Police Department. > > The caller told dispatchers her husband shot a man who had tried to break in through the front door, the news release said. > > The shooting occurred after a brief struggle between the male homeowner and the would-be burglar, said police Officer Jorge Ramirez. DGU with one death. If a person breaks in at 5 in the morning I have to think they expect people to be home. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/774 "2016-05-13T16:41:31Z")
Canadians have guns? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/775 "2016-05-13T16:45:20Z")
That would be the question that comes to the mind of most Americans outside SoCal from that headline… ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/776 "2016-05-13T19:06:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The law doesn’t state this specifically, but it does say that the presumption of fear that would justify self defense doesn’t apply if the person who uses deadly force is either engaged in unlawful activity OR is using the residence to further an unlawful activity. Theft is an unlawful activity, therefore the presumption does not apply. That’s an interesting interpretation of the law, and it might even hold up if the cab driver and his friend were shot while in pursuit of the gun owner outside. The problem comes when they break into his house. With the commission of a crime of their own, the gun owner is no longer furthering his theft of cab fare, but defending himself from criminals invading his home. One’s domicile holds a special status in the law. While the police have latitude to enter when in hot pursuit, theft victims do not. At the time of the home invasion, the gun owner was not engaged in unlawful activity (the theft of cab fare having occured prior to the home invasion), and he wasn’t using his home in the furtherance of of unlawful activity, since the cab driver had no legal right to enter the home. So neither condition is met, and the presumption of fear is valid. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/777 "2016-05-13T20:00:52Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > … At the time of the home invasion, the gun owner was not engaged in unlawful activity (the theft of cab fare having occured prior to the home invasion), and he wasn’t using his home in the furtherance of of unlawful activity, since the cab driver had no legal right to enter the home. So neither condition is met, and the presumption of fear is valid. I think your interpretation is without basis. You have concluded that the shooter was not engaged in unlawful activity, and you have come to this conclusion because the theft had occurred prior to the cab driver entering the home. This is an absurd reading of the statute - a person could commit a crime on their porch and then step inside and your contention is that the person who just committed a crime was not engaged in unlawful activity. There would need to be some shield that once crossed acts as a cuttoff. This is nonsense and is not consistent with the law in South Carolina. Even if your idea that the presumption of fear exists, that presumption only modifies the 3rd element of the 4 element test for self defense. Both the 1st, 2nd, and 4th elements must still exist. Do you think they do? Would you say that the shooter is without fault? Do you think the person was in actual fear? Even then, the presumption is rebuttable. Evidence can be presented that refute the shooter’s claims, even if someone was unlawfully and forcibly entering the residence. A jury will decide as the trier of fact. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/778 "2016-05-13T20:02:51Z")
I would think that the presumption on innocence would be of importance here. ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/779 "2016-05-13T20:54:52Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > This is why there will be a trial. 🙂 This will be a good one to follow. If the shooter is exonerated then I may suspect he had a $uperbly $killed attorney who$e office had excellent $taff. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490/780 "2016-05-13T21:14:11Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This is an absurd reading of the statute - a person could commit a crime on their porch and then step inside and your contention is that the person who just committed a crime was not engaged in unlawful activity. He is still guilty of the crime on the porch. He is not furthering that crime when he enters the house, because there are no additional charges that could be added to the crime that occurred on the porch. The unlawful activity occurred when the gun owner left the cab without paying. He is not furthering that unlawful activity by entering his house; he is not guilty of any additional charges than if he had stayed outside. The cab driver has one appropriate response, and that is to call the police. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/positive-gun-news-of-the-day/735490.md?page=40)