Potential Change To S.C. Stand Your Ground Law
BY Herschel Smith
3 years, 6 months ago
A bill introduced in South Carolina is both common sense and closes a seriously dangerous loop in their law. H 3432 will give much needed protections to those that do opt to carry a firearm for self-defense. From the summary of the bill we have the following:
Immunity from prosecution and civil action for stand your ground
A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 16-11-440 AND 16-11-450, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BOTH RELATING TO IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON (STAND YOUR GROUND), BOTH SO AS TO INCLUDE DISPLAYING DEADLY FORCE IN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTES.
Brandishing a firearm can come with serious penalties. But what happens when someone is being attacked, they deploy their firearm, and then the attacker turns and runs away? Well, in my book and anyone that has any wits about them would chalk this one up to a big win.
I agree, and the notion that law enforcement would arrest and charge someone with brandishing is ridiculous if that action stopped an attacker. But that would require intelligence by LEOs, and moral scruples by prosecuting attorneys, neither of which is realistic.
This is a worthy bill, but if it hasn’t already been heard in committee and passed on, it’s unlikely to get a vote this session.
On April 26, 2021 at 6:19 am, Wes said:
Hopefully they’ll get that one right. A great many statutes on the subject read “a person is privileged [not my word choice] to threaten or use force….”
So there is no brandishing if the use is correct in the first place.
Fixable. They just need the will to do so.
On April 26, 2021 at 5:29 pm, robert william orians said:
Ohio just pulled the teeth of an excellent stand your ground bill and then passed the gutless toothless look alike bill. Swarmy bastids .
On April 28, 2021 at 4:16 am, Show Me said:
It has always been absurd that the mere showing of a firearm in a threatening situation could backfire on you. It puts you in a situation where you must quick-draw and then are incentivized to shoot.
And the definition of threatening should be quite liberal. With more restriction then put on the actual pointing of the weapon at the threat.
But, of course, these laws are not often meant to make sense, or be reasonable.