Home Invasion Suspect Uses "Stand Your Ground" in Murder Trial

[SecularMotion]

Columbia, SC (story by Robert Kittle) The George Zimmerman case brought the "Stand Your Ground" defense to the forefront.

It gives you the right to use deadly force to protect your home, your car, yourself and others on your property.

But now, one murder case is on hold while the South Carolina Supreme Court makes big decisions about the law.

In a Columbia murder case, a man accused of breaking into a home and killing the man who lived there is trying to use the "Stand Your Ground" defense. The attorney for Gregg Isaac says Isaac was defending himself because the man whose home he broke into was about to pull a gun.

http://www.wltx.com/news/article/242385/2/Home-Invasion-Suspect-Uses-Stand-Your-Ground-in-Murder-Trial-

[gejohnston]

1. That's stupid

The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person's place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime.

It kind of reminds me of a false confessor in Tampa who claimed she was standing her ground in a store she wasn't in on a day she wasn't in the county.

[petronius]

4. The headline is a bit misleading: he didn't use the defense, the judge declined

to hold a hearing on whether or not he should be allowed to use the defense (probably, because the judge can read). So the judge tried to save some time and the defense attorney wants to waste some time - which does not seem to be a really useful strategy, but IANAL...

[DCBob]

2. This is a good reason to rethink the "stand you ground" defense.

It should never be allowed in such a situation.

[PoliticAverse]

6. It won't be allowed. n/t

[MrSlayer]

3. He was standing his ground in the house he broke into?

What the fuck is going on in this country?

If this is upheld then they might as well declare murcer to be legal and have done with it.

Frontier days, here we come.…again.

[Travis_0004]

5. It won't be upheld

People try dumb defense strageties all the time. Just give the judge some time, and it will be thrown out.

[MrSlayer]

7. I certainly hope not.

That's some crazy shit.

[anomiep]

15. I don't see any way this flies under Florida law.

SYG definitely doesn't apply, but it's not *just* SYG that doesn't apply.

Beside's gejohnston's quote of the bill, we can look at the law itself.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

776.013 3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

So the SYG part is disqualified by not just one, but two conditions, because he didn't have a right to be where he was.

But then we get to the real meat.

776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

776.08?Forcible felony.—"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

So, not only does SYG not apply, *any* self defense justification *whatsoever* appears to be unavailable.

There may be some odd situation where if he decided to stop robbing the house, told the homeowner so by giving triplicate written copies, and started running down the street, the homeowner would be unjustified, and he would be justified (I am being a tiny bit sarcastic here, but there probably are conditions like that where if he'd aborted the crime, the homeowner clearly knew he'd aborted the crime and was leaving, and he'd satisfied the duty to retreat he'd imposed on himself by both starting to commit the crime and being somewhere he had no right to be, there might be some set of circumstances where someone who was initially committing a crime might be justified - but I expect they're very rare) - but I figure the original judge was justified in not giving him a hearing to begin with (although we'll see how the court rules on that)

[anomiep]

16. And of course, then I think of the one case where he *might* have a self defense defense

If he'd
a) completely given up continuing to commit the crime
b) did not attempt to flee
c) clearly informed the homeowner of a & b, and
d) after all of a, b, c happened, the homeowner still used deadly force

then maybe he'd have a self defense claim, but he would still not have any presumption under SYG, he'd have to prove it. Of course, I am not a lawyer.

(I'm thinking here that the law reads such that if someone were breaking in, saw the homeowner with a gun, and immediately threw down all his weapons, got face down on the floor and started yelling "Ok, I'm done, I'll wait for the cops to come arrest me, I'm done, don't shoot me" and the homeowner shot anyway ... but I doubt many people engaged in a burglary in the first place are going to do that)

[ileus]

8. You can't stand your ground, on his ground.

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 10:16 PM - Edit history (1)

[CokeMachine]

12. Just aanother hit and run post from ?????

They have nothing but they are kinda cute in their own way.

[Lee-Lee]

9. This is a good example

Of a defense throwing everything they can at the wall hoping somebody, somewhere screws something up just enough to get somebody off on a technicality.

"We are sure the hearing will go against you, but we will make you do a bunch more work and hope you slip up doing it so we can attack the technicality".

[CokeMachine]

13. Did/do you know that SYG has nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial??

I was hoping for MS. The prosecution was throwing everything but evidense agains the wall. Maybe you should have volunteered to be a witness??

Welcome to DU

[gejohnston]

14. Three things made it obvious where it was going

if you didn't watch the whole trial.
John Good, witness for the prosecution, was the first nail in the case's coffin.

Rebuttal was a train wreck. Prosecutors told the judge and jury they had three rebuttal witnesses. First question, first witness was about an ad campaign on their Facebook page. Witness said before objection, question was out of bounds for rebuttal, "certainly not" in an very animate voice. Objection. Jury leave room. No rebuttal. second to the last nail in the coffin.

During their closing, the prosecutors never said "we proved" because they didn't. They sounded like defense lawyers up against a slam dunk case with appeals to emotion and offering baseless alternate theories like "might have" "possible that" "we think". Asked the jury to follow their heart and common sense instead of the evidence. Last nail in the coffin.

State knew they were going to lose and tried to add child abuse as one of the charges because they knew they did not disprove SD. Judge rejected it.

I was only hoping for a verdict supported by the facts, evidence, and the law regardless of outcome.
Even if he was convicted, the discovery violations and at least one reversible error would have over turned it.

[NaturalHigh]

10. Can this guy plead legally stupid?

What a moron. Glad the judge smacked him down.

[Jenoch]

17. What do YOU think of this situation?