Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Man shot to death after firebombing in Darlington County

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    What would you do in a case like this?

    http://www.scnow.com/scp/news/local/..._county/33134/
    Darlington County sheriff’s deputies are investigating the death of a Hartsville man who was shot early Thursday morning after another man said someone threw a firebomb on his car.

    The shooting happened just after midnight at a residence on East Old Camden Road, according to a press release from Sheriff Wayne Byrd. Deputies responded to the scene after someone called 911 to report an altercation at his neighbor’s home involving a Molotov cocktail.

    The resident told deputies he was inside his house when a man drove his car into his yard, got out, threw something on the resident’s car and set it on fire. He said he yelled at the man and his passengers to stop, then walked outside onto his porch with a handgun and shot at the suspects’ car, according to the release.

    The car sped from the scene. A few minutes later, a man identified as 31-year-old Jason Winburn in Hartsville, was brought to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead of a gunshot wound, according to a press release from Darlington County Coroner Todd Hardee. Winburn’s body has been taken to Newberry for an autopsy.

    Another man, 27-year-old Willie Smith of 655 Washington St., Hartsville, was treated for a gunshot in the hand at the hospital, then arrested along with 19-year-old Enos Thomas of Hartsville, according to the release. Both men are charged with second-degree arson and are in custody at the Darlington County Detention Center awaiting bond hearings, according to the release.

    The resident has not been charged in this incident, which remains under investigation, Byrd said.

  2. #2
    Regular Member ptrdsmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Concord, NH
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Outstanding! One less bg to worry about on the streets causing trouble. Just got out of bed. Reading great stories of good citizens taking care of bad guys just goes great with a cop of coffee in the morning. :celebrate

  3. #3
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Legally, I have no idea where the guy stands cause I don't know what the law says in his neck of the woods. From a standpoint of "The Right ThingTM", I think the guy done good.

    Don't want to get shot? Don't mess with my family or the things I work so hard for like my house or car. That's my take, for what it's worth.

  4. #4
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    Good work on the part of the homeowner. A Molotov Cocktail is certainly a weapon. I feel he was completely justified in shooting at them. They might have had more and tried to throw them at him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    Good work on the part of the homeowner. A Molotov Cocktail is certainly a weapon. I feel he was completely justified in shooting at them. They might have had more and tried to throw them at him.
    I think you arwe exactly correct. There is a lot of difference between someone trying to steal something and someone actually using a weapon and a molotov cocktail is certainly a weapon.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Syntax Error's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    West Monroe, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    What would you do in a case like this?

    http://www.scnow.com/scp/news/local/..._county/33134/
    What would I do? Issue heartfelt thanks and compliment the owner on shooting ability. 2 out of 3 at night, with a handgun. Damn fine shooting.

    R/
    Matt

  7. #7
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    Good work on the part of the homeowner. A Molotov Cocktail is certainly a weapon. I feel he was completely justified in shooting at them. They might have had more and tried to throw them at him.
    Exactly. Who knows what other damage or harm the suspects where intending to do, and this guys had no reason to believe they would stop at just burning his car. With the information given, completely justified shooting in my opinion.

    http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c011.htm

    This is South Carolina State code of laws on the matter. They are a "Castle Doctrine" state.


    ARTICLE 6.

    PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY
    SECTION 16-11-410. Citation of article.
    This article may be cited as the "Protection of Persons and Property Act".
    SECTION 16-11-420. Intent and findings of General Assembly.
    (A) It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business.
    (B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.
    (C) The General Assembly finds that Section 20, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed.
    (D) The General Assembly finds that persons residing in or visiting this State have a right to expect to remain unmolested and safe within their homes, businesses, and vehicles.
    (E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack.
    SECTION 16-11-430. Definitions.
    As used in this article, the term:
    (1) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including an attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging there at night.
    (2) "Great bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.
    (3) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
    (4) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
    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
    (4) against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.
    (C) 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, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
    (D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
    (E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder.
    SECTION 16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions; law enforcement officer exception; costs.
    (A) A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known that the person is a law enforcement officer.
    (B) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of deadly force as described in subsection (A), but the agency may not arrest the person for using deadly force unless probable cause exists that the deadly force used was unlawful.
    (C) The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of a civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (A).


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •