Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Now THIS is what you want out of a Castle Doctrine law

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Posted in the News & Policital Alerts forum, this MSNBC article explores the link between record numbers of legal guns and the subsequent reduced crime rate. The antis close their eyes and deny it of course, but that's typical. See my comment on that in the thread over there.

    Here in the Virginia forum, I wanted to pull out the real-world impact of the South Carolina Castle Doctrine. Here's a short excerpt from the beginning of the story:

    Waving a chromed semiautomatic pistol, the robber pushed into the building in the bustling Five Points neighborhood of Columbia, S.C., just before 11 p.m. on April 11, 2009. “Gimme what you got!” he yelled, his gun hand trembling.

    Attorney Jim Corley was one of four people in the room, the lounge area of a 12-step recovery group’s meeting hall. “He said, ‘Give me your wallet,’” Corley recalled. “So I reached around to my back pocket and gave him what was there.”

    Unfortunately for the gunman, later identified as Kayson Helms, 18, of Edison, N.J., that was Corley’s tiny Kel-Tec .32, hidden in a wallet holster and loaded with a half-dozen hollow points. Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso. Helms ran into the night and collapsed to die on a railroad embankment 100 feet away.

    Reports filed by officers who arrived at the scene a short time later called it an “exceptionally clear” case of justifiable homicide. Following South Carolina’s “Castle Doctrine,” which allows the use of deadly force in self-defense, police did not arrest Corley. They did not interrogate him. Corley was offered the opportunity to make a voluntary statement, which he did.

    Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit.
    Now that is my kind of a Castle Doctrine! I trust our resident experts, who tell us that Virginia's common law castle doctrine is sound... but you just can't beat "did not arrest", "did not interrogate", and "barred from filing a civil lawsuit" with a stick.

    Let's get rid of Saslaw and Marsh, and about a dozen of their colleagues, and get something like this done here in Virginia!

    TFred

  2. #2
    Regular Member CRF250rider1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Herndon, VA & Martinsville, VA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:

    Let's get rid of Saslaw and Marsh, and about a dozen of their colleagues, and get something like this done here in Virginia!

    TFred
    x2:celebrate

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    First of all, civil immunity is nothing like castle doctrine. Stop calling it castle doctrine, please!

    Second, based on
    Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso
    I'm seriously bewildered at why he was not charged with some version of homicide. Unless there is something about the young perp trying to shoot even while turning/going to the ground the imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death has ended when the youn perp began to turn. IMHO that was not a "good shoot".

    Third, whether we vote Saslaw, Marsh and their ilk out of office or not, we need to carry out a massive PR campaign about them wanting to allow criminals to profit from their crimes a second time, or the families of criminals trying to profit from the criminal behavior of their deceased relative/friend. Forget all talking points about the need to protect the "innocent" shooter. Go after the weasel ambulance-chasing image of a lawyer who would take a fee from a case that's all about a viscious thug trying to rob an innocent person in court because they failed to rob them on the street/in their home.

    This isn't the only reason to vote THEM out, but it will do as part of the list. But in case that effort fails, make sure the press understands just what killing a civil immunity bill really means.

    <climbing off my soaobox now>

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    First of all, civil immunity is nothing like castle doctrine. Stop calling it castle doctrine, please!

    Second, based on
    Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso
    I'm seriously bewildered at why he was not charged with some version of homicide. Unless there is something about the young perp trying to shoot even while turning/going to the ground the imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death has ended when the youn perp began to turn. IMHO that was not a "good shoot".

    Third, whether we vote Saslaw, Marsh and their ilk out of office or not, we need to carry out a massive PR campaign about them wanting to allow criminals to profit from their crimes a second time, or the families of criminals trying to profit from the criminal behavior of their deceased relative/friend. Forget all talking points about the need to protect the "innocent" shooter. Go after the weasel ambulance-chasing image of a lawyer who would take a fee from a case that's all about a viscious thug trying to rob an innocent person in court because they failed to rob them on the street/in their home.

    This isn't the only reason to vote THEM out, but it will do as part of the list. But in case that effort fails, make sure the press understands just what killing a civil immunity bill really means.

    <climbing off my soaobox now>

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    Well, I didn't make the association, I just quoted the article: "Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit."

    I suspect it was a part of the same law, so perhaps they should have said "same Castle Doctrine law". If I remember correctly, one of the recent Virginia bills had both provisions in it as well.

    As far as the shoot... are you assuming that the robber turned away from the victim? I assumed that he turned toward the victim. The article does not say. It also does not say anything about the robber going down. The scene as I saw it described was that perhaps the robber did not have his body and gun pointed straight at the victim who shot him, and after the first shot, the robber turned his attention and his gun toward the victim who just shot him, in order to return fire. If that is how it happened, the victim was absolutely justified in shooting two more times.

    I didn't see anything in the few details presented that would lead me to even begin to suspect that it was not a justified shoot.

    Without a complete report, there is really know way to even begin to speculate.

    TFred


  5. #5
    Regular Member vt800c's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Springfield,VA
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    Hmmm...mit's making my moving to South Carolina look better and better.

    At least better than the lib-centric NoVA.
    I sell ObamaBlades: Single-edged razors you can use to either remove the bumper sticker off your car, or slash your wrists..whichever works best for you.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    463

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    skidmark wrote:
    First of all, civil immunity is nothing like castle doctrine. Stop calling it castle doctrine, please!

    Second, based on
    Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso
    I'm seriously bewildered at why he was not charged with some version of homicide. Unless there is something about the young perp trying to shoot even while turning/going to the ground the imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death has ended when the youn perp began to turn. IMHO that was not a "good shoot".

    Third, whether we vote Saslaw, Marsh and their ilk out of office or not, we need to carry out a massive PR campaign about them wanting to allow criminals to profit from their crimes a second time, or the families of criminals trying to profit from the criminal behavior of their deceased relative/friend. Forget all talking points about the need to protect the "innocent" shooter. Go after the weasel ambulance-chasing image of a lawyer who would take a fee from a case that's all about a viscious thug trying to rob an innocent person in court because they failed to rob them on the street/in their home.

    This isn't the only reason to vote THEM out, but it will do as part of the list. But in case that effort fails, make sure the press understands just what killing a civil immunity bill really means.

    <climbing off my soaobox now>

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    Well, I didn't make the association, I just quoted the article: "Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit."

    I suspect it was a part of the same law, so perhaps they should have said "same Castle Doctrine law". If I remember correctly, one of the recent Virginia bills had both provisions in it as well.

    As far as the shoot... are you assuming that the robber turned away from the victim? I assumed that he turned toward the victim. The article does not say. It also does not say anything about the robber going down. The scene as I saw it described was that perhaps the robber did not have his body and gun pointed straight at the victim who shot him, and after the first shot, the robber turned his attention and his gun toward the victim who just shot him, in order to return fire. If that is how it happened, the victim was absolutely justified in shooting two more times.

    I didn't see anything in the few details presented that would lead me to even begin to suspect that it was not a justified shoot.

    Without a complete report, there is really know way to even begin to speculate.

    TFred
    The moral of the story is, when has the leftistpress ever been interested in the truth? They left out enough of the FACTS for people to draw their own conclusionwhile portraying the criminal and his family as the "victims" because the poor b@stard'sfamily can't sue....what relevance does it have to the story that an armed private citizenmade a stand that he wasNOT going to be a victim and thwarted a robbery by killing a CRIMINAL while protecting himself? NONE!!!!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    First of all, civil immunity is nothing like castle doctrine. Stop calling it castle doctrine, please!

    Second, based on
    Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso
    I'm seriously bewildered at why he was not charged with some version of homicide. Unless there is something about the young perp trying to shoot even while turning/going to the ground the imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death has ended when the youn perp began to turn. IMHO that was not a "good shoot".
    Because the way the news story author writes it and reality cannot coexist in the same article?

    Most of us could easily put out three rounds at the kind of range someone would demand our wallets, and could put them out with a fair degree of confidence they would hit their target. The term "point blank" comes to mind.

    I don't know about your feelings on these types of events, but in a Real Life (tm) situation, a "shoot and wait" mentality, where you shoot at someone and then wait to see if they stop being aggressive is most likely going to get you hurt/killed/disarmed-then-hurt-or-killed. Particularly when someone comes in and points their own (probably stolen) gun at you.

    My mind's eye sees events unfolding as this: Kayson (the robber) walks in, brandishes, demands valuables, gets to Corley, Corley pulls and fires at least three rounds.

    Regardless of how it's written, in my mind the JA demanded Corley's wallet, got hit by the first round, and "started turning" probably in reflex from being hit by the first shot. The rest of the rounds were already essentially on their way out.

    Be honest, Skid: Would you really shoot at someone only one time if they had just pointed a gun in your face/at your body? Would you really fire once, stop, wait, and see if they went down, or would you, rightfully fearing for your life, fire several shots?

    IMHO, this WAS a good shoot, and a typically poorly-worded news article from a failing news media.

    But what do I know, I'm just some guy on the internet.


    Edited to add a quote by a historian friend of mine:
    The day a modern "journalist" writes a clear article, Satan's hellions will be unleashed upon the earth to inflict new torments that modern news media can only dream of.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    If someone just attacked me (risk of death) and is fleeing, I see nothing wrong with shooting. Look up "fleeing felon." If he just attacked me, and I feel he'll pose a deadly threat to others, I'm going to do what I can to take him down so he can't harm anyone else.

    Life or death when it comes to good guys, I chose life. Bad guys, well, they're the ones who had no problem trying to kill me (a good guy).

  9. #9
    Regular Member gis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    264

    Post imported post

    Just because the perp turned away (assuming it was away) from the victim, doesn't mean that the threat is over. I view it as a part of the fight. The threat is not over until there is no further capacity to harm the victim or articulated intent to retreat was made. I can think of at least one move in the armed defensive tactics that I teach (including cops) which involves defending against certain knife strikes by essentially spinning the perp around and shooting them in the back. I picked it up from a former L.A. County (California) SWAT trainer. Not politically correct to many departments, but defensible.

    On the other hand shooting a fleeing felon opens a can of worms. Garner v Tennessee applied to cops when it was decided almost 30 years ago. As I always understood it, it requires one to articulate based on information known at that time why you reasonably belived that the felon was an ongoing active threat at the time that you shot him. That's hard to do in many cases including this one. Also, when cops shoot fleeing felons, their departments indemnify them against civil liability. In the case of a civilian, no such luck. And even in a state with good castle doctrine, I wonder if civil liability indemnification is protected if the perp is shot under the Garner rule rather than in self-defense?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Haymarket/Gainesville/Arlington/GMU , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    Even thought the article might be 'questionable' in the bias, it still doesnt paint the shooter as some crazy maniac out looking for a bad guy. This article actually brought a slight smirk to my face. It is people like Kayson that think that everyone will lie down scared when a barrel is pointed at him. Clearly this attorney kept his calm and acted within the law, the law that allowed him to protect himself from bodily harm or death. Equally important was the protection that the law provided him from the civil suit that would have surely been filed because everyone knows Kayson "was a good kid..."
    OC - Kimber Custom II - trijicon night sights, beveled mag well, and Wilson combat mags
    CC/OC Sig Sauer 229 - trijicon night sights

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Yorktown, ,
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    I think this article shows just how having a sidearm can change a very very bad situation into a less bad situation.

    In this case, someone did die, which is always unfortunate when it comes to self defense.

    In my mind, i do not wish for anyone to die... i only wish for the threat to cease. Unfortunately, in many cases one comes as a result of the other.



    I have had to draw a weapon in self defense before. It was not an easy thing to do knowing in a matter of seconds someone might be killed. Luckily, the threat stopped before anyone was harmed (someone said they called the cops and the perps (8 of them vs 3 of us) ran away.


    Good on this guy, though. He potentially saved many lives. I just hope he can watch his back from vengeful family members

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    Generally speaking, I agree with Skidmark, particularly about the terminology. Unless this was Jim Corley's house, this doesn't have anything to do with the common law castle doctrine. I have no idea what statute's been enacted in S.C., or what they call it. They could have called it a blue dog, if they'd wanted to, but that don't make it one.

    I also object to the word, "justifiable", unless Jim Corley was not only an attorney but also a police officer on duty. When one uses deadly force in self defense, defense of others, to stop a serious felony, or to stop a fleeing felon, that's "excusable" homicide, not "justifiable". Justifiable homicide is, for example, when a corrections officer throws the switch to activate the electric chair pursuant to a court order.

    I was also curious about which way the assailant turned, and I'd also assumed that he'd turned to flee. In any case, he still had a gun in his hand, presumably, and thus represented a continuing danger to the community. If he'd have dropped the gun, I'd have guessed that the threat was over, but the article didn't say that.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  13. #13
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    Another factor to consider before moving to SC: No Open Carry! CC but not OC is the state law I believe.
    Appleseed, Virginia State Coordinator
    Are you a Rifleman yet?
    http://appleseedinfo.org

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    In my mind the crook might had simply turned to make himself a slimmer target or even to seek cover, from which to return fire, I believe "shoot'em to the ground" is the best practice in a situation like this.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    A couple of things that the article did not include.

    In SC it is called: This article may be cited as the "Protection of Persons and Property Act". It not only covers your home, car, place of business or wherever you have a right to be. It is not referred to a Castle Doctrine but has about the same meaning.

    Title 16, Chapter 11, Article 6

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

    SECTION 16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions; law enforcement officer exception; costs.

    So yes he was covered by the SC version of the Castle Doctrine and included immunity from civil prosecution.

    The other interesting thing about this case is it happened at an AA meeting. The fellow tried to rob a bunch of recovering alcoholics. It probably helped that the man doing the shooting was an attorney but it was ruled a good shoot very quickly.

Posting Permissions

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