What you may do is your own business. Most people would regard this as a classic case of self-defense.

I assume that the man who attacked him was completely off his rocker, so I feel sorry for both of them.

You only have the word of the man who used the shotgun on the guy and killed him when he trespassed on his estate.

Whether or not that man actually made a "stabbing motion" toward a guy pointing a shotgun right at him, is completely based on whether or not you believe killers will lie to cover their crimes, and avoid punishment.

The warning shots were not even necessary for this to be justified self-defense.

they have the knife, fingerprints, etc.

They also have the 911 call and the girlfriend as witness.

No one normal would keep advancing under these circumstances. No one normal tries to stab a person who is asking you to halt.

You seem to be reacting from your own prejudices rather than the events.

If they tried to charge this guy he'd have a good lawsuit against them. Really good.

No one normal would leave the safety of a locked house, deliberately advance upon a person with a knife and deliberately shoot him 3 times. Except for someone who was channeling his inner Rambo.

" Stephenson left the porch and approached the man, who then tried to stab him with a folding hunting knife, according to Loftis."

will now be mostly people reacting to what was shown.

Post it in your next post in this thread just the way it should be, so people can see it done correctly.

Note: you don't have to post the first four and you can skip paragraphs in between to make a more cogent excerpt. These four happen to be in sequence coming right after the first two paragraphs and reiterate the points in the first two.

At no point was anything in the "comment" section represented as the article, itself.

Here's something which should look familiar:

[center][font color=red][font size=4]Comments: You may add your own comments in this box (optional). [/font][/font][/center]

After calling the authorities he could have waited on his porch for them to arrive...I imagine the guy was standing in his driveway with the mentally ill 500 yard stare...

My adult brother is mentally ill but has no history of violence and no part of the gun culture...he's slipped under the radar and wandered a few times...by the grace of God he's never been shot at by a chickensh*t like this...

Of course the shooting was legally justified but what a coward...

...he felt the need to get off the porch and go confront the guy with a shotgun. Otherwise what difference does it make that the guy had a knife and you have a shotgun and live in a virtual fortress...

My verdict remains unchanged...the guy was a chickensh*t who couldn't deal with some mentally ill guy who had wandered onto his estate...

we still do that in America, they didn't know each other and he didn't know he was going to be attacked with a knife.

Reread the article. He fired two warning shots into the air before stepping off of the porch. He didn't go out to speak to the man in a neighborly fashion. He killed a paranoid, mentally ill man who wandered onto his property when he could have walked back into his fortress and had a cup of coffee and waited for the authorities to arrive. Any coward can pull a trigger.

You also failed to mention the decedent's hunting knife.

In any event, the vast majority of Americans don't believe innocents need to run away and cower when threatened, no less on their own property.

Absent new and very different facts, the shooter is the victim in this story.

The people actually responsible for the decedent's death are the decedent himself, and possibly those responsible for his care and the mental health system.

"mentally ill man who wandered onto his property"

No, the mentally ill man owned the property.

speak to the intruder, we still do that in America"

... he could have called the cops and let them shoot him.

and probably trying to protect the girlfriend.

"stabbing motions" with the "folding hunting knife" he carried in his pocket.

You just don't see a lot of people making "stabbing motions" at someone pointing shotguns at them, before they shoot them multiple times and kill them.

based on the comments from his own family described in your OP-linked article, often act quite irrationally and dangerously.

The decedent was either mentally ill and inherently dangerous, or competent and still criminally trespassed and refused to leave despite requests and warning, and was thus proven dangerous. Neither choice is particularly good, and both strongly support justified self-defense and the totally unsurprising decision not to charge Stephenson.

That was a huge post, there was room to mention a knife somewhere in there.

This was a case of a stranger walking up to a remote and isolated home and pulling a knife on the owner, after 2 warning shots had already been fired to drive him away.

No wonder the home owner wasn't charged, did you think that he should be?

almost all LBN posts are the first 4 paragraphs of an article.

As you can see, anyone who's interested in the story will go right ahead and take the free opportunity available to read the story, with no trouble at all.

You're a little defensive over this shooting. I think you know the law is on your side. You shouldn't worry.

This man was most clearly "defending his castle!" Maybe he thought his neighbor was a revenuer.

You could have mentioned the important and very dispositive details as a simple note without an actual quotation.

Since the story included none of the pictures you included in the OP, it's obvious you are more than capable of providing additional editorial and newsworthy content when it fits your narrative.

However, I'll take the bait.

Do you believe the shooting as reported was justified self-defense?

Based on you included photos, do you believe the apparent fact that the shooter was a rich Republican or that the decedent had a child was in any way relevant to the legal self-defense analysis?

My reading of the story is that a man who seems to have a history of violent psychological issues criminally trespassed on his neighbor's property, a neighbor with whom he had no relationship, and the homeowner properly contacted the authorities. The decedent failed to leave when properly ordered, additionally failed to respond to warning shots, actually tried to stab the homeowner with a hunting knife, and only then was shot.

Absent new facts, I see a tragic case of mental illness and totally justified use of lethal force in self-defense.

I just check the article, and it was posted exactly as it appears at the Chronicle, down to the end of the fourth paragraph.

Please illuminate.

Articles with no additional material.

Sure would save time for the poster.

I would imagine it also would be better if I didn't give my opinion, either. Don't you?

No one should speak on gun matters other than gun humpers. appreciators.

it's just that you managed to leave out the very next sentence about the knife attack, which changes the entire thread.

It has been a practice here from the first day I started reading DU articles.

DU'ers might want to reconsider risking your fury by adding photos in the space provided beneath the posted LBN article. It apparently was placed there to trick people into adding images or additional material, right?

As already mentioned to you above, the standard number of paragraphs requested for LBN articles is FOUR. FOUR PARAGRAPHS.

I didn't manage to leave out the next paragraph, I deliberately posted four paragraphs as suggested.

simple questions

Does it matter if the shooter were rich or Republican, or that the man who criminally trespassed, failed to leave when ordered or after warning shots, and tried to stab an innocent person, happened to have a child?

How would these facts affect a self-defense analysis, legal or otherwise?

Had you understood, you wouldn't have been tempted to post as you did, something entirely unrelated.

have the proper information needed to render an informed opinion I could understand but how are we supposed to reach that opinion of the incident based on a photo of the person who was shot and killed holding a baby?
That they held a child or had to one or more? That does not provide any information that appears to be relevant to this shooting.

You shouldn't assume your audience is so stupid as to not recognize that and to swallow your lame deflections.

"Stephenson left the porch and approached the man, who then tried to stab him with a folding hunting knife, according to Loftis."

the source for this has to be the shooter, right?

The sheriff wasnt there when it happened, was he?

In which case nobody actually knows what actually happened, now do they.

he contacted 911, he didn't have a record of violent mental health problems, and his girlfriend was a testifying witness.

Under the undisputed facts, why wouldn't Stepheson receive the benefit of the doubt, even apart from a presumption of innocence?

Do you have any basis to doubt any significant part of the investigation other that an dislike of what happened that evening?

The men didn't know each other and the guy that got shot and had the knife had mostly spent "the previous few years" locked in his bedroom? His family had previously reported him to the authorities for being mentally unstable and toxicology reports aren't back yet. Sounds like a case of legal self defense at this point, I wonder if the rich guy had cameras?

He certainly had it coming to him, didn't he?

I wish he could have given him an extra shot just for you.

That may have been before some money changed hands, who knows?

From an article I just located:

Charges possible in Altamont Road fatal shooting, Sheriff's Office says

Ron Barnett, rbarnett@greenvillenews.com 4:33 p.m. EDT March 24, 2016

The Greenville County Sheriff’s Office is not ruling out charges being filed in connection with the fatal shooting Saturday at an Altamont Road estate but is refusing to answer questions about the case and denied the newspaper’s request to view the public incident report and to listen to the 911 call made from the residence reporting an intruder until a decision is made.

. . .

Whitman's family issued a statement through an attorney Thursday, saying they don't know why he was on the Altamont Road property and that he was not a violent person.

"Matt Whitman was a brilliant, loving, kind and gentle son, brother and uncle, and our family is heartbroken by our loss of him," the family said through attorney David R. Price. "While we do not know why Matt was on that property on Saturday, he did not have a criminal record and we have never observed him being violent or threatening to any person.

. . .

Whitman died of shotgun wounds to the torso, according to the coroner, who listed the manner of death as homicide. He estimated the time of death at 9:30 a.m.

April 9, 2016 3:47 PM

New details released in deadly 'castle' shooting in Greenville

Highlights

Allen Stephenson confronted an alleged intruder, Matthew Whitman, in the front yard of his Altamont Road home March 19.

Multiple shots were fired from approximately 6 feet away

Whitman's death was ruled a homicide

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/state/south-carolina/article70920907.html#storylink=cpy

Interested comment section at the bottom from the locals.

A lawful justified use of lethal self--defense is still considered a homicide (as opposed to suicide, accident or natural causes).

Stephenson is lucky. This would not fly with some prosecutors. How much did Stephenson contribute to this tragedy? He put himself smack dab in the middle of it by leaving his house AS ADVISED by the dispatcher. In some jurisdictions that would seriously reduce the grounds for self-defense. In Georgia, a homeowner shot and killed a senile old man who, lost and confused, wandered into a backyard. The homeowner called 911, the police were summoned. The homeowner told the dispatcher he was armed and was going to confront the old man. Despite the dispatcher's strong warning that the homeowner should stay LOCKED in his house and wait for the police to arrive, the homeowner left the house, shot and killed the old man. I have read several articles on private citizen's use of lethal force. Experts STRONGLY advise caution/consideration when using lethal force. Unlike police, who are granted EXEMPTIONS from legal liability, private citizens are not granted the same exemptions. Experts advise, if you use lethal force it should ONLY be used as a LAST RESORT, when your life is in EMINENT physical danger. Now granted, Whitman was had a knife, but Stephenson was not in eminent danger, STANDING on his porch. Instead, he left the SAFETY of his porch. He was armed and he fired warning shots. The dispatcher and his girlfriend urged Stephenson to WAIT FOR THE POLICE. The guy lives in a CASTLE for fuck sake. It looks pretty secure. Stephenson and his girlfriend could have locked themselves in a bathroom or somewhere safe and wait for the police. Stephenson was still armed with a weapon to defend them both. When you IGNORE the advice of the 911 dispatcher to STAY LOCKED in your home, wait for the police and you INSTEAD confront someone, when it was not NECESSARY, you put yourself in legal jeopardy. Had Stephenson obeyed the dispatcher, Whitman might still be alive. Note in SC law, you have a duty to retreat and you should not be a contributor to the incident. http://www.gowoodruff.com/defending-your-castle-%e2%80%93-self-defense-in-south-carolina/

As you say, under the traditional "castle" law you have a duty to retreat. But a number of states (notably Florida) have passed "stand your ground" laws which say you have no duty to retreat even if you started the conflict, would be safer, and it would be sensible to retreat. Because of the publicity about "stand your ground" situations and the successes at using it as a defense, many people in states that have not passed such laws think they have the right to "stand their ground."

In any case when the shooter is white and rich the chances are he/she will not be charged for killing even when the circumstances are questionable.

The cases in this article are not just from Florida, just some of the more egregious at the time:

In many jurisdictions, one or both of these are also applicable as a matter of common law, rather than statute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_castle_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Additionally, even in the very small minority of jurisdictions where there is a duty retreat from an aggressor, such retreat is only required when it can be accomplished with near guaranteed safety to the potential victim. More importantly, as a practical matter and to the extent a prosecutor would ever decide to bring charges, most jurors are particularly sympathetic to innocent people who are attacked, regardless of any statutory duty to retreat.

Whether you or others like it or not, the vast majority of Americans do not believe innocent people need to cower and run from violent aggressors when they've done nothing wrong and are in a place they're legally entitled to remain.

That gang members got off with no charges from a shootout that resulted in a death is not a good thing. It's not as if those people were innocently walking down the street. The two gangs had an ongoing dispute and intended to at least attempted homicide when they met up that night.

I think the wave of "stand your ground" laws push the limit a little too far. The guy that shot the man for texting in the theater planned to use it as a defense even though the man who was killed was only having a verbal altercation.

The Dooley case is significant - while he lost his "stand your ground" defense, the jury still found him guilty.
Original coverage:

People who are not "nice" are also still entitled to defend themselves, and usually self-defense is not permitted as an affirmative defense when the defendant is an aggressor or involved in most criminal activity.

The system appears to be working properly and as intended. The real issue is that many people just don't like those who successfully employ the defense for political or social reasons (e.g., OP's photos of rich Republican) or use the cases to complain about guns rather than the fundamental issues (as seen repeatedly in this very thread)

Bad or crazy people who commit violence will still do so regardless of the state of self-defense jurisprudence, and few people are willing to jettison otherwise reasonable and generally accepted protections for innocent people subjected to unwarranted and unlawful aggression in order to dissuade a few defendants from asserting a defense with is largely unsuccessful.

It's not just me - many experts feel as though the "stand your ground" laws give some people the idea that they can get away with putting themselves into dangerous situations rather than acting with caution. Now that the infamous cases have moved on, the media is not paying attention, but there are still many cases of killings that are completely unnecessary because of false bravado.

and Stand Your Ground. People conflate them too readily and some intentionally misleadingly, usually as part of anti-gun advocacy, and they are very different legally and practically.

You also ask if the dead think the system is working. In response, how many of the dead in the actual cases were the aggressors, and more importantly, how often have these laws protected innocent people from potentially lethal threats. For instance, I'm far more concerning with the safety and well-being of the homeowner in the OP than the man shot give the reported facts.

You also speak of "false bravado" How do yo define that?

Should people be forced to run from their own homes to protect the safety burglars?

Are we required to turn over our possessions to muggers and other thieves and hope they do us no harm?

Must we all run away from threats regardless of location? Is it still necessary if running away might leave family, friends and other innocents in danger, but you are safe?

He was in his house, the person trespassing was not attempting to get inside the house even if he was on the grounds. Why did Stephenson feel the need to go outside with a weapon and confront Whitman? Stephenson knew the police were on the way, there was no pressing need to exit the house at all and put himself at risk.

Walking out on his porch and firing "warning shots" is false bravado to me. it was unnecessary and could have aggravated the situation.

Nowhere did I say anything about "forced to run from their own homes" or any of your other hypothetical questions - but leaving the safety of your home to confront someone you think might be a threat is irrational - unless that person is actually attempting to enter the house or presenting a clear threat.

If Whitman were walking toward the house with a gun and fired at the house, THEN using a weapon is reasonable.

I have confronted trespassers and poachers on my property without needing to carry a gun. I found that most situations a gun only give a false sense of security. The poacher I confronted who was carrying a gun and tried to bluster his way through circumstance where he was clearly in the wrong. Because I refused to escalate things he backed down and left my property. No one had to die for me to defend my property and myself.

you are effectively demanding a universal rule where innocent people need to retreat and yes, cower, when faced with violent threats, even on their own property.

In this situation, a violent man was threatening a homeowner and his wife on his own property, and you are demanding he lock himself away lest the assailant come to harm.

Notably, nothing in the law demands people confront assailants. You and others are certainly entitled to assess your own risk and make your own choices.

"Warning shots" or not, that is effectively a threat.

From the link in the OP: "Stephenson's girlfriend called 911 to report that someone was trespassing on the grounds and walking down a quarter-mile-long driveway leading from a locked gate to the home." There is nothing "violent" in that.

We will never know what would have happened if Stephenson had stayed in his home as the 911 operator asked him to. Whitman may have wandered around and done nothing by the time the police arrived.

For instance, when I saw two men cutting across my fields coming from the direction of the fenced margin, I called out, "Hey, guys! What's up?" I didn't walk out on my porch with my .22 and fire off "warning shots." I didn't "cower" in fear or escalate the situation. I just confronted them about their trespassing.

I'm just asking for some sense. Too many today think waving or firing a gun is the way to go. Maybe it's that I am not a man who feels the need to dominate. I'm a short fat woman who prefers to live in a civil society, not the mythical Wild West.

and trained to shoot people. They aren't going to pass up an opportunity to pull their guns on a living target.

I'll assume the police investigated this sufficiently. My hunch, based on expperience with gunners, is that Stephenson is just another callous gunner, who thinks he's tough when armed. But, that is not enough to charge him on his own property.

There are a few gun fanciers, and some gun profiteers, on this site who even side with the likes of George Zimmerman. It's a waste of time debating whether a fellow gun fancier could have handled things differently. But, I agree with you.

when someone criminally trespasses on your property and refuses to leave despite verbal admonitions and warnings, you believe they should be mandated by force of law to retreat into their home and not leave until law enforcement arrives and clears their exit? That is well beyond even the jurisdiction that have a technical duty to retreat.

You or anyone else may certainly choose to do this, and sometimes if may indeed be the most prudent or tactically sound decision and I would do the same, but a position that effectively requires the innocent to cower and hide under virtually all circumstances will never receive popular support, nor should it.

The man's death is a tragedy, as are all needless deaths, but the fault like with him, his caregivers, if any, and the mental health system. If the facts reported in this story are true, Stephenson is the primary victim in this incident.

In my neck of the woods, the threat of armed response was about the only thing that would get some of these folks to move on. As rural and relatively difficult to reach as we were, most trespassers we not just harmless wanderers. Have you ever been fired on by a trespasser? I have.

Nothing they've ever done has been as bad as the op in this thread.

The guy may be a rich republican idiot, but he was attacked by a dude with a knife. And he was attacked after the homeowner annouced himself and fired a couple warning shots.

911 audio from 'castle' shooting

The Greenville News 10:08 a.m. EDT April 20, 2016

Authorities released 911 audio from the March 19 'castle' shooting on Altamont Road.

Greenville County prosecutor Walt Wilkins said on Tuesday that when Allen Stephenson shot and killed Matthew Whitman, it was justifiable homicide. No charges will be filed.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/crime/2016/04/20/911-audio-castle-shooting/83272908/

Audio at link.

... and hope he tuckered himself out instead?

He obviously deserved injury or death, no less to save that poor man criminally trespassing with the hunting knife and ignoring warnings to leave.

...he could have stepped back into his fortress and had a cup of coffee and waited for the authorities to arrive instead of walking out and killing the guy.

Completely legally justified of course...but someone give this man an award for killing a paranoid, mentally ill man who wandered onto his property in broad daylight, had no firearms, and never entered the house.

if the story is factual.

particularly since you apparently concede that everything indicates justified self-defense?

He just looks like the same type of little rich prick that would have lasted about a month in our high school.

Everybody stereotypes, dude, you included. Sorry if I touched a nerve.

and generally defending the use of stereotypes.

Are you sure you're on the right website, because that's definitely neither liberal or progressive or supported by the Democratic Party?

How many different ways do I have to tell you I agree with what the guy did before it sinks in.

But yeah, I see nothing inherently evil with a little class-based stereotyping. Even if it bothers somebody's conception of how a "liberal" should react.

Is it only permitted when "our side" does it, or is it also permissible when done by people like Trump and Romney?

When those icky peasants chopped off the heads of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

Trump and Romney represent a viewpoint 180 degrees from what I am suggesting. Don't compare apples and cowpies.

if you're even remotely suggesting class-based stereotyping is acceptable, no less persuasive, it's hard to feign outrage when the opposition employs the exact same tactics.

In any event, most of the Democratic leadership is unquestionably part of the same 1%, and thus by your own definitions, equally loathsome.

Either you're giving all of them a total pass, are a hypocrite, or really not at home in the Democratic Party.

"In any event, most of the Democratic leadership is unquestionably part of the same 1%, and thus by your own definitions, equally loathsome."

I've got some bad news for you. Our Party leadership and policies have always reflected the very wealthy political class, and Democrats certainly have our share of some historical embarrassments (e.g., FDR internment of Asian-Americans, congressional opposition to Civil Rights Act, etc.).

I'm always amused by people who imply there was some socialist-esque good old times in the Democratic Party. There really wasn't. You might have likes some an old policies or two of the past, but the party has been basically the same (or worse) as long as it's been around.

You remind me of people who actually are MUCH farther left and radical than the Democratic Party, and rather than join a fringe political party that truly reflect their views, you complain about the Democrats.

People like myself and most others certainly appreciate your voting D at the polls (if you do), but expecting the Democratic Party to be what it isn't, never was, and never promised to be, is a fools errand.

I'd love to continue this entertaining tete a tete, but I'm hauling some calves to the sales yard tomorrow, it's late, I'm old and I need to get some sleep.

Have a nice night and enjoy your delusions.

So trespassing is punishable by the death penalty?

Or, maybe you just missed the parts where the homeowner first called the police, verbally demanded the trespasser leave, and then even fired warning shots, or the fact that the decedent was armed with a hunting knife and has a history of violence.

The firearm is totally immaterial in this story concerning the legality of the self-defense.

...her father, a retired SFC and Vietnam Vet confronted me with a shotgun. We were standing there in the dark with it pointed at my head for at least a minute before my girlfriend talked him down.

In the legal "stand your ground, chickensh*t, all you have to do is frighten me and I can legally shot you" climate we have created, he could have blown my head off and the pundits on Fox News could talk about how he was legally justified, I was stupid and probably deserved it, before moving on to the next story.

That's the society we've created today. The guy was legally justified but this story is a tragedy. He lived in fortress. As I said before, he could have gone inside and had a cup of coffee and waited for the authorities. But the culture of fear reigns...

because you were known by your girlfriend and her father, and not considered a real legal threat by either you or her under a reasonableness standard (unless you were doing or experiencing other things not mentioned in your post).

In any event, your implied standard would be that you're girlfriend's father would have needed to have run away, hid and called and waited for the police while a trespasser was trying to enter his home.

This has not been an acceptable standard for the vast majority of Americans for centuries, and is unlikely to change.

...we've created a chickensh*t/shoot first/ask questions later/he scared me culture with the stand your ground law. Note that I said culture not law: b/c letter of the law, George Zimmerman would have been imprisoned (not an expert but I have CCW and we went over the SYG stuff in some detail...)

On that night from my past:

1. I only knocked on her window, not doing anything else (nice try) and

2. It was dark. Her father could have claimed that he didn't know who I was, was trying to break into the house, was reaching into my pockets, etc...

This guy won't be scrutinized because of his wealth. Doesn't matter (if that previous post is correct) that the 911 operator pleaded for him to stay inside the house. What would of happened if this guy didn't have a shotgun? Probably nothing.

This is a tragedy. If you had any family members who suffered from mental illness you would understand that. But if you want to go pin a medal on this guy's chest for killing a mentally ill guy who wandered onto his property be my guest.

and effectively, if not attempting to legally, declare him a murderer.

The man's death is a tragedy because it was largely unnecessary and potentially avoidable, but the bulk of the responsibility still rests with the decedent, his caregivers and mental health professionals.

The reported investigation hardly reveals this was a "shoot first" scenario. Stephenson properly called the police, verbally demanded that the trespasser leave, and fired warning shots to scare him away. His fear was also apparently justified beyond the trespass and failure to heed warnings based on the knife in the decedent's possession and history of violent mental illness.

It's an unfortunate fact that criminals and the mentally ill do bad things, and given the shooters wealth and type of home, I would hardly be surprised if he was a target of robbery or worse.

Further, I do in fact have a family member that suffers from serious mental illness. I understand we want what's best for them, but also acknowledge that when not monitored, off their medication, or just with some bad luck, they can severely frighten people, if not be a legitimate risk to their safety. My relative's illness would not render a victim any less injured if he did something foolish or he did not understand.

...firing warning shots and verbally demanding someone leave doesn't register for someone who is truly mentally ill...but I guess you would know from your "relative"...your statement "would not render a victim any less injured" gives you away

The guy was a chickensh*t...or worse. There were no children playing out in the yard. The guy wasn't trying to break in a window or door with an axe.

And it was a binary choice when he stepped off the porch, after being advised by 911 to stay inside the house...to directly confront the guy and pull the trigger. What would have happened if the guy didn't have a shotgun? Probably nothing.

and has been in and out of institutions his whole life. There were times when my aunt needed to call the police to deal with episodes and I was present, and I wouldn't wish such things on my enemies.

When you correctly acknowledge that someone who's mentally ill often cannot even understand that criminal trespass is not acceptable and that they must leave if demanded, no less warning shots fired, it is a demonstration of just how dangerous they are. Add in the fact that he had a hunting knife, and the situation is yet more precarious.

We don't know the full extent of Whitman's mental issues; either he was at least minimally cognizant, and thus there was really no defense to his actions, or his was effectively incompetent and therefore inherently dangerous. Both options are terrible, and I would never want to be in a Stephenson's position and having to decide the best course of action to protect himself, his girlfriend and his home. It's far too easy to judge a situation from quiet reflection after the fact.

In any event, your issue appears to be far more about general objections to firearms and mental health advocacy than legal technicalities concerning the nuances of justified self-defense.

He was a chickensh*t...

If he would listened to the 911 operator and remained in the house this would have never happened. I find it amazing that you refuse to acknowledge that simple fact. The guy lives in a virtual fortress...no one was in immediate danger...the authorities had been notified...he didn't have a firearm...it's simple...


Now I'll cue up for your word game response:

"...mental health advocacy than legal technicalities concerning the nuances of justified self-defense"

in an earlier article found and posted in #20:

That article and comment was back in March 2016.

The family has apparently changed their story. From your own OP dated April 19, 2016,

That's all you got from the section cited in your OP, the police investigation, and the family's refusal to deny or discuss it further despite it's relevance.

Simply, you cited an article quoting for truth the family's attorney claiming they "never observed him being violent or threatening to any person." However, you refuse to accept another statement from a family attorney contradicting the original statement.

Luckily, police and prosecutors actually review all evidence and statements, not just the ones that support their preconceived notions.

The homeowner was in the building, armed with a gun. The police were on the way. Presumably the building has doors, and presumably the doors can be locked. The homeowner escalated the incident.

25 Mar 2016


Greenville “Castle Killing” Updates


SOUTHERN TIDE FOUNDER’S STORY FACES SCRUTINY … FAMILY OF VICTIM HIRES AN ATTORNEY …

. . .


There are several new developments to report in the Greenville “Castle Killing,” in which a wealthy young businessman shot and killed a man he claimed threatened him with a knife after intruding on his thirty-acre estate.

This website was the first to identify the shooter as 29-year-old Allen Stephenson – owner of the Southern Tide apparel company. For whatever reason, local authorities and mainstream media outlets declined to name him.

. . .

Further complicating things, Greenville sheriff Steve Loftis has refused media requests from multiple outlets and declined to release incident reports, 911 records and other information.

. . .

“Matt Whitman was a brilliant, loving, kind and gentle son, brother and uncle, and our family is heartbroken by our loss of him,” Whitman’s family said in a statement issued by attorney David Price. “While we do not know why Matt was on that property on Saturday, he did not have a criminal record and we have never observed him being violent or threatening to any person.”

Read more at http://www.fitsnews.com/2016/03/25/castle-killing-update/#H7VQOI2kABKbiljF.99

19 Apr 2016


Victim’s Family Issues “Castle Killing” Statement


MATTHEW WHITMAN’S FAMILY SAYS WEALTHY BUSINESSMAN “AGGRESSIVELY INITIATED” FATAL DISPUTE


The family of Matthew Whitman – the 32-year-old nature lover who was shot to death last month in Greenville, S.C.’s infamous “Castle Killing” – is “very upset” with S.C. thirteenth circuit solicitor Walt Wilkins‘ decision not to prosecute wealthy, well-connected businessman Allen Stephenson in connection with the incident.

The family has issued a statement taking issue with that decision, alleging that Stephenson “aggressively initiated” the confrontation.

Here is the statement in its entirety …

they notably fail to explain the reason or nature of the trespass or the knife, and whether Stephenson was convicted of trespassing or anything else at some earlier time else has no bearing, for or against, the lawfulness of his claim of self-defense. Was the conviction ironic? Maybe. Was it material? No.

My attorney take on the statement is that it's a attempt to rehabilitate the decedent's and family's image and reputation with a claim that Whitman didn't "deserve" to die, but very little to contradict the facts of the reported investigation that determined the incident constituted justified self-defense.

The cops requested, his girlfriend repeatedly told him to stay inside his ####ing house, and he felt like turning a man into a pile of dead skin and blood. Only a sociopath would defend him.

and unless new facts are adduced, he will not be, nor would things be different in the vast majority of jurisdictions in the USA?

Per the article:
"The 911 operator and the witness both pleaded with Mr. Stephenson to return inside," the family statement said. "Matthew, at worst, was simply trespassing that morning."

because someone is criminally trespassing on their property, nor does a 911 operator's suggestion normally change this basic legal fact.

More importantly, why was Whitman trespassing, no less with a hunting knife, and why did he ignore verbal admonitions and even warning shots demanding he leave the property?

If he's lying, the truth is lost, which benefits him, clearly.

It's a shame there's only one account, and if he's a dirty trigger-happy little bully his word is all that's left. The locals will bow down to him since he's the biggest employer in the town, no doubt.

Sad.

He has his own little kingdom, and trespassers will be killed by someone who should have stayed in his ####ing house. No, he was NOT "saving his girlfriend." She demanded he stay inside, mind his own business, and let the cops handle it. After he turned the man into a pile of blood, bones, and ragged flesh, she cried and cried endlessly. If he wanted to "protect" her he would have respected her request, her plea, her demand, her begging to stay the #### in his heavily fortified house, and leave the man alone.

If he had a conscience it would bother him the rest of his life, but that's not going to happen.

all of Whitman's statements and the applicable laws self-defense which are virtually the same almost everywhere in the USA.

However, we should resolve all presumptions or construe hypothetical scenarios in favor of the man we know was criminally trespassing and would not leave despite clear and unmistakable warnings, and even ignore the family's inconsistent statements about Whiteman's mental illness and prior violence, to say nothing of his hunting knife.

That's not how the investigations and the law operate.

Based on the photos you attached to your OP that weren't part of the linked article and your numerous statements, you seem obsessed with the man's house, and imply his political affiliation or wealth somehow affects a self-defense analysis. Let me be clear, it does not, and your resentment is irrelevant.

You know what would definitely, and quite readily, have saved Whitman? He could have chosen not to trespass, left when ordered to do so multiple times, and certainly not have threatened anyone with a knife in response to lawful demands. Why you choose to ignore this is inexplicable.

Whitman's death is a tragedy that likely he or his family could have easily avoided. Stephenson, no matter you rancor about his wealth, ostentatiousness or political party, is also a victim of this incident.

It has been reiterated to you earlier in this thread.

Don't keep trying to write your own facts.

It won't work on anyone who has read the available material.

but you discount it because it challenges your narrative.

It's also largely immaterial. Although it certainly supports Stephenson's account and credibility during the investigation, it apparently wasn't known to him at the time of the incident. The uncontested facts, such as the criminal trespass, knife, warnings, etc., alone were sufficient to support self-defense.

From your original OP where you didn't cite some of the most pertinent facts in the the linked article and then evaded, deflected and ignored when challenged, you seem intent on only acknowledging facts you like and misconstruing others, and then determining credibility based on irrelevant things like Stephenson's wealth or political affiliation. You even went as far as a later post citing an article before the investigation in linked your OP to imply contention as fact.

You appear to have personally determined that the decedent didn't "deserve" to die, legalities and facts notwithstanding, and that the shooter was an "evil" rich Republican, and therefore unsympathetic and believable. You are of course entitled to hold any opinion you wish, but based on the reporting from you own cited articles, unless and until something drastically changes, the incident appears to be cut-and-dried justified self-defense.

You have an affinity for this kind of language I've noticed. The kind one might typically encounter on an elementary school playground. Very odd indeed.

Don't you know, all those people are gun-humping murderers with no conscience, their lives don't really matter, and they certainly cannot ever be believed, even if there's overwhelming corroborating evidence.

Strange man trespassing, ignoring warnings and lashing out with a knife when confronted, unfortunately this is not as uncommon as some might think, and perfectly fits the description of a criminally insane individual.

The homeowner had every right to act as he did in defense of his family.