Replies

Yes, in SC you have a duty to retreat. Even if someone is kicking down your door and you shoot through the door and kill/wound the idiot, you are at fault because the door separated the two of you. Your life was not in immediate danger. According to my local LEO's, wait until the door is breached before squeezing the trigger.

I looked at packing.org and here is their summary for South Carolina's deadly force legal situation:

Deadly force law summary

Date updated: Jul 29, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (SLED)
USE OF FIREARMS OR OTHER WEAPONS
Use of Deadly Force
State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 377 S.E.2d 328 (1989) sets forth the elements of self-defense in South Carolina. These are:

you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;

you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;

if you believe you are in such danger, you must use deadly force only if a reasonable or prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in such danger, or, if you actually were in such danger, the circumstances were such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save yourself from serious bodily harm or losing your own life;
you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance.

Duty to Retreat
As a general matter, before using deadly force, even in self-defense, you have a duty to retreat in the following circumstances:

on a public street or highway, even when in own automobile. State v. McGee, 185 S.C. 184, 190, 193 S.E. 303, 306 (1937).
in a store where the public is invited. State v. Peeples, 126 S.C. 422, 120 S.E. 361 (1923).

As a general matter, before using deadly force, even for self-defense, there are situations in which you have no duty to retreat. These include:

in addition to in your home, there is no duty to retreat within your home’s curtilage. State v. Jackson, supra, or beyond the curtilage. State v. Quick, 138 S.C. 147, 135 S.E. 800 (1926).
in your place of business, even if the aggressor also has a right to be there. State v. Kennedy, 143 S.C. 318, 141 S.E. 559 (1928).
if a guest in home of another unless required to leave by the householder. State v. Osborne, 202 S.C. 463, 25 S.E.2d 492 (1942).
where attacked in your “club room”. [“A man is no more bound to allow himself to be run out of his rest room than his workshop.”]
where both parties own the premises, neither has the duty to retreat where the other is the aggressor. State v. Gibbs, 113 S.C. 256, 102 S.E. 333.
Where both live in the same home, neither has the duty to retreat if the other is the aggressor. State v. Grantham, 224 S.C. 41, 77 S.E.2d 291 (1953).
Where both are guests in the same home, neither has the duty to retreat if the other is the aggressor. State v. Smith, 226 S.C. 418, 85 S.E.2d 409 (1955).
Where both are fellow workers on same job site, neither has the duty to retreat if the other is the aggressor. State v. Gordon, 128 S.C. 422, 122 S.E. 501 (1924).
you need not retreat “if to do so would apparently increase [your] danger.” State v. McGee, 185 S.C. 184, 190, 193 S.E. 303, 306 (1937).

Defense of Others
In State v. Hays, 121 S.C. 163, 168, 113 S.E. 362, 363 (1922), the Court approved a “defense of others” instruction, as follows:
The right to take the life of an assailant during an unprovoked assault extends to any relative, friend, or bystander if the use of deadly force is necessary to save the victim wrongfully assaulted from imminent danger of being murdered by the assailant, if the assault is malicious and unprovoked and with a deadly weapon, with the apparent malicious intention to take the life of the victim and thereby commit murder, and if such murder is imminent, then any relative, friend, or bystander has the right to take the life of the assailant if necessary to prevent such murder, provided there was no other reasonable means of escape for the victim so assailed, and provided both the person assailed and the person coming to his defense were without legal fault in bringing on the difficulty.
South Carolina has adopted the so-called “alter-ego” rule with respect to the defense of others. In State v. Cook, 78 S.C. 253, 59 S.E. 862 (1907), the Court summarized this rule:
If you intervene on behalf of another, you will not be allowed the benefit of the plea of self-defense, unless that plea would have been available to the person you assisted if he himself had done the killing.
In other words, the person intervening is deemed to “stand in the shoes” of the person on whose behalf he is intervening. If that individual “had the right to defend himself, then the intervening party is also protected by that right. If, however, the party [victim] had no right to use force…then the intervening party will also assume the liability of the person on whose behalf he interfered.” McAninch and Fairey, p. 494.
The “defense of others” rules apply to “any relative, friend or bystanders…” State v. Hays, supra. The same principles of retreat and withdrawal apply as if the individual himself were acting in self-defense rather than on behalf of someone else. If there was no duty to retreat by the person being assisted, there is no duty imposed upon the intervenor.

Defense of Property
“…in the protection of one’s dwelling, only such force must be used as is necessary, or apparently necessary, to a reasonably prudent man. Any greater expenditure cannot be justifiable and is therefore punishable. State v. Hibler, 79 S.C. 170, 60 S.E. 438 (1907).
“[t]he weight of modern authority limits deadly force in a defense of a dwelling to situations in which the householder reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony or only when deadly force would be authorized by the law of self-defense.” McAninch and Fairey.