#south carolina laws

[ninyard]

I've been thinking about the Aaron trial a LOT and kinda fell into a rabbit hole about it and thing is. Aaron is guilty. Like 100% guilty. The prosecution can't prove first degree murder but they don't need to because they can charge him with 2nd degree, aka "murder of passion". It was a charged moment and Aaron responded by killing the dude. Yes he deserved it and yes it's still murder, with considerable jail time.

There are 3 ways for Aaron to get off here (not including Moriyama interference). One, jury nullification. The jury basically decides that yes he did it BUT he shouldn't go to jail for it so we're gonna vote as if we're not convinced he did it. Incredibly rare but legal. Two, Aaron's lawyer successfully argues that Aaron was acting in self defense on Andrew's behalf. They could potentially try to have Drake charged with SA and CSA posthumously, and use the details of that trial as evidence in Aaron's. Three, and this ties into 2, JAG (military legal branch) tells the SC courts they don't want a public trial. From here it becomes internal politics, and might result in a plea deal in exchange for the whole thing getting shoved under the rug.

it seems to me like jury nullification is one of those old laws that don't really hold up in a modern setting, like if you suggested it now, i don't know if they'd actually go forward with it?

the best i've come up with is that he's aquitted for accidental death or self defence and the jury are swayed by andrew, neil and higgins' testimonies, or he's found either guilty or not guilty of involuntary manslaughter. just throwing some random thoughts out into the world. (let's disregard first degree murder.)

voluntary manslaughter in SC can't be given without "heat of passion and sufficient legal provocation" present. "The heat of passion refers to the defendant experiencing some type of uncontrollable emotion, such as rage or terror. The heat of passion does not excuse a homicide, but it does remove malice. Legal provocation refers to circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control."

IM NOT A LAWYER but i think it might be hard to prove this - it happened SO quickly that there's not enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to prove that it was an intentional act of passion with reasonable provocation.

involuntary manslaughter can't be given without "criminal negligence" or essentially a reckless or hazardous disregard for safety etcetc. in SC code of laws it says "criminal negligence is defined as the reckless disregard of the safety of others. A person charged with the crime of involuntary manslaughter may be convicted only upon a showing of criminal negligence as defined in this section."

AGAIN IM NOT A LAWYER but i think there's probably ways to argue that there was no criminal negligence on aarons behalf because it wasn't technically reckless. i think aarons lawyers would argue that it wasn't a homicide at all but was an accident because aarons behaviour wasn't technically reckless (in some ways). regardless even if he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter there's no minimum sentence for it in SC so it's possible he'd avoid going to jail at all because of his character/how unlikely it is he'll reoffend/his prospects in life/his clean record and all that. he'd have parole terms and probably some community service and a fine or something but i think he'd easily avoid jail time even if he was found guilty.

he could still possibly be aquitted on the question of whether ANY category of murder happened beyond a reasonable doubt. the prosecution would have to prove that aaron intentionally swung the racquet with or without intent to kill. i think there's an argument there for an accidental death - which would definitely make this ask even longer so i won't get into my NOT LAWYER thoughts on how/why.

i'm not saying andrew and neil WOULD commit perjury. but they WERE the only people in the room when it happened, and if they can't say that for certain aaron swung the racquet at drake then there's a doubt there about whether it was homicide or not. nobody is denying the murder occured - but the prosecution HAVE to prove that aaron was WILLFULLY negligent and that led to drake's death. just a thought.

[thepro-lifemovement]

Lawmakers in the South Carolina House passed a bill on Thursday protecting preborn children from abortion beginning at the point of fertilization — the first moment of their existence.

H. 3552, or the Human Life Protection Act, passed in an 83-31 vote. Representative John McCravy said the bill “sends a message that the days of abortion as birth control are drawing to an end, and it is now time for our pro-life Senators to keep their word and vote to pass this bill.”

The bill specifically references the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision handed down last June, which overturned Roe v. Wade, pointing out that South Carolina is exercising its political power to protect preborn children. The bill defines abortion as “the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn human being….”

The bill states:

It is not a violation of Section 44-41-820 for a physician to perform a medical procedure necessary in his reasonable medical judgment to prevent the death of a pregnant woman, a substantial risk of death of a pregnant woman due to a physical condition, or the substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman, not including psychological or emotional conditions.

In reality, induced abortion — which deliberately ends human life in order to end a pregnancy — is not necessary to save the life or health of a pregnant woman. Emergency C-sections, preterm delivery, miscarriage treatment, and surgery for ectopic pregnancies are not considered induced abortions and are not prohibited by this bill:

It is presumed that the following medical conditions constitute a substantial risk of death or substantial risk of substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function of a pregnant woman: molar pregnancy, partial molar pregnancy, blighted ovum, ectopic pregnancy, severe preeclampsia, HELLP syndrome, abruptio placentae, severe physical maternal trauma, uterine rupture, intrauterine fetal demise, and miscarriage. However, when an unborn child is alive in utero, the physician must make all reasonable efforts to deliver and save the life of an unborn child during the process of separating the unborn child from the pregnant woman, to the extent that it does not adversely affect the life or physical health of the pregnant woman, and in a manner that is consistent with reasonable medical practice. The enumeration of the medical conditions in this item is not intended to exclude or abrogate other conditions that satisfy the exclusions contained in item (1) or prevent other procedures that are not included in the definition of abortion.

Women who undergo abortions would not face any penalties under the bill. Someone who illegally commits an abortion, however, could be sued for up to $10,000 for each violation, and also faces up to two years in prison. Additionally, the bill requires the biological father to cover 50% of pregnancy-related costs.

[genderqueerpositivity]

South Carolina law enforcement officials say there is “no danger to the transgender community” as a transgender teenager was found dead this week after going missing and two suspects were taken into custody.

Family members reported Jacob Williamson, 18, as a missing person to authorities in the city of Laurens, according to the Union County Sheriff’s Office. The family said they last saw or heard from Williamson on the evening of June 30, a sheriff’s news release said. The sheriff’s office launched an investigation into Williamson’s disappearance on July 2, according to the release.

Joshua Newton, 25, has been charged with first-degree murder and obstruction of justice. Victoria Smith, 22, has been charged with obstruction of justice and assisting Newton after he allegedly committed the crime, according to the sheriff’s office.

Newton is being held at the Union County Jail without bond, while Smith is being held on a $3 million bond at the same jail, records show. As of Thursday morning, it was unclear if either had obtained attorneys. Their next court dates are scheduled for August 8, records show. Union County Sheriff’s Office Lt. James Maye said law enforcement doesn’t have a reason to believe Williamson’s preferred name and gender marker were part of the suspects’ motive.

[pro-birth]

S.474, the Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act, prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat has been detected, with exceptions for the life or health of the mother, medical emergencies, fatal fetal anomalies, and, up to twelve weeks of pregnancy, in cases of rape or incest.

Gov. Henry McMaster signed S.474 into law in late May after it passed in the South Carolina General Assembly. The act was quickly met with a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood that challenged its constitutionality. Following the lawsuit, a judge ordered a freeze on the six-week abortion ban.

In its ruling, the South Carolina Supreme Court vacated the injunction and declared S.474 is constitutional under state law.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Molly Sprayregen at LGBTQ Nation:

Four Southern states have joined together with four conservative organizations to sue the Biden administration over a recently issued rule banning anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in education.

[...]

The idea is that it’s impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity without taking sex into account, a legal argument that the Supreme Court has already used in its 2020 Bostock v. Clayton Co. ruling with respect to job discrimination.

With the new rule, any school that receives federal funding will no longer be able to discriminate against LGBTQ+ students. This could affect states and school districts with policies to out LGBTQ+ students to their parents or ban trans students from using bathrooms that correspond with their gender. The new rules could also give students who face discrimination recourse in federal courts. Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia allege in the lawsuit that the Biden administration does not have the authority to make this rule and also that it goes beyond the original intentions of Title IX, according to CBS News. The states are joined in the lawsuit by the Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, Speech First, and the Independent Women’s Law Center.

“The role of Cabinet agencies is to interpret laws as written by Congress – not to redefine the meaning of words to suit a fringe group of activists,” said Parents Defending Education president Nicole Neily in a statement, which went on to claim the rule proves “the Biden administration’s contempt for families, trumping state laws which reiterate parents’ right to access information and make decisions about issues related to their children’s gender identity in schools.” “By lowering the standard of ‘harassment’ to little more than a one-off expression of humor, satire, or parody,” Neily continued, “the free speech rights of every young learner in America has become subordinate to how the most sensitive student might interpret a phrase. This Title IX rule is both unconstitutional and immoral, and we look forward to vindicating our members’ rights in court.”

“We will fight very strongly against this rule,” added Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R), “just to ensure this does what Congress intended it to do, and that is provide opportunities to everyone and especially protect the security and fairness for our biological females.” Moody also claimed the new rule “is really a radical departure from what Title IX was originally meant to do.” The lawsuit alleges that the rule “conflicts with many of the state plaintiffs’ laws that govern public institutions of higher education and primary and secondary education, including laws involving harassment, bathrooms, sports, parental rights, and more.” It continues, “The rule thus impedes the state plaintiffs’ sovereign authority to enforce and administer their laws and creates pressure on the state plaintiffs to change their laws and practices.” The new rules, however, do not discuss transgender student-athletes and which teams they can play on. The DOE is reportedly planning to issue a separate rule regarding what Title IX means for sports participation.

4 Southern states are suing the Biden Administration for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ children over the LGBTQ+-friendly Title IX changes.

[blogparanormalexpresso2stuff]

'The Gaffney Incident: The Night Police Talked to an Alien' | Paranormal Story

[just-existing-as-you-do-blog]

Breaking News! Governor Henry McMaster is a dumbass who signed a dumbass law to make his unsafe state less safe!

South Carolina is now open carry. As someone who has been hate crimed twice in South Carolina I am obviously deeply unhappy with this decision.

Our children have been fighting for years to get more restrictions put in place around guns. I've been fighting for years. In what world is this okay? Who wanted this?

It's handguns too. Handguns are for shooting people, not game, not safety, there are no two ways about it. People are going to die.

[protoslacker]

the reason we don’t have a Supreme Court justice who is a female.” A contingent of lawmakers “felt a woman couldn’t vote on this issue objectively maybe, which is mind-boggling to me because its impact on women is most substantial.

Rep. Beth Bernstein quoted in an article by Jennifer Berry Hawes at ProPublica. How South Carolina Ended Up With an All-Male Supreme Court

An abortion ban struck down. The lone female justice retiring. And a majority-male legislature rallying behind the one male candidate to replace her. This is how South Carolina ended up with an all-male Supreme Court as new abortion legislation looms.

[tomorrowusa]

Trump Republicans still control a majority of state legislative chambers across the US. Their agenda seems to be rolling back the clock to the ‘50s — the 1650s. That newfangled Age of Enlightenment stuff is just too radical for their Puritan sensibilities.

We have terrible laws in certain states because terrible people get elected who make those laws. And that happens often because people on the moderate to progressive part of the political spectrum fail to pay much attention to their state governments.

It’s true that news media outlets do tend to neglect state government. They find the federal government more sexy and local government more immediate. But a little bit of digging and searching can reveal a lot about what goes on in the state capitals.

A great first step is to learn exactly who represents you in your legislative chambers. This link helps a lot.

Find Your Legislators Look your legislators up by address or use your current location.

^^^ Works well for me even though I’m close to two legislative boundaries.

And if you’re truly motivated and have views which potentially appeal to a majority of voters in your district, consider running for state legislature yourself in 2024 — if you currently are represented by Republicans.

In some legislative bodies the age requirement is as low as 18. None of the requirements are over 30.

State legislature candidate requirements by state

It won’t happen overnight. But you can take back your state government by getting more people to pay attention to what goes on there.

[autismonfire]

Newest Addition to My Collection

These two patches from the South Carolina Highway Patrol arrived in the mail this afternoon. A big “Thank You” to the SC Highway Patrol for sending these patches!!!

If you would like to send me a patch or other mail, please email me or send a direct message. Thank you, and I hope that you have a great day!!!

[phaon1]

If you are in America please sign this petition. I don't know if people from outside America can sign it.

[lostsemicolon]

Bad

[whitesinhistory]

South Carolina Passes Negro Act of 1740, Codifying White Supremacy

On May 10, 1740, the South Carolina Assembly enacted the “Bill for the better ordering and governing of Negroes and other slaves in this province,” also known as the Negro Act of 1740. The law prohibited enslaved African people from growing their own food, learning to read, moving freely, assembling in groups, and earning money. It also authorized white enslavers to whip and kill enslaved Africans for being "rebellious."

South Carolina implemented this act after the unsuccessful Stono Rebellion in 1739, in which approximately 50 enslaved Black people resisted bondage and waged an uprising that killed between 20 and 25 white people. In addition to establishing a racial caste and property system in the colony, the assembly sought to prevent any additional rebellions by including provisions that mandated a ratio of one white person for every 10 enslaved people on a plantation. The Negro Act treated enslaved Africans as human chattel and revoked all forms of civil rights.

The law served as a model for other states; Georgia authorized slavery within its borders in 1750 and enacted its own slave code five years later. In 1865, the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment legally abolished slavery in the U.S. except as punishment for crime, but discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws developed to maintain the oppression of Black people, ensuring that the legacy of the Negro Act of 1740 and similar laws remained present throughout the country for more than two centuries.

[fishstewarding]

Consider sharing your message as if you were being held liable for it in a court of law.

Are you telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when it comes to your business and business practices?

Would your words, content and marketing hold up if they were being cross examined in court?

Could your promotion, advertising and pitching stand up to an opposing counsel trying to discredit you?

Consider sharing just the facts along with ways people can vet and verify those facts.

Lastly, consider that when you state only what you can prove and differentiate your opinions from facts, it allows you to stand on a stronger foundation over those stating whatever they want with no care for the truth.

In the end, while many businesses may choose to exaggerate, or flat out lie simply because they can, show an accuracy and an authority by holding yourself, your content and your business liable for everything you say.

[xxphemeral]

Foggy Days

[minnesotafollower]

U.S. State Officials in Havana Promoting Exports of U.S. Agricultural Products to Cuba

On February 18 a delegation of 13 U.S. state agricultural officials began a five-day mission to Cuba to promote Cuban imports of U.S. agricultural products. Their leader was Ted McKinney, the CEO of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA).[1] The NASDA press release for this mission said its purpose “is to identify and address trade barriers for U.S. agricultural…