Evidently, terrible marksmanship is protected by SYG

[AZRedhawk44]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/11/2769631/south-carolina-stand-ground/

Dude is aiming for "a group" of people who are a threat to him, and kills a person completely unrelated to the conflict.

Judge rules that SYG protects him from criminal prosecution and civil penalties.

Srsly.

I like SYG, but this is clearly wrong.

[RoadKingLarry]

I could actually see where those threatening the shooter should be charged with the homicide since had they not engaged in criminal activity it would not have happened.

[Ryan in Maine]

I like SYG, but this is clearly wrong.

Based on that article and the articles linked within, that was a terrible, terrible shoot. Perhaps the worst shoot I've read about.

[HankB]

If the deceased was truly 100% innocent as the articles appear to say . . . I can see where an otherwise law abiding next-of-kin would be unwilling to accept the judge's immunity decree for the shooter, and things could escalate.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Reading this, I seriously wonder if this judge isn't actually against SYG, and figures that ruling in favor of a SYG defense in this case might cause such an uproar as to prompt the legislature to repeal said SYG law.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

If the deceased was truly 100% innocent as the articles appear to say . . . I can see where an otherwise law abiding next-of-kin would be unwilling to accept the judge's immunity decree for the shooter, and things could escalate.

i believe you bring up a good question. IF he was as innocent as described. i'd like a lil background before i decide. trayvon was innocent too

damn phone

[Fitz]

Reading this, I seriously wonder if this judge isn't actually against SYG, and figures that ruling in favor of a SYG defense in this case might cause such an uproar as to prompt the legislature to repeal said SYG law.

I was just thinking the same

[SteveS]

Here is another analysis from a web site that isn't Think Progress:

South Carolina Father Wins Self-Defense Immunity in Shooting of Bystander

At first I was mad, but I agree with this author.  If self-defense was lawful and his actions were reasonable, then blame should fall on the people that caused the encounter.  The guy that was shot was innocent, but if the guy claiming self-defense was reasonably defending himself, didn't act recklessly, at also innocent, then why should he go to jail?  The women that were the aggressors are the ones to blame.  In addition, the media seems to want to turn this into a SYG issue and that statute has nothing to do with this proceeding.  

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Better but still not good.


And explain to me the 15 year old leaving a niteclub


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[MechAg94]

First Question:  I am not really sure how SYG laws would apply here?  The immunity part normally only comes into play for a "good shoot".  If he was justified in shooting, does that mean he was justified regardless of what he actually shot?  That seems to fly in the face of everything I have ever heard.

Second:  Why would this lower court ruling stop another lower court from deciding the civil suit against the shooter can proceed anyway?  

[dogmush]

Isn't this what happens to cops that hit bystanders?  And we're always like "If that was a regular Joe they'd string him up."

If the pulling the trigger was justified, and wasn't criminally reckless with his aim (i.e. he aimed at the aggressors and missed, not firing over his shoulder with his eyes closed or some such) then why wouldn't the shoot be justified? 

Events can be tragic without being criminal.

[Jamisjockey]

Better but still not good.


And explain to me the 15 year old leaving a niteclub


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Could be an all ages club. 

Some questions remain in the case: The group of girls may have fired shots first, but testimony is conflicted on if shots were fired at Scott himself, or at all. There is also some indication that Scott was primed to shoot his gun at someone: Even prior to the shooting, he had a sign in his window that read, “Fight Crime – Shoot First,” according to a 5th Circuit Assistant Solicitor.

[/b]

Solicitor=prosecutor?  Interesting they drag his window sign into the argument.

[lupinus]

Solicitor=prosecutor?

We like to be different

[SteveS]

Isn't this what happens to cops that hit bystanders?  And we're always like "If that was a regular Joe they'd string him up."

If the pulling the trigger was justified, and wasn't criminally reckless with his aim (i.e. he aimed at the aggressors and missed, not firing over his shoulder with his eyes closed or some such) then why wouldn't the shoot be justified? 

Events can be tragic without being criminal.

Exactly. If he had somehow acted recklessly, then a court may have decided otherwise.

[lupinus]

Isn't this what happens to cops that hit bystanders?  And we're always like "If that was a regular Joe they'd string him up."

If the pulling the trigger was justified, and wasn't criminally reckless with his aim (i.e. he aimed at the aggressors and missed, not firing over his shoulder with his eyes closed or some such) then why wouldn't the shoot be justified? 

Events can be tragic without being criminal.

Oh and this.

Marksmanship has nothing to do with it. If he was justified in discharging his weapon and missed hitting a bystander, that's on the folks that gave him cause to discharge his weapon in the first place, baring some gross negligence on his part.

[Ned Hamford]

Seems a good example of the felony murder rule; all fault falls on the initial aggressors. Go after the thugs for being thugs. Always pin tragedy on the criminal acts. It prevents moral ambiguity and helps maintain order.  The 'they only meant to be this degree of criminal' benefits no one but criminals... and defense attorneys.

[AZRedhawk44]

Seems a good example of the felony murder rule; all fault falls on the initial aggressors. Go after the thugs for being thugs. Always pin tragedy on the criminal acts. It prevents moral ambiguity and helps maintain order.  The 'they only meant to be this degree of criminal' benefits no one but criminals... and defense attorneys.

Hmm... I've seen this principal driven out to unnecessary extremes.

A few years ago we had a pair of nooz helicopters collide over a park in downtown phoenix while following a high speed car chase.

Prosecutor filed charges against the fleeing vehicle driver for murder of the helicopter pilots.

I find the notion unacceptable in that application, as well as this one.  I understand your argument... I still think it is a dodging of responsibility.

[Ned Hamford]

For the issue of moral culpability, it gives you the first place to look. Successful prosecution  is several steps removed.  If the uncovered facts are such; charges are easily dropped.

[Ryan in Maine]

I agree with criminal liability in the event an innocent bystander is shot by a legit shoot.

I question this being a legit shoot.

Facts are few and far between so far and I haven't been able to dig up anything that seems trustworthy.

Witnesses and police outright dispute that the car carrying the aggressors fired any shots, which is what the good citizen is claiming. That they shot and that they shot first in a drive-by style shooting shortly after his party arrived home.

Then you have his actions leading up to the events that I highly doubt anyone on this website would advocate. And his handling of the subsequent shooting, which I know would not be advocated by anyone on this website.

His character is in question, not whether a criminal should be held liable for harm to bystanders and property.

[Ned Hamford]

Who do you trust, the Court or the Media?
The correct answer of course is no one! 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.ryot.org/the-stand-your-ground-death-of-darrell-niles-might-be-worse-than-trayvon-martins/416865

[Waitone]

A few more articles

http://raniakhalek.com/2013/10/10/south-carolina-grants-stand-your-ground-immunity-to-white-man-who-killed-unarmed-black-teen/

http://www.thestate.com/2013/08/16/2924473/is-shooting-a-bystander-in-south.html

[HankB]

Hmm... I've seen this principal driven out to unnecessary extremes.

A few years ago we had a pair of nooz helicopters collide over a park in downtown phoenix while following a high speed car chase.

Prosecutor filed charges against the fleeing vehicle driver for murder of the helicopter pilots.

I find the notion unacceptable in that application, as well as this one.  I understand your argument... I still think it is a dodging of responsibility.

I remember a case where a fugitive was charged with the murder of a police officer . . . because the latter crashed his car while responding to the "fugitive" call. The officer was some 40 miles away.

Cases like these are too much of a stretch for me - were I on a jury, asinine overcharges like this would undercut the prosecution's ENTIRE case in my mind.

[Sergeant Bob]

I remember a case where a fugitive was charged with the murder of a police officer . . . because the latter crashed his car while responding to the "fugitive" call. The officer was some 40 miles away.

Cases like these are too much of a stretch for me - were I on a jury, asinine overcharges like this would undercut the prosecution's ENTIRE case in my mind.

I remember that one. It was totally wrong. Much as the one referenced by Redhawk.

Hmm... I've seen this principal driven out to unnecessary extremes.

A few years ago we had a pair of nooz helicopters collide over a park in downtown phoenix while following a high speed car chase.

Prosecutor filed charges against the fleeing vehicle driver for murder of the helicopter pilots.

I find the notion unacceptable in that application, as well as this one.  I understand your argument... I still think it is a dodging of responsibility.

[SteveS]

http://www.ryot.org/the-stand-your-ground-death-of-darrell-niles-might-be-worse-than-trayvon-martins/416865

What a bunch of morons!  Some journalists are stupid and/or lazy, but I wouldn't even call these guys reporters.  My middle school aged child does a better job of fact-checking.

This case has *%$#ing nothing to do with SYG!  Here is the law that was part of this court proceeding:

South Carolina Code Annotated (S.C.C.A.)

Title 16 – Crimes and Offenses

CHAPTER 11.  OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY

ARTICLE 6.  PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY

§ 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).

Even if RYOT and every other group that hates lawful self-defense were able to wave their magic wands and make SYG disappear, this person would still (under SC law) be able to claim self-defense and have immunity.