Bystander shot in a "stand your ground" case. Who's to blame?

[Eastoff]

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

The shooter says he's not to blame for the 17 year old who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. What say you?

 

[Denny Crane]

If you shoot someone, you belong in jail until the circumstances are thoroughly investigated and a judge decides your disposition.

Even if it's self defense in the most traditional form.

 

[Further]

If you shoot someone, you belong in jail until the circumstances are thoroughly investigated and a judge decides your disposition.

Even if it's self defense in the most traditional form.

That's not how the legal system works. You are arrested if you are believed to have committed a crime. A blanket statement "you belong in jail until the circumstances are thoroughly investigated and a judge decides your disposition." Seems like the wrong direction to go in.

 

[Further]

With regards to the question of the thread, sounds like everyone except the dead guy is to share the blame, but mostly the shooter. That doesn't mean it was illegal, I don't know the law there, but sure sounds like it should be. It should be that regardless of circumstance, the shooter should hold responsibility for every bullet discharged. If you aren't a sure enough shot under pressure than maybe you shouldn't own a gun.

Last week I went to go see Greg Lemond, the first American Tour De France winner, give a lecture, but surprisingly two of the stories he told were about two different times he was shot in hunting accidents. It just got me thinking, fuck man, people need to be more responsible if they have the right to deadly weapons, to know how and when to use them safely.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's not how the legal system works. You are arrested if you are believed to have committed a crime. A blanket statement "you belong in jail until the circumstances are thoroughly investigated and a judge decides your disposition." Seems like the wrong direction to go in.

You are believed to have committed a crime. Involuntary manslaughter at the least. Judges typically hear your case within 3 days of your arrest, and that's if there's a weekend involved.

 

[Further]

Adam carolla said in his home security shotgun, the first two shells are blanks. They still act as a deterrent, loud firecrackers with a barrel pointed at you. The gun is still deadly with several deadly rounds behind, it just means that there is less chance to bad shit. Your nephew comes in drunk looking for more beer, he doesn't get shot cause you have time to realize. Real bad guys come in, you have most likely scared them off before shooting live ammo. Just thought it was kind of smart.

 

[Further]

You are believed to have committed a crime. Involuntary manslaughter at the least. Judges typically hear your case within 3 days of your arrest, and that's if there's a weekend involved.

Someone breaks into your wife's or daughter's bedroom and she puts a bullet between the perps eyes, she should be arrested?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

He shot the person in the head. I would have claimed zombie instead of stand your ground.

 

[Denny Crane]

Someone breaks into your wife's or daughter's bedroom and she puts a bullet between the perps eyes, she should be arrested?

Yes.

Self defense is a legal defense. The arbiter of these things are judges.

I don't think we want the cops being judges, too.

 

[Further]

Yes.

Self defense is a legal defense. The arbiter of these things are judges.

I don't think we want the cops being judges, too.

No, but the DA usually instruct the cops on who to arrest.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, but the DA usually instruct the cops on who to arrest.

Fine. You still shouldn't let someone who killed someone go free until the DA has the facts. If the burglar was unarmed, the use of excessive force is an issue. Even considering the Castle Doctrine.

Additionally, there's a risk to the killer of suicide (guilty conscience) or the victim's friends or family exacting revenge.

The worst case is you wake up the judge to get a fast hearing.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

"I don't think we want the cops being judges, too."

Maybe not, Denny, but cops need to be far better at judging.

 

[Denny Crane]

"I don't think we want the cops being judges, too."

Maybe not, Denny, but cops need to be far better at judging.

Different issue.

 

[Further]

Fine. You still shouldn't let someone who killed someone go free until the DA has the facts. If the burglar was unarmed, the use of excessive force is an issue. Even considering the Castle Doctrine.

Additionally, there's a risk to the killer of suicide (guilty conscience) or the victim's friends or family exacting revenge.

The worst case is you wake up the judge to get a fast hearing.

Interesting, and I don't wholly disagree with your point of view, I'm mostly just thinking it through. I really agree that technically it seems like the best option, a few days in jail at most, but it still seems to go against our rights, and eroding those seems to be too easy anyway.

And where do you draw the line? You said anytime you shoot, does that mean other ways of killing people would not result in the same actions, like hitting someone over the head with a Rick, or stabbing with a knife.

What about when someone claimed they did not shoot the person?

And do we really want to put someone in jail when it is completely obvious they were the victim? What about when the victim sustains injuries, do you handcuff them to their hospital bed as we would a criminal?

Practically it seems like a good rule 99.5% of the time, but what about that last sliver, their rights count for something.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

The shooter is definitely to blame. His beliefs aren't going to be considered reasonable given the situation. He acted aggressively, not defensively. Lots of aspects of the actual situation would require that the shooter take even more care than normal.

 

[Denny Crane]

Interesting, and I don't wholly disagree with your point of view, I'm mostly just thinking it through. I really agree that technically it seems like the best option, a few days in jail at most, but it still seems to go against our rights, and eroding those seems to be too easy anyway.

And where do you draw the line? You said anytime you shoot, does that mean other ways of killing people would not result in the same actions, like hitting someone over the head with a Rick, or stabbing with a knife.

What about when someone claimed they did not shoot the person?

And do we really want to put someone in jail when it is completely obvious they were the victim? What about when the victim sustains injuries, do you handcuff them to their hospital bed as we would a criminal?

Practically it seems like a good rule 99.5% of the time, but what about that last sliver, their rights count for something.

You aren't depriving anyone of their rights. They are afforded their right to innocent until proven guilty and right to a speedy trial.

Any method of killing someone falls under this.

If the police have reason to believe the person killed someone else, they should arrest and let the judge sort it out.

Hospital? The idea isn't to make someone sit in a jail cell as a form of punishment, it is to detain them so they don't flee, harm themselves, or be harmed. If they're in the hospital, then they're effectively detained. Still need the hearing in front of the judge.

IMO

 

[Denny Crane]

I used to live way out in the sticks where there were a lot of farms nearby. If you pulled over on the side of the road to take a few ears of corn off the plants, you risked getting shot with a shotgun loaded with rock salt.

 

[Natebishop3]

Purely from someone who has taken armed security classes and dealt with firearms safety, I can say that shooting a bystander is definitely the fault of the shooter. You should never discharge your weapon unless you know what's behind the target. This goes doubly for police. Don't take the shot if you don't know what you're shooting at.

This person is basically saying that his life, or in this case his daughter's life, is more valuable than the 17 year old kid. Sorry, no. You have the right to defend yourself, but you do not have the right to put others at risk to defend yourself. This person obviously did not think, did not check where he was shooting, and took another person's life.

Jail. End of story.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Different issue.

Different? Sure, but related. Cops with better judging skills would be better equipped to make the important decision to initiate legal action in questionable or borderline cases. This could conceivably save a lot of expense on both sides although it would cost more to educate recruits to this level of competence. We need far more Andy Taylors and far fewer Barnies. But not just cops of course -- DA's too.

 

[Denny Crane]

Different? Sure, but related. Cops with better judging skills would be better equipped to make the important decision to initiate legal action in questionable or borderline cases. This could conceivably save a lot of expense on both sides although it would cost more to educate recruits to this level of competence. We need far more Andy Taylors and far fewer Barnies. But not just cops of course -- DA's too.

I don't think we have any barneys. We do have some duke nukems though.

 

[bluefrog]

There is another shooting death with the defense using the Stand Your Ground Law in Florida

Justified Under Stand-Your-Ground: Choir Director Armed With Stick Being Fatally Shot With Illegal Gun

No homicide charges will be filed against a 17-year-old teen who fatally shot a community choir director in the face with an illegal gun, prosecutors said Tuesday. The shooting is considered justified under Florida's stand-your-ground law because the 40-year-old victim, Julius Jerome Jacobs, was carrying a large stick.
The state attorney’s office in Marion Country said that, although Tyrone Pierson possessed the gun illegally and although his friend managed to escape the same confrontation by fleeing the scene, Pierson is protected under SYG. He was therefore not under any obligation to attempt to retreat before using deadly force.

I don't think these are good laws. They're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Purely from someone who has taken armed security classes and dealt with firearms safety, I can say that shooting a bystander is definitely the fault of the shooter. You should never discharge your weapon unless you know what's behind the target. This goes doubly for police. Don't take the shot if you don't know what you're shooting at.

This person is basically saying that his life, or in this case his daughter's life, is more valuable than the 17 year old kid. Sorry, no. You have the right to defend yourself, but you do not have the right to put others at risk to defend yourself. This person obviously did not think, did not check where he was shooting, and took another person's life.

Jail. End of story.

This is my position as well. You don't get to say "whoops, sorry." and have everything forgiven if you hurt other people. If you kill somebody accidentally, but negligently then that's pretty clearly manslaughter.

 

[Natebishop3]

A good example of a responsible shooter was the guy at Clackamas town center... he had the shooter in his sights, he could have shot him, but he was unsure if he would hit someone behind the guy so he did not want to take the shot. At that point the shooter's gun had already jammed, so I'm sure he would have weighed his options if the guy was still popping away with his rifle, but at that time the shooting had stopped and he did not think it was worth the risk to others around him to take the shot at the active shooter.

That is how you assess your surroundings and weigh the risks of discharging your firearm.

 

[oldguy]

Unfortunately, things are seldom black and white. I generally agree that once you pull the trigger, you are responsible for the bullet.

But, to use the Clackamas Town Center example. The guy at CTC drew down on the shooter, but didn't shoot because he wasn't sure he wouldn't hit a bystander. Good on him. Like Nate says, the shooter's gun was jammed at the moment. What if the shooter cleared the jam, and started shooting other people? Should the guy with the iffy shot pull the trigger to stop the guy killing shoppers? What if he killed a bystander in that circumstance?

Go Blazers

 

[MARIS61]

If you shoot someone, you belong in jail until the circumstances are thoroughly investigated and a judge decides your disposition.

Even if it's self defense in the most traditional form.

That's an idiotic post. You should forfeit your screen name for that.

Innocent until proven guilty means exactly what it says.

Rest assured that he will probably be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter or causing a death by reckless use of a firearm.

The girl gang should face federal charges for terrorism, menacing, attempted murder, and hate crimes.

 

[MARIS61]

You are believed to have committed a crime. Involuntary manslaughter at the least. Judges typically hear your case within 3 days of your arrest, and that's if there's a weekend involved.

No.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's an idiotic post. You should forfeit your screen name for that.

Innocent until proven guilty means exactly what it says.

Rest assured that he will probably be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter or causing a death by reckless use of a firearm.

The girl gang should face federal charges for terrorism, menacing, attempted murder, and hate crimes.

Being arrested does not mean guilt. It means the person won't recklessly use his firearm for a while, during which time the police can gather evidence to show to the judge.

 

[Denny Crane]

No.

Yes.

If you have fired your gun at a person and killed them, there is every reason to believe you have committed a crime.

 

[Further]

Yes.

If you have fired your gun at a person and killed them, there is every reason to believe you have committed a crime.

What about an officer who discharges his weapon and kills a perp?

 

[Natebishop3]

Unfortunately, things are seldom black and white. I generally agree that once you pull the trigger, you are responsible for the bullet.

But, to use the Clackamas Town Center example. The guy at CTC drew down on the shooter, but didn't shoot because he wasn't sure he wouldn't hit a bystander. Good on him. Like Nate says, the shooter's gun was jammed at the moment. What if the shooter cleared the jam, and started shooting other people? Should the guy with the iffy shot pull the trigger to stop the guy killing shoppers? What if he killed a bystander in that circumstance?

Go Blazers

I think really in any situation like that you have to weigh the risks. If there's a guy randomly shooting people in a mall, you will have to consider the chances of hitting someone else with the very real possibility that the guy could keep shooting 10 or 20 more people. If the shooter's gun hadn't jammed, who knows how many would have died. Obviously you're not going to shoot at him when there's people obstructing your view, but you might have to risk whatever is behind him to stop the rampage.

But I'm also someone who has trained with a handgun for many hours. I'm confident in my shot. If it were my dad, who has spent very little time on a handgun but many hours on a rifle, I would hope that he wouldn't shoot unless he felt like he could hit the guy. It would be negligent to shoot in a crowded mall if you don't think your shot has a reasonable chance of hitting your target. A good example would be someone trying to hit the shooter from 50-75 yards away. I know people who could easily make that shot, but there are many who couldn't hit paper at 75 yards with a pistol. Those people should not be shooting unless they are 100% sure.

The true problem will fall with the media after the fact. If you hit the guy you're a hero, if you miss and kill a bystander you're going to be a villain and you'll be tried in the court of public opinion long before you see any kind of trial.

In my opinion, you shouldn't carry if you aren't comfortable with the weapon. You should train regularly, you should keep your shooting sharp, and you should be prepared for contingencies. By carrying you are accepting the responsibility that you may have to use your weapon, and you assume the risks that go with that. I have a concealed carry permit but I almost never use it because the only time I carry is when I go hunting or when I go on hikes in the woods.

Also, side note, I think the mere presence of the guy with the handgun prevented any more killing at Clackamas. The shooter saw him and then ran. In my opinion the guy was a hero just for stepping up and presenting a threat to the shooter that changed his timeline. He accomplished more by not shooting than he probably would have if he had tried to take the guy out.