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

[Denny Crane]

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

They certainly are taken off street duty and the incident investigated.

 

[Natebishop3]

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

In today's police state, I think officers are using their firearms much too readily. It seems like every few weeks there's a story about an officer killing someone or something needlessly. I think our police need better training, I think they need to be taught to use their gun as a last resort, and instead should be using their other tools before drawing their firearm. Guns should not be used unless absolutely necessary by police, yet their handgun is the first thing they go for in almost any situation.

 

[MARIS61]

Yes.

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

Only if you live in a bubble and lack basic reasoning skills.


(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals–or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

 

[MARIS61]

They certainly are taken off street duty and the incident investigated.

They are not arrested and imprisoned as you suggest should be the case.

They are given a fully paid vacation, "cleared" by their peers in every instance of any wrongdoing, and hailed as heroes. The perp is always charged with causing the death.

 

[Denny Crane]

Only if you live in a bubble and lack basic reasoning skills.


(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals–or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

And?

You think I argue against using a gun for self defense? Or do you think I argue against carrying one? You are nuts.

LOL

Out of your 2.4M number, which is fine, thousands are fired to injure or kill someone. Less than .1%, which is too many.

 

[MARIS61]

And?

You think I argue against using a gun for self defense? Or do you think I argue against carrying one? You are nuts.

LOL

Out of your 2.4M number, which is fine, thousands are fired to injure or kill someone. Less than .1%, which is too many.

Your presumption is wrong. If you used a gun in a confrontation it is 60 times more likely you fired it legally than illegally. Without clear evidence of wrongdoing, it would be inhumane and certainly un-Constitutional to jail the gun owner.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your presumption is wrong. If you used a gun in a confrontation it is 60 times more likely you fired it legally than illegally. Without clear evidence of wrongdoing, it would be inhumane and certainly un-Constitutional to jail the gun owner.

The data does not fit your insane world view.

It is not unconstitutional to jail someone. It is unconstitutional to not give the person a speedy trial or to not tell them the charges.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

This. I'd add to the assume risk bit that you assume the responsibility of using the weapon.

 

[oldguy]

This. I'd add to the assume risk bit that you assume the responsibility of using the weapon.

So, if the guy with the handgun kills the shooter when he's three rounds into this 30 round mag with his second shot, but kills someone else that was standing beyond the shooter with his first shot....he goes to jail?

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

So, if the guy with the handgun kills the shooter when he's three rounds into this 30 round mag with his second shot, but kills someone else that was standing beyond the shooter with his first shot....he goes to jail?

Go Blazers

Yep. It's still homicide.

Jail is not prison.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

It's funny: John Locke (the philosopher most influential on the Founding Fathers, not the character [who was named after him] from Lost) argued that the very reason we need government is because in "the state of nature" (which he, like libertarians, but unlike the great Thomas Hobbes, thought was basically pretty cool except for the whole "could die at any moment" stuff) you have the right to kill anyone who you think might be a threat. This is such a problem that you HAVE to have governments because they'll be the ones that take this right of yours and prevent it leading to a state of war. So, I guess South Carolina is the state of nature.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Shooter is liable. He discharged the gun in that direction and is liable for any damage or injury from stray bullets. Should be charged with manslaughter. Stand your ground would only apply to protect him from prosecution from people he is standing his ground against, not random people.

 

[oldguy]

Would you feel safe in the LA County jail for a few days?

Throwing someone in jail that probably saved 20 lives seems pretty harsh.

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/opinion/frum-nra-nightmare-vision/index.html

From W's speech writer.

 

[Denny Crane]

Would you feel safe in the LA County jail for a few days?

Throwing someone in jail that probably saved 20 lives seems pretty harsh.

Go Blazers

Shooting someone is harsh.

 

[MarAzul]

Shooting someone is harsh.

Yeah but there are plenty of a holes that deserve it, Like the three little dirt bags that did the baseball player in Oklahoma.
The 38 equalizer is very efficient. The old 1911 colt works well too if you want to give some warning. The sound of jacking the slide back to chamber a round will freeze any asshole, from the dumbest to the dull.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah but there are plenty of a holes that deserve it, Like the three little dirt bags that did the baseball player in Oklahoma.
The 38 equalizer is very efficient. The old 1911 colt works well too if you want to give some warning. The sound of jacking the slide back to chamber a round will freeze any asshole, from the dumbest to the dull.

Scary to think of YOU deciding who should be shot.

 

[MarAzul]

Scary to think of YOU deciding who should be shot.

Ha! Not to worry Denny, I imagine you being as polite as they come.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ha! Not to worry Denny, I imagine you being as polite as they come.

I wouldn't want to choose who should be shot, either.

It's not how we do things.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

 

[oldmangrouch]

Have you ever heard of the "between and behind" rule for hunting?

When you line up that shot, be aware of what is BETWEEN you and the target, as well as what is BEHIND the target. The law is called "stand your ground" - not "spray and pray!"

 

[BlazerWookee]

Involuntary manslaughter, at worst. Assuming all of what I've read so far is true, and assuming the chicks in the car really were armed.

 

[bluefrog]

LINK

Shannon Scott Won’t Face Murder Charge Thanks To ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law

A key legal issue in the case is whether the state’s 2006 Stand Your Ground law will protect people who, although in legitimate fear for their lives, also happen to be bad shots or otherwise unintentionally wind up killing bystanders.

Judge Maite Murphy ruled that Scott’s actions were justified even though Niles was an innocent bystander. The Stand Your Ground Law says that a person in his/her home or vehicle is not required to retreat from an attacker.

According to Scott’s attorney, Todd Rutherford of Columbia, the law gives people in fear of their lives broad rights.

“Judge Murphy followed the law,” said Rutherford, a Democratic state representative who in 2006 helped write the law.

Someone like Scott who is put in a life-and-death situation “cannot be expected to shoot straight always because they are not supposed to have their life in jeopardy," Rutherford said at Scott’s three-day immunity hearing in mid-August.

It looks like all you need to get away with murder is to tell the police that you "feared for you life".

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I generally side with the self-defense side of these cases, but I think this needs to be an exception. As Spiderman taught us, with great power comes great responsibility. Anyone carrying a gun should be held responsible for the use thereof. If one is incapable of using a firearm without avoiding collateral damage, then one should not fire. The protection of one's own life should not supersede the value of innocent lives nearby.

By all means, stand your ground, face your attacker, defend yourself. But if you cause harm to a bystander, you should absolutely be at fault.

 

[bluefrog]

This is not a case of "spray and pray" but of mistaken identity. He aimed and shot to kill.

Shortly after, Darrel Niles, 17, a high school basketball player, drove by, and mistakenly believing Niles was involved with the earlier menacing, Scott, 33, shot him in the head with a .380 bullet, killing him instantly.

The Supreme Court may review the case:

Fifth Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson has appealed Murphy’s ruling to the S.C. Supreme Court. Johnson declined comment Wednesday, citing the case’s appeal status.

 

[bluefrog]

I wonder if Niles shot had back and killed Scott would he fall under the "Stand Your Ground" law in SC?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I wonder, if I were carrying an M4a1 down the street, and someone threatened my life, and I opened fire, spraying wildly and killing, say, 12 people, would I be held accountable in Florida?

 

[Eastoff]

Gun control, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

What if Zimmerman had fired two bullets, with the first one missing the marauding blood crazed homophobic gangster bearing down on him and going through a window and killing someone? Would he have been held accountable for that?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Gun control, ladies and gentlemen.

Why do you hate the constitution?