RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case

RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Just0Us0Two -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 10:02:10 PM)
Hey Bama, you and I see eye to eye on most things, but I have to tell you this sounds like nit-picking. Not as bad as some people I could name, but it seems silly.

Lucylastic -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 10:03:43 PM)
I do not know if they were found....that is why i said if. And IF They were found they deserved every charge. It dies not change the fact that scott....shot the victim, or rather the gun he was holding fired a bullet into an innocent mans head, killing him.

BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 10:05:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two Hey Bama, you and I see eye to eye on most things, but I have to tell you this sounds like nit-picking. Not as bad as some people I could name, but it seems silly. She basically called me a liar, I have made my point and have no intention of continuing this as you say silly line. I don't even know what she got so upset about.

Just0Us0Two -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 10:53:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It dies not change the fact that scott....shot the victim, or rather the gun he was holding fired a bullet into an innocent mans head, killing him. Here's the problem I see in your argument; as a matter of law (The Felony-Murder Rule), any death occurring during the commission of a felony is attributed to the perpetrators. If you're defending yourself from a felony, and you accidentally injure or kill someone, they're liable for the death. If two people are holding up a store, and one is shot by the police, the other is charged with murder, even if neither felon had a gun. So if an active felony was in progress, as the judge seems to have believed, and Scott shot at the SUV and missed, then (by law) any death resulting from that shot is the fault of the felons. If the SUV had already fled and Scott wasn't being shot at, I have a harder time understanding how he was given immunity.

sloguy02246 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 1:59:43 AM)
Even if there are no criminal charges brought against Scott, the victim's family could file a wrongful death suit against Scott in civil court. He did shoot and kill the young man and that is basis enough for a civil suit.

DomKen -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 2:53:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It dies not change the fact that scott....shot the victim, or rather the gun he was holding fired a bullet into an innocent mans head, killing him. Here's the problem I see in your argument; as a matter of law (The Felony-Murder Rule), any death occurring during the commission of a felony is attributed to the perpetrators. If you're defending yourself from a felony, and you accidentally injure or kill someone, they're liable for the death. If two people are holding up a store, and one is shot by the police, the other is charged with murder, even if neither felon had a gun. So if an active felony was in progress, as the judge seems to have believed, and Scott shot at the SUV and missed, then (by law) any death resulting from that shot is the fault of the felons. If the SUV had already fled and Scott wasn't being shot at, I have a harder time understanding how he was given immunity. If it was felony murder charges would never have been made against the man or the judge would have cited that as the reason for dismissing the charges. The reason SYG is relevant is because it says a person cannot be charged with any crime if he believes he is defending himself. It was not felony murder and it did not fall under traditional self defense. It seems clear to me that the judge ruled on SYG because that was what the defense argued and the defense would not have brought it up if a better defense was available.

DomKen -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 2:54:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 Even if there are no criminal charges brought against Scott, the victim's family could file a wrongful death suit against Scott in civil court. He did shoot and kill the young man and that is basis enough for a civil suit. Unfortunately probably not. SYG laws often immunize the shooter from torts as well.

Kirata -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 2:57:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sloguy02246 Even if there are no criminal charges brought against Scott, the victim's family could file a wrongful death suit against Scott in civil court. He did shoot and kill the young man and that is basis enough for a civil suit. I've read several legal opinions on this case, and they all conclude (whether or not they like the immunity order) that the judge interpreted the law (1) correctly. If that's the case, then he is immune to both criminal prosecution and civil action (2). 1. SC Code 16-11-440 2. SC Code 16-11-450 Edited to fix links. K.

Just0Us0Two -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 3:22:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If it was felony murder charges would never have been made against the man or the judge would have cited that as the reason for dismissing the charges. The reason SYG is relevant is because it says a person cannot be charged with any crime if he believes he is defending himself. It was not felony murder and it did not fall under traditional self defense. It seems clear to me that the judge ruled on SYG because that was what the defense argued and the defense would not have brought it up if a better defense was available. Ok, thanks for that. I am confused about something though, can't an action or incident encompass more then one legal defense and/or indictment? Self defense is an aspect of SYG, the SYG laws just enhanced and expanded upon what is required of someone who is defending themselves. By pleading SYG, you're in effect also pleading self defense. I would think the same could apply to felony murder? If I'm defending myself from an attacker, and I shot and miss, hitting an innocent bystander, I would think that both would apply. I would plead self defense/SYG. The attacker would be charged with a count of felony murder. Or am I missing something?

Politesub53 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 5:08:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So you don't even comprehend who is at fault here. The girls who started the shooting are the criminals they should be charged with murder. A person died as a result of their crime. In many states including mine that makes them guilty of first degree murder. This is what sickens me. The fault is clearly with the thugs who started the shooting and your anti self defense obsession will not let you see it. You even admit that you have nothing to say about the thugs. You confuse cause and fault. The poor guy is dead BECAUSE the shooter hit the wrong target. The thugs didnt make the shooter kill an innocent man, he did that all by himself. If anyone doeant want to sure anything because they are obsessed, it sure isnt Lucy. I have plenty of sympathy for the guy who pulled the trigger, but at the end of the day, he fired the fatal shot, not the thugs, not the dead chap. I also doubt any jury would find the girls guilty of first degree murder.

DomKen -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 7:30:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If it was felony murder charges would never have been made against the man or the judge would have cited that as the reason for dismissing the charges. The reason SYG is relevant is because it says a person cannot be charged with any crime if he believes he is defending himself. It was not felony murder and it did not fall under traditional self defense. It seems clear to me that the judge ruled on SYG because that was what the defense argued and the defense would not have brought it up if a better defense was available. Ok, thanks for that. I am confused about something though, can't an action or incident encompass more then one legal defense and/or indictment? Self defense is an aspect of SYG, the SYG laws just enhanced and expanded upon what is required of someone who is defending themselves. By pleading SYG, you're in effect also pleading self defense. I would think the same could apply to felony murder? If I'm defending myself from an attacker, and I shot and miss, hitting an innocent bystander, I would think that both would apply. I would plead self defense/SYG. The attacker would be charged with a count of felony murder. Or am I missing something? Motions to dismiss can be what is called an omnibus with all arguments included but the judge's opinion will only be on whatever he felt was correct. since he got to SYG it is clear that either felony murder was not argued or did not apply and the same for self defense. Since I assume no lawyer wouldn't argue those aspects if applicable it is clear to me they were not relevant. IOW there was no one shooting at the home when he came out of the house and killed the young man parked across the street. You also seem to misunderstand SYG. It changes self defense. In regular sane self defense law if confronted with a danger to yourself your first obligation is to retreat. Only if retreat is not an option are you allowed to use force. Under SYG if you perceive a threat to yourself you are allowed to use force immediately. It is a crazy idea that is turning self defense into a license to kill, as it did in this case.

BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 8:54:28 AM)
If anyone doeant want to sure anything because they are obsessed, it sure isnt Lucy. I have plenty of sympathy for the guy who pulled the trigger, but at the end of the day, he fired the fatal shot, not the thugs, not the dead chap. I also doubt any jury would find the girls guilty of first degree murder. That's because you don't live here.

thishereboi -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 8:57:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic victims fault eh..... tragic accident, eh.... that will help his mother Never said it would, neither would crucifying an innocent man. innocent???? How is Scott innocent he killed an innocent man, oopth While returning fire you want to crucify someone go after the thugetts who started the shooting. My God it was the middle of the night and you demand perfection from him but have not one word of criticism for the feral teenagers who are responsible for the whole incident. How would going after the feral teenagers help send the message that SYG is bad (or in one posters case the GOP/nra)? I am sure this is just sincere concern for the one who was killed over 3 years ago and has nothing to do with proving a point.[8D]

BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 8:58:00 AM)
You also seem to misunderstand SYG. It changes self defense. In regular sane self defense law if confronted with a danger to yourself your first obligation is to retreat. Only if retreat is not an option are you allowed to use force. Under SYG if you perceive a threat to yourself you are allowed to use force immediately. It is a crazy idea that is turning self defense into a license to kill, as it did in this case. You seem to misunderstand SYG. All it does is say your not a criminal if you forget to run.

thishereboi -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 9:04:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So you don't even comprehend who is at fault here. The girls who started the shooting are the criminals they should be charged with murder. A person died as a result of their crime. In many states including mine that makes them guilty of first degree murder. This is what sickens me. The fault is clearly with the thugs who started the shooting and your anti self defense obsession will not let you see it. You even admit that you have nothing to say about the thugs. You confuse cause and fault. The poor guy is dead BECAUSE the shooter hit the wrong target. The thugs didnt make the shooter kill an innocent man, he did that all by himself. If anyone doeant want to sure anything because they are obsessed, it sure isnt Lucy. I have plenty of sympathy for the guy who pulled the trigger, but at the end of the day, he fired the fatal shot, not the thugs, not the dead chap. I also doubt any jury would find the girls guilty of first degree murder. In many states over here the law says if someone is killed during the commission of a crime, the criminals are responsible whether they directly killed them or not. So if you rob a bank and one of your buddies gets killed running away or an innocent is killed by a stray shot from a cop, you are still responsible and can be charged with murder. And honestly if the girls started shooting at the house I don't have a problem with them being charged.

DomKen -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 9:18:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You also seem to misunderstand SYG. It changes self defense. In regular sane self defense law if confronted with a danger to yourself your first obligation is to retreat. Only if retreat is not an option are you allowed to use force. Under SYG if you perceive a threat to yourself you are allowed to use force immediately. It is a crazy idea that is turning self defense into a license to kill, as it did in this case. You seem to misunderstand SYG. All it does is say your not a criminal if you forget to run. No. It quite clearly upends self defense standards that go back to English common law and that worked. Under SYG it is no longer necessary to be in a truly desperate situation to deploy deadly force. You simply have to perceive that the situation might become so desperate. That is a huge change.

BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 9:41:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic victims fault eh..... tragic accident, eh.... that will help his mother Never said it would, neither would crucifying an innocent man. innocent???? How is Scott innocent he killed an innocent man, oopth While returning fire you want to crucify someone go after the thugetts who started the shooting. My God it was the middle of the night and you demand perfection from him but have not one word of criticism for the feral teenagers who are responsible for the whole incident. How would going after the feral teenagers help send the message that SYG is bad (or in one posters case the GOP/nra)? I am sure this is just sincere concern for the one who was killed over 3 years ago and has nothing to do with proving a point.[8D] It wouldn't because it isn't. But this is the teenagers fault, not Scotts.

BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 9:47:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You also seem to misunderstand SYG. It changes self defense. In regular sane self defense law if confronted with a danger to yourself your first obligation is to retreat. Only if retreat is not an option are you allowed to use force. Under SYG if you perceive a threat to yourself you are allowed to use force immediately. It is a crazy idea that is turning self defense into a license to kill, as it did in this case. You seem to misunderstand SYG. All it does is say your not a criminal if you forget to run. No. It quite clearly upends self defense standards that go back to English common law and that worked. Under SYG it is no longer necessary to be in a truly desperate situation to deploy deadly force. You simply have to perceive that the situation might become so desperate. That is a huge change. First being shot at fulfills, I am quite sure, the standard of a real, not an imagined threat. And in spite of your belief there has to be a reasonable expectation of serious injury. You have listened to people like nos who would have you believe that you can shoot someone because you think they look kind of dangerous.

Lucylastic -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 11:39:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic victims fault eh..... tragic accident, eh.... that will help his mother Never said it would, neither would crucifying an innocent man. innocent???? How is Scott innocent he killed an innocent man, oopth While returning fire you want to crucify someone go after the thugetts who started the shooting. My God it was the middle of the night and you demand perfection from him but have not one word of criticism for the feral teenagers who are responsible for the whole incident. How would going after the feral teenagers help send the message that SYG is bad (or in one posters case the GOP/nra)? I am sure this is just sincere concern for the one who was killed over 3 years ago and has nothing to do with proving a point.[8D] once again you miss "the point", by a glaring mile, the victim has been dead 3 years, and no justice for his death. Not by the "thuglettes" not by the guy who fired the gun. But keep on with your bad self, I guess hes been dead three years....who gives a shit that he was innocent fuck the victim and family, gotta protect a law that made it possible.

Yachtie -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 11:41:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Under SYG it is no longer necessary to be in a truly desperate situation to deploy deadly force. You simply have to perceive that the situation might become so desperate. That is a huge change. There are grey areas one must be cognizant of, as I think this case may be. But your arguments are always on the side of the criminal. You're a perfect victim, DK. Compliance with criminality is your mantra. Retreat, retreat. Retreat again. Tell us why anyone has any duty to ever retreat? From what foundation does a criminal proceed that he should have the upper hand? Apparently it seems you posit that it's the victim who brings the violence. Is not one who opens the gates of Hell as responsible as those who proceed out of it? Or act because of it?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875