quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
It has been pointed out by several posters that the person committing a crime is legally responsible for any harm done by any person. That is the law here. In this case it was the girls committing the crime so it is they who are legally responsible for the death.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdorkableAiley
The girls weren't even there anymore there for no crime was going on at the time he pulled the trigger there for the girls cannot be held responsible as the crime was already over when he fired. It was a mistake I will grant that much but that doesn't mean he still shouldn't have to pay for hitting the wrong target. Should there be no justice for this child simply because the man shot first and thought later?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Ah, the standard reply to non Americans (well one of many)

Hmmm, as opposed to the standard if you only smartened up, got civilized, and did what we did argument from the other side of the pond?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdorkableAiley

The main problem here is a boy is dead, a boy that was not a threat or danger and only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, a boy is dead and no one is paying for that. That is a problem. Someone needs to take responsibility. if it was your child would you not want some form of justice? The man that pulled the trigger is responsible weather or not he meant to kill the boy is immaterial to the fact that he did indeed kill him. No one is even questioning the fact that he killed him the question here is should it be ok that he killed him. Well no it is not ok and there should be some sort of penalty for having shot the wrong person. I don't care what law he used to wiggle out of his culpability he was wrong in who he shot and he should have to pay for that. What is just an oh well situation where its ok that a kid died because it was just a mistake?
Ailey

The law is clear it is the girls who are legally responsible. Scott is only guilty of trying to defend his family.
Does this make it ok that Neil was killed of course not, so me one person who says it is.
And don't tell me that not wanting to nail Scott for this means it is ok because it doesn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Seems a fine way to do assassinations with no issues. OK in public, no jail, no bail, you just have a 'reasonable fear' some homeless person was about to attack you and Somehow, you missed the 'attacker'. The real fun starts with people SYG with weapons a lot less discriminate that hand or shoulder guns. Sounds to me like it's legal to use a flame thrower that 'just happened to be handy from some weeding job' to stop an imagined attack with a school bus unloading just behind the illusory criminal.
The obvious fix to an incredibly stupid law is SYG is balanced by criminal responsibility for any and all even remotely forseeable 'unintended consequences'. Biggest one would be an awareness of the great limitations of hand guns for 'defense' more than about 7' away. Police miss most of these, untrained people so far worse. 21' is a common limitation for effective hits by well trained shooters with careful aim. They do much better in movies and on TV, of course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdorkableAiley

The main problem here is a boy is dead, a boy that was not a threat or danger and only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, a boy is dead and no one is paying for that. That is a problem. Someone needs to take responsibility. if it was your child would you not want some form of justice? The man that pulled the trigger is responsible weather or not he meant to kill the boy is immaterial to the fact that he did indeed kill him. No one is even questioning the fact that he killed him the question here is should it be ok that he killed him. Well no it is not ok and there should be some sort of penalty for having shot the wrong person. I don't care what law he used to wiggle out of his culpability he was wrong in who he shot and he should have to pay for that. What is just an oh well situation where its ok that a kid died because it was just a mistake?
Ailey

The law is clear it is the girls who are legally responsible. Scott is only guilty of trying to defend his family.
Does this make it ok that Neil was killed of course not, so me one person who says it is.
And don't tell me that not wanting to nail Scott for this means it is ok because it doesn't.

Until it is established the 'girls' were actually on the scene, I don't see where SYG applies. You don't get to shoot into public spaces when attackers have gone just to feel better, only when you are Actively stopping an assault? Hell, I feel threatened if our legislatures are in session, can I shoot tourists on the other side of town? No, lethal force can only be used against actual threats AT THE TIME, not at any later date. Or racists and Islamaphobes get to slaughter at will.
IF SYG stands, it needs some clear cut case law that threats have to be positively identified, you can't shoot into crowds because someone called out a threat. Or the whole crowd had to be seen to be attacking. And it has to be included that perceptions would be those of our legally beloved "reasonable person". Or the irrational have a license to kill better than an intelligence operative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdorkableAiley

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdorkableAiley

The main problem here is a boy is dead, a boy that was not a threat or danger and only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, a boy is dead and no one is paying for that. That is a problem. Someone needs to take responsibility. if it was your child would you not want some form of justice? The man that pulled the trigger is responsible weather or not he meant to kill the boy is immaterial to the fact that he did indeed kill him. No one is even questioning the fact that he killed him the question here is should it be ok that he killed him. Well no it is not ok and there should be some sort of penalty for having shot the wrong person. I don't care what law he used to wiggle out of his culpability he was wrong in who he shot and he should have to pay for that. What is just an oh well situation where its ok that a kid died because it was just a mistake?


Ailey

The law is clear it is the girls who are legally responsible. Scott is only guilty of trying to defend his family.
Does this make it ok that Neil was killed of course not, so me one person who says it is.
And don't tell me that not wanting to nail Scott for this means it is ok because it doesn't.

The girls weren't even there anymore there for no crime was going on at the time he pulled the trigger there for the girls cannot be held responsible as the crime was already over when he fired. It was a mistake I will grant that much but that doesn't mean he still shouldn't have to pay for hitting the wrong target. Should there be no justice for this child simply because the man shot first and thought later?

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Where you fire from isn't relevant. Where the 'assaulter' is does. If they aren't moving towards you and are on public land, 'self-defense' is a hard sell. And AGAIN, it hasn't been established the SUV was on the scene or that the daughters were threatened being inside the house? All family members don't get to claim self-defense if someone Was chasing a relative at some time earlier and they are now safe? Stopping a crime in progress has wide limits. But it has to be established a crime Was in progress. People in a car calling threats hardly qualifies for use of deadly force when they aren't on your land, aren't moving towards you, or haven't displayed any means (weapons) of enacting threats. As always, a shooter has the responsibility to identify real threats and use his weapons in a reasonable fashion within the limits of the weapon's effectiveness.
There was enough 'crowd' to be targeted and killed? Just a different car, person and direction the car was pointing than the one that was perceived to be threatening? If his bullet with through open windows on both sides of the SUV and then killed a bystander, he has a case and the girls are in legal jeopardy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Where in the law does it say that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

so not retreating means you can kill anyone who gets in the way??
what a fucking stupid analogy

I dunno you tell me

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdorkableAiley

The main problem here is a boy is dead, a boy that was not a threat or danger and only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, a boy is dead and no one is paying for that. That is a problem. Someone needs to take responsibility. if it was your child would you not want some form of justice? The man that pulled the trigger is responsible weather or not he meant to kill the boy is immaterial to the fact that he did indeed kill him. No one is even questioning the fact that he killed him the question here is should it be ok that he killed him. Well no it is not ok and there should be some sort of penalty for having shot the wrong person. I don't care what law he used to wiggle out of his culpability he was wrong in who he shot and he should have to pay for that. What is just an oh well situation where its ok that a kid died because it was just a mistake?
Ailey

The law is clear it is the girls who are legally responsible. Scott is only guilty of trying to defend his family.
Does this make it ok that Neil was killed of course not, so me one person who says it is.
And don't tell me that not wanting to nail Scott for this means it is ok because it doesn't.

Until it is established the 'girls' were actually on the scene, I don't see where SYG applies. You don't get to shoot into public spaces when attackers have gone just to feel better, only when you are Actively stopping an assault? Hell, I feel threatened if our legislatures are in session, can I shoot tourists on the other side of town? No, lethal force can only be used against actual threats AT THE TIME, not at any later date. Or racists and Islamaphobes get to slaughter at will.
IF SYG stands, it needs some clear cut case law that threats have to be positively identified, you can't shoot into crowds because someone called out a threat. Or the whole crowd had to be seen to be attacking. And it has to be included that perceptions would be those of our legally beloved "reasonable person". Or the irrational have a license to kill better than an intelligence operative.

A apparently S. Carolina doesn't even have SYG
B Even if it did he was on his own property so it would not apply
C His daughter was followed by the girls when she left a club at midnight not many crowds on residential streets at that hour.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

That has to be one of the most disingenuous statements about the law from someone who wasn't getting paid to make it, that I've seen in years.

The duty to retreat in English Common Law based legal systems comes from chattel law... serfs and peasants were property of the crown, and had no right to raise their hand against the Crown or its agents. Same concept which held that a woman had no right to deny sex to her husband.
Some of the former colonies drew on it in the form of Apartheid, and Jim Crow, and Terra Nullius prohibitions against certain groups.

Here in America, this was undone by the 13th and 14th Amendments and ensuing court decisions... perhaps you missed the memo?

BULLSHIT! There were no serfs or chattel in England. All Englishmen were freemen. Serfs and such were characteristic of continental Europe during the dark ages. By the 17th and 18th centuries, when English common law came into existence, the English crown was no longer an absolute monarch and anyway there had never been serfs in England.

Perhaps if you knew shit all about the subject you would not have made such a claim in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdorkableAiley

I didn't say you didn't have valid points. I think this story has to many holes in it to tell for sure just what happened. I still feel that doesn't mean we give up on holding someone responsible for the death of a child and I'm leaning towards pinning that on the man holding the smoking gun. And somehow I doubt it was a church group sponsored event. I think when they say club they mean just that and no 15 year old belongs at one in the middle of the night. Thats some mighty bad parenting going on and you wonder why she brought trouble home with her.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The duty to retreat is based on common sense. If a confrontation occurs and it is possible to get away that is what you should do. It's worked for 500 years. Now SYG is less than a decade old and we have people killing boys because of loud music and for just being in the wrong place. If you cannot see that the problem is giving people a license to kill rather than requiring that deadly force be used only in the direst circumstance.

The problem with this argument is that "common sense" isn't all that common or always sensible. It's also based on details that are quite subjective.

What constitutes retreating? Technically, taking one step backwards is a retreat.

quote:

What constitutes a threat of grave bodily harm? If someone shows me a gun in their waste-band and then says "I'll kill you if... " Is that sufficient, or do I have to wait till the gun is in their hand? How about if the person has a knife in hand and says "I'm going to kill you" , but isn't quite close enough to stab me? How about a 5'2", 110lbs woman confronted by a 6'4", 250lbs man, who is unarmed, but is acting aggressively. What if the aggressor is a child? Some folks here seem to think that an adult should never kill a child, even if the child is armed and threatening their life.

quote:

SYG laws were supposed to take some of this subjectiveness out of the equation. Of course we're now seeing that they've added all new factors that are just as subjective. The difference, as I see it though at any rate, is that now it's tilted further towards the defender as opposed to the aggressor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

I didn't say 'in England' I said 'in English Common Law based systems'. Do you have an excuse for editing out the words that I actually posted and pretending I said something I didn't?

In any case, the precepts of human chattel law are in fact part of ECL, and as such, came into the various colonies, which is why women, and African slaves have in the past been treated as property in the places I did reference. And that reality, whether you admit to it's existence or not, is one of the important threads woven through the social and legal development of 'duty to retreat' laws.

Your claim that the status quo worked well for 500 years is a matter of opinion... rendered impotent as I said, by the passage of amendments leading to the chattel influenced laws being struck down during the Civil Rights movement

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The duty to retreat is based on common sense. If a confrontation occurs and it is possible to get away that is what you should do. It's worked for 500 years. Now SYG is less than a decade old and we have people killing boys because of loud music and for just being in the wrong place. If you cannot see that the problem is giving people a license to kill rather than requiring that deadly force be used only in the direst circumstance.

The problem with this argument is that "common sense" isn't all that common or always sensible. It's also based on details that are quite subjective.

What constitutes retreating? Technically, taking one step backwards is a retreat.

Wrong. Under self defense the duty to retreat is that you cannot use force until you have exhausted every avenue of escape.

quote:

What constitutes a threat of grave bodily harm? If someone shows me a gun in their waste-band and then says "I'll kill you if... " Is that sufficient, or do I have to wait till the gun is in their hand? How about if the person has a knife in hand and says "I'm going to kill you" , but isn't quite close enough to stab me? How about a 5'2", 110lbs woman confronted by a 6'4", 250lbs man, who is unarmed, but is acting aggressively. What if the aggressor is a child? Some folks here seem to think that an adult should never kill a child, even if the child is armed and threatening their life.

No. The threat has to be imminent so a gun a waistband does not count. Neither does a person waving a knife who isn't close enough to use it. Acting aggressively obviously is not cause to be shot.

quote:

SYG laws were supposed to take some of this subjectiveness out of the equation. Of course we're now seeing that they've added all new factors that are just as subjective. The difference, as I see it though at any rate, is that now it's tilted further towards the defender as opposed to the aggressor.

Wrong. SYG laws were designed to make it less likely that damn fool concealed carriers who misused their weapons would be charged for the crimes they commit. We know this because these laws came out of ALEC and the NRA at the behest of the gun manufacturers.