Friday, October 11, 2013
An interesting legal self-defense issue
Legal Insurrection brings us a very interesting case of self-defense from South Carolina. Briefly, the defendant argued that even though his (legitimate) defensive fire had killed an innocent bystander, he could not be tried for murder or manslaughter, as that state's self-defense immunity laws covered his actions. The judge agreed, and dismissed the charges (although the state is appealing the ruling to a higher court).
It's interesting for many reasons, but most of all because it appears to be an unintended consequence of the immunity afforded to those who legitimately defend themselves. It can be argued, I think, that it was not the intent of the South Carolina legislature to confer immunity in cases such as the one under discussion. Be that as it may, the specific wording of the legislation in question appears to cover the shooter's actions, and the judge therefore felt he had no option but to uphold the law as written.
I think this case will remain a bone of contention and a source of controversy, not only in South Carolina, but in every state where laws exist to cover those who legitimately defend themselves against unlawful attack. How far should such laws go? What about innocent persons who are killed? Do their estates and their survivors have no recourse? I suspect the South Carolina Supreme Court will have to decide those questions and more.
Go read the whole thing for yourself, and see what you think. You'll also find these news reports interesting:
It's a tragedy for the family of the deceased, but equally a tragedy for the shooter, who'll have to live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life.
Peter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
One article about that case pointed out the concept of felony murder. The girls in the first car are guilty of his death for starting the shooting and all the actions that came from it. May have been in the comments.
Everett McCook is right on. The party legally at fault was not the target of this lawsuit. It should have been dismissed with prejudice.
The immunity was intended to protect the victim of an attack. The attacker should be on the hook for the damages resulting in the victim defending themselves from that attack just like they would legally be guilty of felony murder.
The Legal Insurrection post doesn't link to the S. Carolina law regarding civil liability in relation to an otherwise legally justified killing. The criminal statute seems to say one thing; what does the civil statute(s) say?
I suspect these are the basic questions the state Supreme Court will need to consider and decide so as to establish precedent.
This could turn into a huge mess.
If you say the person who starts the confrontation, the antagonist for lack of a better word, is liable then what if the defender decides to respond only when collateral damage has a possibility of being a person or item they desire.
Yet it doesn't sound right to hold each and every defender liable.
My opinion is that it should be left to the decision of a judge or jury as to who should be liable in each case. True it would cause irregular enforcement, but it provides a better chance of the person who truly should be held responsible getting tagged liable.
Hey folks,
Glad you liked my post over at Legal Insurrection! (For some reason Blogger is using my old handle, Boston12GS, but this is the now-named Law of Self Defense.)
Mr. Brown, the South Carolina law that provides criminal immunity for an act of lawful self-defense is the same law that provides civil immunity for an act of lawful self-defense. It is statute 16-11-450.
The full statute can be found here: http://is.gd/Ah7Gjl
I'm happy to answer any questions (assuming this site allows notification of additional comments). Otherwise, feel free to ask over at Legal Insurrection or at my own blog lawofselfdefense.com
--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Post a Comment