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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"I don't think we want the cops being judges, too." Maybe not, Denny, but cops need to be far better at judging.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
