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.
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.
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
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.
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!"
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.
LINK Shannon Scott Won’t Face Murder Charge Thanks To ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law It looks like all you need to get away with murder is to tell the police that you "feared for you life".
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.
This is not a case of "spray and pray" but of mistaken identity. He aimed and shot to kill. The Supreme Court may review the case:
I wonder if Niles shot had back and killed Scott would he fall under the "Stand Your Ground" law in SC?
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?
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?
