Author Topic: South Carolina Father Wins Self-Defense Immunity in Shooting of Bystander  (Read 9178 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
1. In Michigan your are rightfully (IMHO) criminally (manslaughter) and civilly (wrongful death) responsible for where your bullet stops.  See MCL 600.2922b http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-600-2922b .

2. It looks like South Carolina may need to change it's law to appropriately protect innocent bystanders.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline packeagle

  • Posts: 9
Q
What about transfered intent?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2


Offline linux203

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 706
  • First Name (Displayed): Daniel
My CPL instructor indicated that Michigan didn't have civil immunity with the use of self-defense.  MCL 600.2922b seems to indicate otherwise.  Did I miss read this?  Immunity applies for the person who deadly force was authorized against only.

He was wrong about other stuff too.
When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. Luke 11:21

Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."  Luke 22:36

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
Q
What about transfered intent?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

What is "transferred intent"?
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
My CPL instructor indicated that Michigan didn't have civil immunity with the use of self-defense.  MCL 600.2922b seems to indicate otherwise.  Did I miss read this?  Immunity applies for the person who deadly force was authorized against only.

He was wrong about other stuff too.

A CPL instructor that doesn't know the law.  Is anyone shocked?
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4038
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
 I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

Offline jgillmanjr

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 654
    • Freedom Forged Security Consulting
  • First Name (Displayed): Jason
What is "transferred intent"?

I'm not a mind reader, but if I had a guess, I would say he may be referring to this in the article linked:

Quote
Once the five elements of the law of self-defense have been found in Mr. Scott’s favor, his use of force was lawfully justified, and the responsibility for the loss of life of a purported innocent bystander is properly placed at the feet of the initial aggressors of the conflict, and not upon the person who lawfully defended himself against their aggression.

Analogous to Felony Murder

The clear analogy to this case under the criminal law is the well established principle of felony murder. When a store owner is attacked by an armed robber, defends himself with lethal force, and accidentally kills an innocent customer, the criminal liability for that killing is placed upon the robber, as a murder taking place during the commission of a felony, regardless of the manner in which the killing took place.
IT Director
Deputy Treasurer
Legislative Aide

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
South Carolina Father Wins Self-Defense Immunity in Shooting of Bystander
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2013, 12:05:44 PM »
I agree that the initial aggressor should be charged with felony murder. That being said, the defender that shot the innocent bystander should be charged with manslaughter.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline Ezerharden

  • Former Secretary
  • MOC Regional Coordinator, Deputy
  • ***
  • Posts: 783
  • I don't dial 911
  • First Name (Displayed): Mike
I agree that the initial aggressor should be charged with felony murder. That being said, the defender that shot the innocent bystander should be charged with manslaughter.

So should any police officer that shoots the wrong target, but we all know how that goes right? If that were applied NYC would have a reduction if police officers.
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

I carry a gun because a Police Officer is too heavy.

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
South Carolina Father Wins Self-Defense Immunity in Shooting of Bystander
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2013, 01:23:53 PM »

So should any police officer that shoots the wrong target, but we all know how that goes right? If that were applied NYC would have a reduction if police officers.

I'd say yes, actually...
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline packeagle

  • Posts: 9
What is "transferred intent"?

The intent of the crime is transferred. If I had intent to shoot person A in their sleep, and mistakenly walked into person B's aparment and shot them. It's still 1st degree murder due to transfered intent.

In this case the defendant has no intent to commit murder, only to protect himself with deadly force. There is no Mens Rea. It may be involuntary manslaughter, but you would need to prove gross negligence.
 
I only have a bachelor's level degree in CJ, so I'm not a lawyer, but I've taken a few law classes.  I  could and may  be wrong.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: November 10, 2013, 11:20:20 AM by packeagle »