South Carolina Father Wins Self-Defense Immunity in Shooting of Bystander

[gryphon]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/south-carolina-father-wins-self-defense-immunity-in-shooting-of-bystander/

[TheQ]

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.

[packeagle]

Q
What about transfered intent?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

[linux203]

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.

[TheQ]

Q
What about transfered intent?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

What is "transferred intent"?

[TheQ]

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?

[gryphon]

 I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

[jgillmanjr]

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:

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.

[TheQ]

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.

[Ezerharden]

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.

[TheQ]

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...

[packeagle]

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