(image courtesy of legalinsurrection.com)
Posted on 10/10/2013 4:08:00 PM PDT by servo1969
A father in South Carolina who fired his handgun in self-defense–and in the process killing an apparent innocent bystander–has successfully argued that he is not subject to criminal or civil liability under the state’s self-defense immunity law.
South Carolina’s self-defense immunity statute–§16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions; law enforcement officer exception; costs.–is essentially identical to Florida’s self-defense immunity statute currently under legislative review (as covered by Legal Insurrection here)–§776.032. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force. The Issue Is Self-Defense Immunity, Not “Stand Your Ground”
As is frequently the case in Florida, news coverage of this case invariably conflates the state’s self-defense immunity statute with other legal provisions involving issues of retreat, incorrectly referring to such immunity hearings as “Stand Your Ground” hearings. In fact, as was the case with the George Zimmerman trial, this South Carolina case had nothing whatever to do with Stand Your Ground, which is covered by completely different South Carolina statutes (§16-11-420. Intent and findings of General Assembly and §16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.)
The father, Shannon Scott, argued that his conduct was covered under South Carolina’s self-defense immunity law in a pre-trial hearing before Judge Maite Murphy, and the Judge announced his agreement in a 12-page ruling filed yesterday.
The ruling was covered by the South Carolina newspaper The State, which cast the story in terms of whether the immunity provision should apply when the person acting in self-defense ends up shooting someone who is a bystander to the attack, rather than an actual attacker.
In fact, the status of the person actually shot has little import in determining immunity under the statute, nor should it. It is a tautology that under the self-defense laws in every state the lawful use of force in self-defense is not a crime, whatever the outcome of that use of force might be.
The only variable introduced by South Carolina’s immunity statute is whether the user of force will be required to have their criminal liability determined solely by means of a lengthy criminal trial and jury verdict or whether (under the statute) the determination of criminal liability can be made in a pre-trial hearing.
Q: Did Father’s Use of Force Align With Five Elements of Law of Self -Defense?
The issue for Judge Murphy, then, is not whether the immunity statute applies if the person against whom the force is used turns out later to have not been an attacker, but simply whether the conduct of the person acting in self-defense is consistent with the law of self-defense. More specifically, the court was required to ask the following five questions:
(1) Was Mr. Scott an innocent (non-aggressor) in the conflict?
The evidence supported Mr. Scott’s claim that aggressors came to his home, not he to them, making him the innocent party for purposes self-defense.
(2) Was Mr. Scott facing an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm?
The evidence supported Mr. Scott’s claim that the aggressors had just fired shots at him.
(3) Was Mr. Scott’s use of force proportional to the threat?
The evidence of shots being fired at Mr. Scott–clearly deadly force–warranted the use of a deadly force response in self-defense.
(4) Did Mr. Scott violate any duty to retreat before using force in self-defense?
Standing in his own yard Mr. Scott was privileged under South Carolina’s “Castle Doctrine” to be exempt from any duty to retreat that might otherwise have existed
(5) Was Mr. Scott’s conduct both subjectively and objectively reasonable?
Mr. Scott took the witness stand in the pre-trial hearing to testify to his subjective reasonableness, in the course of which he necessarily subjected himself to cross-examination by the state.
There was also considerable evidence concerning the circumstances and conditions of the night’s events that would have guided a determination of objective reasonableness–including that the daughter was followed home by a car full of known thugs, that the attack took place at 1:30AM, that law enforcement was not immediately available, etc.
A: Father’s Use of Force WAS Lawful Self-Defense; Ergo Immunity Attaches
(image courtesy of legalinsurrection.com)
The Judge’s finding of immunity clearly reflects that he found this evidence supported, by at least a preponderance of the evidence, the reasonableness of Mr. Scott’s conduct under the circumstances and knowing what Scott knew of those circumstances at the time. Indeed, in his ruling the Judge finds that “When the defendant fired the shot, he reasonably believed he was being attacked with deadly force directed at his home.”
The State SC Stand Your Ground Timeline
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.
The State attorney’s office has appealed Judge Murphy’s ruling to the State Supreme Court.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog, Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle), Barnes & Noble (paperback and Nook), and elsewhere.
In addition to the book, Andrew also conducts Law of Self Defense Seminars all around the country, with upcoming seminars scheduled for Columbia SC (10/19), Atlanta GA (11/16), and Epping NH (11/24, at the SigSauer Academy, where Andrew is a Guest Instructor). Click here for reviews of recently completed seminars in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. You can follow Andrew on Twitter at @LawSelfDefense and using #LOSD2, on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.
I am therefore going to use my natural racist talents, which I have been assured I was born with and will never be able to apologize enough for, to make the following assumptions:
Either...
1. The shooter, Shannon Scott, is a black man which makes the race of the victim irrelevant to any national media outlets.
OR
2. The victim was white which makes the race of the shooter irrelevant to any national media outlets.
Interesting. The article doesn’t say if anyone in the aggressors’ car was prosecuted for felony murder, but it sounds like they should have been.
So instead of charging the aggressors with the bystanders death, as the law dictates, the State's Attorney wants to hang this on the home owner. There is no fate to cruel for scum like this lawyer.
Option 1.
Shannon Scott is black, at least as identified in mug shot pub’d by Columbia, S.C., tv station.
The self-defense ruling is good, but I’m surprised there is no liability for shooting a bystander.
Black or white, this is a righteous ruling. Good news for a change.
What ever the race of those involved, it is a victory for our Second Amendment and our right to protect our property.
I was thinking the same thing. All my training revolved around taking bystanders into account. I won’t judge this case because I don’t know the details but a blanket exemption sounds like a bad idea.
Yep. Another poster was just questioning why there hadn’t been more publicity, and whether the lack of publicity might have had something to do with the shooter’s race.
Both shooter and the young bystander appear to be black, or mostly black, which by the mainstream media’s metrics means that none of it matters.
That was my thought exactly.
The attackers are guilty of murder in the accidental defensive shooting.
What was his 15-yr girl old doing in a nightclub at midnight?
Maybe if he had been a better parent an innocent wouldn’t be dead now.
It works for cops. It ought to be good enough for private citizens as long as the self defense aspect was righteous.
The article describes five conditions that must be met for the exemption to apply. IANAL, but from the sound of them, a defensive shooter would not be protected if he went "spray and pray," took out someone not in the line of fire between himself and the perp, or otherwise engaged in intrinsically irresponsible conduct.
I’d really like an answer to that one.
Would an LEO be judged guilty under similar circumstances?
In a previous ruling on the castle doctrine, the SC supreme court embraced an expansive view of that doctrine. If I recall it correctly, the justices ruled that an aggressor need not be armed to justify a shooting by the homeowner.
I don’t understand the relevance of your question to my point. I’m not arguing that the legal verdict is wrong, I am pointing out that there is some moral culpability.
If you let your 15-year old daughter run wild, you shouldn’t be shocked if trouble follows her home. I find it sad that an innocent party lost their life because of it.
Yes, and has. But the agency is going to get sued. That’s why they all have liability insurance, which goes through the roof when one of these shootings (or any use of force that brings a lawsuit).
It’s the cost of business.
I find it interesting that no one is making light of the marksmanship skills of Shannon Scott? He did shoot the “wrong guy”.
If he had been a cop, there would have been 300 posts about “the cop needs more range time” “it was murder” “I would have hit him from 1000 yards away iron sites with my Kimber classic”....
If he were a cop, the victim would have had 40-50 rounds in him from the 1000s discharged in random pattterns across the target area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.