Home
» Crime
» Dilemma
» Firearms
» Law
» Security
» Self-Defense
» An interesting legal self-defense issue
Oct 11, 2013
An interesting legal self-defense issue
Legal Insurrection brings us a very interesting case of self-defense from South Carolina. Briefly, the defendant argued that even though his (legitimate) defensive fire had killed an innocent bystander, he could not be tried for murder or manslaughter, as that state's self-defense immunity laws covered his actions. The judge agreed, and dismissed the charges (although the state is appealing the ruling to a higher court).
It's interesting for many reasons, but most of all because it appears to be an unintended consequence of the immunity afforded to those who legitimately defend themselves. It can be argued, I think, that it was not the intent of the South Carolina legislature to confer immunity in cases such as the one under discussion. Be that as it may, the specific wording of the legislation in question appears to cover the shooter's actions, and the judge therefore felt he had no option but to uphold the law as written.
I think this case will remain a bone of contention and a source of controversy, not only in South Carolina, but in every state where laws exist to cover those who legitimately defend themselves against unlawful attack. How far should such laws go? What about innocent persons who are killed? Do their estates and their survivors have no recourse? I suspect the South Carolina Supreme Court will have to decide those questions and more.
Go read the whole thing for yourself, and see what you think. You'll also find these news reports interesting:
It's a tragedy for the family of the deceased, but equally a tragedy for the shooter, who'll have to live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life.
Peter
