19-Year-Old, Gun, Macho Puffing Up, "Self-Defense," Dead Bystander
- Thread starter FCFC
- Start date
- Status
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
Member
Not true.
If you use reasonable self defense and you accidentally kill someone else it is not murder. It may be manslaughter or it may be nothing. It will depend on the situation. Now morally you have to live with it but it won't be murder and you may not be charged at all.
Example:
You shoots a BG attempting to shot someone else. The exact situation will matter. Let say using the "reasonable person" test it was determined that it was a justifiable homicide. The round over penetrates and injures or kills someone else. Although tragic and regrettable it isn't murder. You may be charged w/ lesser crime or not charged at all, but it certainly isn't automatically murder because someone innocent got shot.
If brakes on you car fail and you hit and kill someone is it automatically murder?
If someone is cleaning their gun and accidentally kills their spouse is it automatically murder?
What is different in this case is the police & DA did NOT BELIEVE it was self defense. Felony murder (varies based on the state) generally if defined as an unintentional homicide that occurs as a result of another felony. It is felony murder because someone (the bystander) was killed as the result of another felony (Jarvis shooting the other gangbanger). Once he committed a FELONY not SELF DEFENSE he became criminally liable is ANYONE ELSE had been killed.
If a LEO shot to stop Jarvis and killed the bystander instead, Jarvis would have STILL been charged w/ FELONY MURDER.
The most important point:
Jarvis was committing a felony and at that point he became liable for any other deaths regardless of who actually caused them. Jarvis shot the bystander but BOTH men were charged with felony murder. If they guy Jarvis was shooting at had hit and killed another person with his car while escaping BOTH men would be charged with that murder also.
If he was justified in using deadly force for self defense he couldn't be charged with felony murder. There first must be a felony for felony murder charge to apply.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
The article says:
If you shoot your neighbor instead of the bad guy you are negligent. Gonna have a hard time proving you weren't.
Yes, my mistake. Manslaughter not murder.
Shadowangel
Member
That doesn't make any sense. Why would shooting someone who was trying to kill you be unreasonable in any remote sense of the word? It's highly regrettable if you hit an innocent that was hiding behind a bush behind the criminal, but it's not unreasonable that you defended yourself.
fletcher
Member
The existence of that article isn't indicative of the current laws, as it could be one of several things in addition to your conclusion:
1. Writer has a misconception of current laws (that wouldn't be a first).
2. Current laws are being challenged, and this is a response in defense of the current setup.
3. Proposed modification to similar current law to make something more clear, or slightly more strict/uniform.
Also, the article isn't so much about gun owners being held criminally accountable for each of their bullets as it is the shooter should be liable both criminally and civilly for any and all damages, regardless of any negligence in the shooting (Paragraph 4 really hinges on this).
That being said, in my state, NC, you're liable for whatever happens with any bullet that comes out the end of your gun. You can be sued, you can be charged with murder, whatever, if you hit something other than your intended target.
There's nothing wrong with shooting at someone you're legally allowed to shoot at. However, if you're not 100% sure that there is nobody around or behind your target, and you miss or have a shoot-through resulting in a bystander's injury, you have acted with somewhat poor judgement in that regard.
bogie
Member
Well, while folks are trying to justify things, one thing seems to have been missed...
Unprovoked violence does not come naturally to a lot of folks. When you see someone who attempting to talk themselves into doing something, it can be pretty apparent - the "macho puffing up" bit... Agitated movements, etc., etc... Some street criminals literally convince themselves that the care you are drive is rightfully theirs - that's why folks report being told "get out of my car" during some carjackings...
When you notice this sort of activity, get away.
Unprovoked violence does not come naturally to a lot of folks. When you see someone who attempting to talk themselves into doing something, it can be pretty apparent - the "macho puffing up" bit... Agitated movements, etc., etc... Some street criminals literally convince themselves that the care you are drive is rightfully theirs - that's why folks report being told "get out of my car" during some carjackings...
When you notice this sort of activity, get away.
Shadowangel
Member
I think that's quite prevalent here as well. I sincerely doubt the majority of the people arguing have legal firsthand knowledge as to how these laws work.
Can anyone find a case to show as proof, in a gun friendly state, where a person WAS charged with criminal charges after accidentally shooting an innocent during the course of a legally justified self defense shooting? Or sued by the family of the innocent person afterwards? I sincerely doubt it.
I can provide an article where two men were NOT charged, in california no less, after accidentally shooting a little girl during what they claimed weas a self defense shooting.. Bad situation all in all, but my point holds...no charges filed.
http://newsbusters.org/node/10972
fletcher
Member
If I had to guess, I'd say that situation (LEGALLY justified shooting) happens rarely, if at all. Could you provide a case where an innocent was injured in a legally justified shooting and the person was not charged? Probably not, for the same reason.
I would have fired at dixon as well, but I would hope I would be in control of myself and my firearm enough to avoid killing bystanders. Tragic that the two dimwits didn't get each other in the heart instead.
Dixon should be injected for this though. The majority of the blame rests with him, though I do think the other idiot should cool his heels in a cell while he serves a sentence for either third degree murder or manslaughter.
Dixon should be injected for this though. The majority of the blame rests with him, though I do think the other idiot should cool his heels in a cell while he serves a sentence for either third degree murder or manslaughter.
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
Member
Not according to the law in most states.
What if you can't see your neighbor?
What if you don't know he is there?
Lets say at night a BG breaks into your house. You shoot at him in doorway and miss (even cops only land something like 12% of shots). BG runs away. You step outside and realize you killed your neighbor who came to help. That isn't a crime. Regretable but not a crime, not in most states.
You know who will get charged with murder? The BG. Felony murder. Durring the commision of his felony someone died. It doesn't matter that the home owner was the one who shot.
Jarvis wasn't charged w/ negligence. Negligence can't ever by sufficent grounds alone for a murder charge. If it did any fatal car crash or other negligent death (construction failure, defective product, no "wet floor sign") would be murder. Dead is dead. Doesn't matter if it was a gun that killed you or a car. Why should a gun in SD be special? Would you really want to live in a society where any accident that results in someones death is a murder? Imagine being a doctor. Who would be crazy enough to do that?
We don't charge murder for negligence.
Felony murder is special. Jarvis was committing another felony (attempted murder of the other gang member) the second he did that he became responsible for anyone else injured in the course of his crime (regardless of who caused the injury).
Some possible scenarios:
LEO arrived and shoots at Jarvis and killed the bystander = Jarvis gets Felony murder.
Citizen on scene shoots to stop Jarvis and kills the bystander = Jarvis gets Felony murder.
Other gang member shoots at Jarvis and kills the bystander = Jarvis gets Felony murder.
Other gang member runs over bystander and kills him = Jarvis gets Felony murder.
Had Jarvis not been committing a felony at the time the Bystander was killed he would NOT have been charged with felony murder.
Shadowangel
Member
I just did. Check the post above yours.
By the by...legally justified self defense shootings happen every day. They're not rare. CCW, Castle Doctrine, ect would not EXIST if these things didn't happen on a fairly normal basis.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
We're not talking about the shooter being charged with felony murder, that's for the bad guy.
The argument is being made that you are not responsible criminally or civilly if you shoot an innocent in a self defense situation.
Regardless of the legality of Jarvis' decision to shoot; hitting an innocent bystander in a "self defense" scenario... could happen to the very best of us.
Good reminder on why avoiding violent confrontation is the best policy by far, no matter how "prepared" you are.
Good reminder on why avoiding violent confrontation is the best policy by far, no matter how "prepared" you are.
fletcher
Member
So we have one instance, which in itself is pretty bizzare. They were released under the statement "no charges can be filed at this time, but the investigation will continue", and the investigation itself was further hindered:
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/18/local/me-selfdefense18
Not quite the clear-cut case to use as justification, even though charges did not appear to be filed later.
Never said they were.
Shadowangel
Member
No, but an example nontheless. Your turn. Provide an example of a person who WAS charged with criminal charges after accidentally shooting an innocent during the course of a legally justified self defense shooting.
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
Member
Well that wasn't your claim a couple posts ago. Your exact words:
It is possible to accidentally kill someone. Have you ever missed as pistol range? I know I have. Statistics show cops in shootouts routinely only hit 12%-20% of the time. Every miss could be an accidental kill. Cops have accidentally killed hundreds of people. Very rarely is someone who accidentally kills someone charged with murder. One major exception is Felony Murder which requires your felony to result in the death of someone else.
Your claim that if you accidentally kill someone it is murder is wrong.
It is possible to accidentally kill someone and not be charged with anything.
I don't recommend it. You may get "wrongful death suit". You spend you life savings defending yourself. You will have to live with it for rest of your life. The statement you made is that it is murder which is not true.
Jarvis was charged with murder NOT because he accidentally shot someone he was charged because an innocent person died as a result of him commiting a felony. PERIOD. It doesn't matter who shot the bystander the only is only concerned that the bystander died because Jarvis committed a felony (attempting to murder the other gang banger). If he wasn't committing a felony he couldn't be charged with murder under the law.
romeo212000
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 427
I had a really hard time putting that story together. I still cannot figure out exactly who did what.
fletcher
Member
Arizona attorney indicates you may be charged as a result of negligence:
http://arizonacriminallaw.info/html/weapons-crime.html
No direct link, but McCraney v. State of Nevada deals with a charge sticking for hitting a bystander, as referenced here (this was also a sketchy self-defense argument): http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=407763
http://arizonacriminallaw.info/html/weapons-crime.html
No direct link, but McCraney v. State of Nevada deals with a charge sticking for hitting a bystander, as referenced here (this was also a sketchy self-defense argument): http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=407763
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
And I said that I used the wrong word, that manslaughter is the right word.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
I would have fired at dixon as well
that would make you mentally and morally his equal
that would make you mentally and morally his equal
Shadowangel
Member
It says "and accidentally hitting a bystander may constitute negligence on your part and could result in criminal charges."
MAY. COULD. Supposition. No evidence.
I'm not a judge, so i'm not going to go into guilt or innocence on this particular case..but this guy was being charged for premeditated murder. Not accidentally killing someone in an otherwise perfectly legal situation. This example does not fit the criteria, and really isn't associated with the question that's being asked.
In addition, the original court's charges were struck down and the case was sent back for retrial, per your own link.
[¶1] In this appeal, the trial court failed to give a requested self-defense instruction to the jury during trial for one count of first degree premeditated murder. Our jurisprudence has established that the defenses of self-defense and accident are mutually exclusive when applied to the shooting death of a victim. However, in this particular case, Appellant Brian Keith Holloman claimed that his act of self-defense by striking blows against one victim resulted in the accidental falling death of a third party, and he was, therefore, entitled to his requested self-defense-against-assault instruction. Our review has determined that Holloman’s defense theory is recognized by the common law, the self-defense elements are supported by his testimony, and are corroborated by physical evidence. We, therefore, hold that it was reversible error to fail to instruct the jury on his self-defense theory. This ruling is dispositive, and we do not consider Holloman’s issues regarding prosecutorial misconduct.
[¶2] Reversed and remanded for new trial.
I am having a very difficult time with this story, at first I was under the impression that jarvis blatantly shot mr. Ross, and the first story posted didn't look like jarvis was all that wrong for firing at dixon, just telling someone a girl is taken isn't exactly begging for a shootout. The way I read it was that jarvis told dixon the girl was taken, dixon swerved his car at them and started shooting, and jarvis fired back at him. What did I miss, because the way I read it shooting back at someone shooting at you doesn't make you mentally or morally their equal.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
