Father Wins Self-Defense Immunity in Shooting of Bystander

Andrew Branca · Oct 10, 2013

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.

For those who are interested, I did a full legal analysis of the issues of this case as a guest-poster over at Legal Insurrection:

South Carolina Father Wins Self-Defense Immunity in Shooting of Bystander (http://is.gd/WEvrxS)

Looking forward to seeing a bunch of you at the upcoming Columbia seminar.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

11B3XCIB · Oct 10, 2013

Does SC not have a law that would place the homicide charges on the people who were attacking Mr. Scott and his daughter? Since they were the ones in commission of the crime and a death occurred because of their criminal activity, the blame should be on them.

I'm a little surprised the State AG is appealing the judge's ruling. He clearly fired in self defense and in the defense of others.

John Canuck · Oct 10, 2013

snip

11B3XCIB said:
I'm a little surprised the State AG is appealing the judge's ruling. He clearly fired in self defense and in the defense of others.

It's been my experience that some are not in favor of self defense and will attack it whenever possible.

John Canuck · Oct 10, 2013

snip

Law of Self Defense said:
Looking forward to seeing a bunch of you at the upcoming Columbia seminar.

Will there be one of these in Greenville anytime?

armaborealis · Oct 10, 2013

I don't know -- need more details, like the actual ruling, to say if this is a valid application of the law or not.

I personally thought that the Castle Doctrine ended at your porch based on the definitions in the law. It doesn't cover you if you're standing on your lawn, by a strict reading.

11B3XCIB · Oct 10, 2013

armaborealis said:
I don't know -- need more details, like the actual ruling, to say if this is a valid application of the law or not.

I personally thought that the Castle Doctrine ended at your porch based on the definitions in the law. It doesn't cover you if you're standing on your lawn, by a strict reading.

I assumed the Castle Doctrine was extended to him because he was in his yard and being shot at.

John Canuck · Oct 10, 2013

This is a good read --> http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/so ... bystander/

Andrew Branca · Oct 11, 2013

John Canuck said:
snip

Law of Self Defense said:

Looking forward to seeing a bunch of you at the upcoming Columbia seminar.

Click to expand...

Will there be one of these in Greenville anytime?

I'd be happy to come to Greenville, if anyone there wants to host a seminar (meaning, really, just provide the space, maybe an LCD projector). If you, or someone you know, might be interested in hosting a seminar, there's logistics information on the "seminar" page of my blog. Alternatively, Greenville looks to be only about 1:30hr drive from Columbia--folks have travelled a lot farther than that for an LOSD Seminar.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Andrew Branca · Oct 11, 2013

John Canuck said:
This is a good read --> http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/so ... bystander/

Kind of you to say so.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Andrew Branca · Oct 11, 2013

armaborealis said:
I don't know -- need more details, like the actual ruling, to say if this is a valid application of the law or not.

I personally thought that the Castle Doctrine ended at your porch based on the definitions in the law. It doesn't cover you if you're standing on your lawn, by a strict reading.

The purpose of the Castle Doctrine is to provide an exemption to an otherwise existing duty to retreat (e.g., normally you would have been required to retreat under the circumstances before resorting to the use of force in self-defense, but because you were in your "castle" that duty will be waived).

A duty to retreat can only ever apply, however, if there exists a safe avenue of retreat in the first place. There is no duty to retreat if doing so would increase one's risk.

A person in open terrain (e.g., their front yard) who is being subject to gun fire is clearly unable to withdraw faster than a speeding bullet. In such circumstances it is generally accepted that there is no totally safe avenue of retreat.

No safe avenue of retreat, ergo no duty to retreat.

No duty to retreat, ergo no need to rely upon the "Castle Doctrine" to provide an exemption to a non-existent duty.

Of course, self-defense cases are always exquisitely fact-sensitive, and small changes in the facts can have large changes in the outcome.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Andrew Branca · Oct 11, 2013

armaborealis said:
I don't know -- need more details, like the actual ruling, to say if this is a valid application of the law or not.

I personally thought that the Castle Doctrine ended at your porch based on the definitions in the law. It doesn't cover you if you're standing on your lawn, by a strict reading.

"Curtilage includes outbuildings, the yard around a dwelling, a garden of the dwelling, or the parking lot of a business." State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538 (SC Supreme Court 1998). [As cited favorably in the famous State v. Dickey, 394 S.C. 491 (SC Supreme Court 2011).]

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense