As if we needed another reason to question Stand Your Ground laws

[Hyena Dandy]

There is an important difference between 'Not Guilty' and 'Immune to Prosecution.'

The law stipulates that, in order to claim immunity to prosecution, someone must have been acting lawfully. He was not acting lawfully, because he possessed a firearm. Which he was not allowed to possess. Whether or not he is a murderer is beyond the point there. If he was in fact defending himself, then he shouldn't be found guilty of murder. And ideally, he wouldn't be. However, that would be taken before a jury.

The law in this case is clear. As a felon, he doesn't have a right to own a firearm. Whether you think he SHOULD or not is beside the point. The law says he does not.

As a metaphor - Imagine I stole a car and, for some reason, wasn't going to chop it, but keep it. Then, two days later, someone tries to carjack me (in my already stolen car.) Instead, I slam on the gas, and drive away. In doing so, I run over them.

Now, I will probably not be guilty of the murder. However, this ruling is that not only am I not guilty of murder for running over a carjacker, I'm also not guilty of grand theft auto, because I was using the car to defend myself.

Now, if I had gotten in a car that just happened to be present, and run over an attacker, then I would be immune from prosecution for either of those crimes. I was acting lawfully when I was attacked. Both things I did - Steal the car, hit someone with it and leave the scene - I did because I feared for my life.

The judge's ruling - That possessing a firearm is legal if you use it in self-defense, even if you are forbidden to use it because of your criminal history - Applies the law retroactively. In other words, he's considering both of those situations as the same, and that I wouldn't be a car thief because I eventually ran over someone who attacked me with it.

a) we're not arguing- IF this guy WAS defending himself- that he should be prosecuted for murder. what we are saying is that it does not provide immunity for having an illegal firearm.

I'd argue that if the DA finds there to be sufficient evidence then yes, he should be PROSECUTED. However, he should not be CONVICTED. There's an important difference there. Immunity to prosecution isn't just saying you didn't do it, but that an elected official gets to decide that you can't even be accused of doing it.

[Gravekeeper]

Immunity to prosecution isn't just saying you didn't do it, but that an elected official gets to decide that you can't even be accused of doing it.

That's my foremost problem with this. All of this should be decided in trial by a jury. If he wants to use SYG as a defense ( and it seems pretty clear that was his lawyer's idea after the fact ) then let him do so in front of a jury. If he wants to somehow weasel out of illegal possession of a firearm, let him try in front of a jury.

But saying he can't even be prosecuted for either? Thats absurd and dangerous precedent to be setting. Especially given that he was, by definition, in illegal possession of a firearm. Both as a matter of fact and a matter of admission. There is no reason at all to grant him immunity on that charge.

[wolfie]

Hypothetical situation: someone walks into a shopping mall/fast food place and starts shooting people. One of the first victims is either a cop, or a civilian with a CCP. A convicted felon picks up the victim's dropped gun and kills the shooter.

In a case such as this, the felon should not be prosecuted for possession of a firearm. After all, they didn't have it until after a situation developed in which their life was in immediate danger.

Contrast this to the case on which this thread is based. The convicted felon ALREADY HAD a firearm BEFORE the person he shot came onto the property. He should definitely be prosecuted for having the gun.

[Kara_CS]

Hypothetically, it would be a tricky case because he was technically in violation of the law. He was in possession of a firearm, regardless of how he acquired it and what he did with it. I have no doubt his actions would determine whether or not charges would be pressed, but that would be up to the police, the District Attorney, and the judge.

[Hyena Dandy]

He was in possession of a firearm, regardless of how he acquired it and what he did with it.

The law requires that a person be behaving lawfully prior to defending themselves. In that case, he was behaving lawfully prior to defending himself. He would only be prosecuted if he kept the firearm afterwards.

[Rapscallion]

Hypothetical situation: someone walks into a shopping mall/fast food place and starts shooting people. One of the first victims is either a cop, or a civilian with a CCP. A convicted felon picks up the victim's dropped gun and kills the shooter.

In a case such as this, the felon should not be prosecuted for possession of a firearm. After all, they didn't have it until after a situation developed in which their life was in immediate danger.

Contrast this to the case on which this thread is based. The convicted felon ALREADY HAD a firearm BEFORE the person he shot came onto the property. He should definitely be prosecuted for having the gun.

This sort of circumstance is why we have juries. They're there to take a view on matters and determine partly if the law is applicable. Did the accused act reasonably? That sort of thing.

Throwing hypotheticals out there is fine, but that is already covered by the legal system.

Rapscallion

[Cia]

That would not fly in South Dakota. He would not be "in fear for his life" because he didn't have to open the damn door.

He's a convicted felon. He cannot own a gun and he should be charges will illegal possession of a firearm and tossed back into the clink.

[mjr]

Let's not forget this controversy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Ho...ng_controversy

But as far as Castle Doctrine goes, I do believe there are restrictions. To my knowledge you can't, for instance, invite someone onto your property and then assault/shoot them, and claim you were defending yourself. I could be wrong about that.

The felon in the story can still defend himself. Just not with a firearm.

[Gravekeeper]

But as far as Castle Doctrine goes, I do believe there are restrictions. To my knowledge you can't, for instance, invite someone onto your property and then assault/shoot them, and claim you were defending yourself. I could be wrong about that.

No, you're correct. Luring someone onto your property to invoke Castle Doctrine is entrapment / premeditation. Some guy tried that in Montana I believe it was and got convicted of murder.

[s_stabeler]

actually, it's not- indeed, there's nothing special about luring someone to your home- legally, you cannot deliberately put yourself in a situation where you need to use lethal force. (to use an example, if vampires were considered to be alive- and under some definitions they are- then Buffy from Buffy the Vampire Slayer would, legally, be guilty of murder whenever she staked a vamp.