Not true.
The law recognizes that some people are absurd in their fears. Ultimately, it's going to be whether the threat is considered reasonable by general standards, not by your own standards.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
South Carolina store owner acquitted of murder in 2023 killing of Black teen
- Thread starter essentialsaltes
- Start date
The law recognizes that some people are absurd in their fears. Ultimately, it's going to be whether the threat is considered reasonable by general standards, not by your own standards.
- Mar 27, 2007
- 40,191
- 7,203
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Or you IF you had the means to defend yourself.
What part of what I said contradicts what I wrote? I clearly stated that “Presented with a situation like this one, where the life of a loved one was at risk, I don’t know at which point I would deem the threat over.”
Upvote
0
Speaking as someone who is licensed to carry, and sometimes do carry (I've got two loaded pistols within 3 feet of me at this moment):
No.
That story as given indicates that the threat had clearly ended.
Had the races been reversed, I have zero doubts a black store owner would have been convicted.
Upvote
0
Depends on how South Carolina law has been defining "malice aforethought" by case precedent.
In Texas, "malice aforethought" does not require having sat down and planned out the murder. A couple of seconds of anger suffices for a basic murder charge--giving it more significant thought would make it "capital murder."
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 40,191
- 7,203
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
In this case, the “spur of the moment” defense mitigated the intent required for a murder charge in South Carolina. The prosecutor should have pursued a voluntary manslaughter charge instead.
Upvote
0
Harder than you might think to find a private seller who will legally sell to an unknown buyer. They are aware that, in most cases, they're the last person the gun can be traced to. So, they're going to do a certain amount of informal profiling.
Upvote
0
That tells me he was energized by anger rather than fear--an intention to make a point and send a message.
Upvote
0
chilehed
Veteran
That's why I said some kind of murder charge, understanding that, generally, murder is "the unlawful killing of a human being with some degree of intent" and that between jurisdictions there are different names for the various types of unlawful killings of human beings and a lot of variation and overlap between the definitions. The facts as I understand them seem to fit what I understand is a common definition of second degree murder.
Perhaps the prosecution thought that the fact that Chow chased him down after he'd already left the store proved malice aforethought, but it might have been a good idea to ask for an included lesser charge. I'd never heard of this case before seeing this thread, now I want to watch the entire trial.
Maybe it'll turn out that the kid started pointing the gun at Chow during the pursuit. If the kid stole something (as appears to be the case) then Chow had the right to chase him, and during such a chase the thief doesn't have the right to a self-defense claim merely because he's being chased on account of his own unlawful act.
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 40,191
- 7,203
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
The jury disagreed. Again, the shop owner had a better chance of getting convicted of voluntary manslaughter which does not require proving intent.
Upvote
0
There is a bit of nuance:
We had a case in Texas where an armed man entered a small diner and robbed the people inside. He had turned--ostensibly to leave--when one diner drew and fired on him, striking him in the back.
Most likely the robber would have actually fled the scene. But he was still in the diner at that moment, gun still in his hand, and there's no guarantee he would not have decided to turn around and eliminate the witnesses. He was justifiably still a threat as long as he was in the diner.
Upvote
0
Tuur
Well-Known Member
- Oct 12, 2022
- 4,235
- 2,017
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
What any of us would do in that situation is an open question unless we’ve faced it or something like it. I would like to think that I wouldn’t, even if angry, and based on something that happened years ago, sans firearms, I don’t think I would, but I don’t know with 100% certainty. That wouldn’t be justification, but simply is what it is.
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 40,191
- 7,203
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
According to the YouTube video of the trial the jury make up included 5 white jurors, 5 black jurors, and 2 of unknown race. On what grounds are you basing your opinion that if the store owner would have been black he would have been convicted? Do you think that the same 5 black jurors would have voted to convict if the shop owner was black?
Upvote
0
Tuur
Well-Known Member
- Oct 12, 2022
- 4,235
- 2,017
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Actually, it can, depending on how angry someone is. The problem with that kind of anger is that no one stops to think about what they are doing. Maybe the chase = malicious forethought to the prosecutor, but Chow doing CPR argues against that. Better voluntary manslaughter, that could have still brought hefty jail time, than a charge that was kind of iffy.
Upvote
0
Don't suppose that black people can't be prejudiced against black people. Don't suppose that black people can't be prejudiced in favor of white people.
Four hundred years of psyop works.
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 40,191
- 7,203
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
chilehed
Veteran
It definitely would have been an easer charge to convict on. However, what I'm seeing is that in S. Carolina it's malice that's not an element of manslaughter; the presence of intent is the difference between voluntary (with intent) manslaughter and involuntary (without intent) manslaughter.
Columbia Manslaughter Lawyer | Voluntary & Involuntary
A Columbia manslaughter lawyer could gather evidence to prove you did not intend to kill another. Call now for a confidential meeting.
sccriminallaws.com
Murder vs Manslaughter South Carolina | Mo Abusaft
Learn how South Carolina law distinguishes murder from manslaughter, including intent, malice, and key legal factors that affect charges and possible penalties.
Manslaughter - Charleston Criminal Defense
Manslaughter defense lawyer in Charleston SC. When malice cannot be proven, a person may be charged or convicted of voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter requires an intent to kill but without malice, and involuntary manslaughter requires only criminal...
gbslawfirm.com
One might say that shooting someone definitively shows intent to kill them, given that it's lethal force by definition. On the other hand, a lawful use of deadly force requires that the intent be to "stop the threat" and not to "kill the attacker", which seems to indicate that you can't necessarily prove intent to kill merely because lethal force was used. However, if the kid never threatened lethal force inside the store (at least one witness testified that that was the case), then there was no threat that needed to be stopped, and certainly no threat once he fled the store. What happened outside? I have no clue, and, as @rjs330 has so pithily observed, apparently neither do any of us.
At least not until we've all sat through the trial. So I suggest we all do that.
Upvote
0
- Mar 27, 2007
- 40,191
- 7,203
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
We are talking past each other. That has been my point since I started posting in this thread. None of us actually know the evidence that the jury considered unless we actually heard it.It definitely would have been an easer charge to convict on. However, what I'm seeing is that in S. Carolina it's malice that's not an element of manslaughter; the presence of intent is the difference between voluntary (with intent) manslaughter and involuntary (without intent) manslaughter.
Columbia Manslaughter Lawyer | Voluntary & Involuntary
A Columbia manslaughter lawyer could gather evidence to prove you did not intend to kill another. Call now for a confidential meeting.Murder vs Manslaughter South Carolina | Mo Abusaft
Learn how South Carolina law distinguishes murder from manslaughter, including intent, malice, and key legal factors that affect charges and possible penalties.www.moabusaftlaw.com
Manslaughter - Charleston Criminal Defense
Manslaughter defense lawyer in Charleston SC. When malice cannot be proven, a person may be charged or convicted of voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter requires an intent to kill but without malice, and involuntary manslaughter requires only criminal...
One might say that shooting someone definitively shows intent to kill them, given that it's lethal force by definition. On the other hand, a lawful use of deadly force requires that the intent be to "stop the threat" and not to "kill the attacker", which seems to indicate that you can't necessarily prove intent to kill merely because lethal force was used. However, if the kid never threatened lethal force inside the store (at least one witness testified that that was the case), then there was no threat that needed to be stopped, and certainly no threat once he fled the store. What happened outside? I have no clue, and, as @rjs330 has so pithily observed, apparently neither do any of us.
At least not until we've all sat through the trial. So I suggest we all do that.
Upvote
0
I have not seen an example of someone with zero prejudices. Some people have learned to push their prejudices aside quickly, though.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
