DomKen
Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004 From: Chicago, IL Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It dies not change the fact that scott....shot the victim, or rather the gun he was holding fired a bullet into an innocent mans head, killing him. Here's the problem I see in your argument; as a matter of law (The Felony-Murder Rule), any death occurring during the commission of a felony is attributed to the perpetrators. If you're defending yourself from a felony, and you accidentally injure or kill someone, they're liable for the death. If two people are holding up a store, and one is shot by the police, the other is charged with murder, even if neither felon had a gun. So if an active felony was in progress, as the judge seems to have believed, and Scott shot at the SUV and missed, then (by law) any death resulting from that shot is the fault of the felons. If the SUV had already fled and Scott wasn't being shot at, I have a harder time understanding how he was given immunity. If it was felony murder charges would never have been made against the man or the judge would have cited that as the reason for dismissing the charges. The reason SYG is relevant is because it says a person cannot be charged with any crime if he believes he is defending himself. It was not felony murder and it did not fall under traditional self defense. It seems clear to me that the judge ruled on SYG because that was what the defense argued and the defense would not have brought it up if a better defense was available.
|