Replies

I think that the shooter needs to be able to demonstrate that there was an immanent threat to his life or property beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, I think that the benefit of the doubt should run against him, and he should be made an example of to people who have no business owning guns.

The only way to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a threat is to wake up dead or hospitalized in the morning.

The standard in my state (ND) is such that the use of lethal force be predicated on reasonable belief that the shooter is acting to avoid serious bodily injury or death, or intervening on behalf of a third party to prevent serious bodily injury to or death of that party. Even if the shooter is wrong about the situation, the reasonable belief becomes an affirmative defense.

Here, the question becomes one of 'Did the man believe he was being seriously threatened?'. We do not know if the man had recieved death threats, owed his bookie, etc. and felt this was the 'enforcer' come to collect.

It is a shame that the kid paid with his life for the stupidity of rousting people after midnight. The shooter will probably lose everything in a civil suit, even if he is acquitted.

As for shooting in the back, I didn't see in the article where anyone stated with certainty that this was the case.

"The only way to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a threat is to wake up dead or hospitalized in the morning."

I think that a very consistent story from the shooter plus a good reputation would establish confidence beyond a reasonable doubt. A pattern of what the kid did to other people would help, or statements by other family members or even people who showed up moments after the shooting would cover him. If the shooter has none of that, I think he should be up for murder.

I don’t doubt what you say about NC law. But I don’t think that’s morally right. I like the consistency of reasonable doubt being required to take a life in and out of court. It’s “reasonable” for me to think today’s a good picnic day, but there’s a 20% chance of rain. Because the consequences of taking the wrong life is much more grave than having a picnic rained out, I think the standards should be much higher.

"Otherwise, there remains a presumption of innocence in our court system, which many have forgotten here, and especially in the Press, who would take on the role of judge, jury, and executioner. "

And there’s the predicament. The tables are turned, and the shooter’s the only one who has no responsibility to consider the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence fundamental to our judicial system, but in this case the judge, jury and executioner’s are exempt. His actions are apparently overlooked unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he had no “reasonable belief that the shooter is acting to avoid serious bodily injury or death”.

That bar’s incredibly low. I’ve had that reasonable belief a dozen times, in fights or near fights as a young man or even on the highway with road raged drivers. I knew better than to kill because of it, but apparently the law in NC would have supported my ability to do so, presuming I did not provoke it.

Not enough time to evaluate before pulling the trigger? I’d rather that just be the risk one takes when arming themselves. Perhaps the added gravity of that self danger would promote the kind of forethought and risk avoidance that would minimize these incidents.