Update on Deadly Force and the Law in South Carolina

[G50AE]

I also recommend against using the "citizens arrest" laws. It did not work for Goober Pyle on "Mayberry" and will probably not work for you.

Unless you work for a bondsman, like "Dog" the peroxide hunter, citizen's arrest is an idea to avoid.

[bufordtpisser]

Hey buford: I believe everyone agrees that the tow guy had every intention of killing him. Bottom line though, IMO, is that the brandishing occurred first and you can argue that self defense was now the motive, even after 5 shots; the tow guy has every right to defend himself--where exactly was the brandished gun during this time?--many different and changed stories on that point. The brandished gun was found a distance from the dead man and his brother has changed stories several times. It is only the last shot to the head that cannot be "explained". The fact that the solicitor is going with manslaughter indicates that a murder charge might not hold up in a jury trial. Do not get me wrong, this guy was essentially executed but that brandishing moderates the use of that word, particularly if a trial.They do not even use the word "hate crime" for a reason that escapes me--that last shot to the head was followed up with a "feliz navidad" to the brother and the wife.

There is a whole lot wrong with this story. Defense from force means that there needs to have been force. The mere fact that the guy pulled up his shirt to show that he had a weapon does not constitute force. And the fact that the tow operator had to retrieve his gun in order to do the shooting negates self defense. Now if the dead guy pulled the gun and was threatening the tow operator as he was trying to get to his truck, then sure. But the dead guy was shot in the back. Don't get me wrong here, I am all for self defense. I am all for carrying in whatever fashion you wish. I moved to Florida in part because of Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws. But even in Florida, I cannot go retrieve my gun and then start shooting someone when there is no force or fear of force unless someone is in my home or trying to take me out of a place where I have a right to be. This was murder plain and simple, and add the insult to it and the fact that he had to go retrieve his gun, I not only believe it was murder, I believe that it was premeditated murder.

Kelcarry, I appreciate your opinion. And I value your insight. I just don't see self defense because of a lack of force.

[FN1910]

I remember reading a lot of the details of the story about the tow truck driver right after it happened and the story above leaves out a lot of the details and surrounding "gossip". It appears that not only was the tow truck driver in my opinion scum to start with he is guilty of murder and should be shot at sunrise to remove him from the face of the earth. On some thread someone was saying that they had never seen someone that was looking for a fight and to shoot someone but this tow truck driver was that exact type. When the other fellow "brandished" his gun the driver saw it as his chance to shoot someone. He could have easily driven away while he was in his truck and called the police but he used it as his chance to shoot someone.

[kelcarry]

Hey buford: As I said in previous reply, I agree with everything you say about murder. Trials require real facts and there are many inconsistencies here that are only "verified" by a series of different stories from his brother and his wife. Is that all he did---brandish? Did he threaten the tow guy in addition to brandishing? (I'll bet the tow guy's attorney will tell the jury that the guy told him that he will kill him right now if he does not remove the boot on the car and the tow guy, in imminent fear of death, went back to the truck indicating he was going to remove same but was going back to defend himself when the brandisher turned toward him with gun in hand) Why was the firearm found many feet from where he ended up? Was he looking for cover with his firearm out as the tow guy kept shooting "fearing for his life"? This is the kind of crap that muddies the water in trial and probably why solicitor is only looking at manslaughter with its 30 years. Everything about this case and this tow guy is bad news and murder but you need convincing, "beyond a shadow of a doubt" evidence, which is lacking except for the final shot.

[bufordtpisser]

Hey buford: As I said in previous reply, I agree with everything you say about murder. Trials require real facts and there are many inconsistencies here that are only "verified" by a series of different stories from his brother and his wife. Is that all he did---brandish? Did he threaten the tow guy in addition to brandishing? (I'll bet the tow guy's attorney will tell the jury that the guy told him that he will kill him right now if he does not remove the boot on the car and the tow guy, in imminent fear of death, went back to the truck indicating he was going to remove same but was going back to defend himself when the brandisher turned toward him with gun in hand) Why was the firearm found many feet from where he ended up? Was he looking for cover with his firearm out as the tow guy kept shooting "fearing for his life"? This is the kind of crap that muddies the water in trial and probably why solicitor is only looking at manslaughter with its 30 years. Everything about this case and this tow guy is bad news and murder but you need convincing, "beyond a shadow of a doubt" evidence, which is lacking except for the final shot.

We will probably never hear the truth in this story. But let me make one correction, it is not beyond a shadow of a doubt, but beyond all reasonable doubt.