In the 7/30 issue of Charleston's Post & Courier, there were, by happenstance, updates on two firearm/defense cases that both occurred in Bluffton, SC.
In Case 1, a judge denied a motion to drop a manslaughter charge against a Bluffton man who shot his unarmed neighbor on his front stoop. The argument that he was protecting his home, ala Castle Doctrine, was dismissed by the judge who indicated that "there is no evidence of an attempt to commit a forcible entry in the house" and does not extend to the front stoop; if he had kicked in the door instead of just coming up to the house to ask for a garage door opener, the solicitor said he would not have brought charges. Even though the dead man had a 029 blood alcohol level, and, according to the shooter's attorney, had previously pointed a gun at the shooter and threatened him via voicemail, he did nothing that day to warrant a self-defense killing. There is enough there to think about and perhaps more will come out when this goes to trial.
Case 2 revisits a Xmas eve shooting where a tow truck operator is charged with manslaughter for killing a Bluffton man. The tow operator had booted his car and in the ensuing argument, the Bluffton man "brandished" a firearm as he lifted his coat to reveal a firearm in his waistband. The tow operator, went back to his truck and retrieved his firearm and ended up shooting the Bluffton man four times in the back, once in the arm and a final shot to the head. The tow operator has been held in jail since Xmas and had tried to escape but the judge ruled that the tow operator could still have bail because he has not been charged with a capital offense. He ended up shooting the man in the head as a final goodbye, tried to escape from jail and will now get bond----the only reason the solicitor did not bring a capital murder charge is because the circumstances of the "brandishing" and dubious witness statements would probably make it difficult to prove murder--there is certainly room for arguing self defense, at least before the shot to the head. Apparently the judge is just following the demands of the law in allowing bond---I don't get it.
In Case 1, a judge denied a motion to drop a manslaughter charge against a Bluffton man who shot his unarmed neighbor on his front stoop. The argument that he was protecting his home, ala Castle Doctrine, was dismissed by the judge who indicated that "there is no evidence of an attempt to commit a forcible entry in the house" and does not extend to the front stoop; if he had kicked in the door instead of just coming up to the house to ask for a garage door opener, the solicitor said he would not have brought charges. Even though the dead man had a 029 blood alcohol level, and, according to the shooter's attorney, had previously pointed a gun at the shooter and threatened him via voicemail, he did nothing that day to warrant a self-defense killing. There is enough there to think about and perhaps more will come out when this goes to trial.
Case 2 revisits a Xmas eve shooting where a tow truck operator is charged with manslaughter for killing a Bluffton man. The tow operator had booted his car and in the ensuing argument, the Bluffton man "brandished" a firearm as he lifted his coat to reveal a firearm in his waistband. The tow operator, went back to his truck and retrieved his firearm and ended up shooting the Bluffton man four times in the back, once in the arm and a final shot to the head. The tow operator has been held in jail since Xmas and had tried to escape but the judge ruled that the tow operator could still have bail because he has not been charged with a capital offense. He ended up shooting the man in the head as a final goodbye, tried to escape from jail and will now get bond----the only reason the solicitor did not bring a capital murder charge is because the circumstances of the "brandishing" and dubious witness statements would probably make it difficult to prove murder--there is certainly room for arguing self defense, at least before the shot to the head. Apparently the judge is just following the demands of the law in allowing bond---I don't get it.