Manslaughter Conviction replaced with directed verdict of SD

[ELB]

"News" account. Quotes because it appears it was bascially a reprint of a press release by the petitioner's lawyer. Doesn't mean it is wrong or inaccurate, but not straight news (if there is such a thing) account.
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/247pr/249871" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SC Supreme Court Decision here:
http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27047.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe I am cynical/biased, but I can't help but thinking that the prosecutor, judge, maybe the jury, and the appellate court really wanted to put this guy in jail for using a gun...

Synopsis:

After complaints by host, apartment security guard (license, concealed handgun, 30% VA disability, messed up foot) tells loud and inebriated visitor to leave. When visitor refuses, guard calls cops. Visitor decides to go. Guard follows to exit of apartment building and out onto sidewalk where he expects to meet the police and point out visitor's direction of travel. Visitor and buddy turn back towards guard, advance rapidly while trash talking, and visitor reaches under his shirt for what turns out to be a bottle of booze. Guard pulls pistol and fires, killing visitor.

This just prior to SC enacting "Stand your ground" and "Castle Doctrine" law. Prosecutor gets murder indictment from GJ. Trial jury given choice of murder or voluntary manslaughter, convicts on manslaughter. Sixteen year sentence. Appellate court refuses to over turn. All but one Supreme Court member votes to overturn, says should have been a directed verdict for acquittal from the beginning (i.e. there was no evidence of a crime to support prosecution). Guard spent five years in prison.

Interesting comments in decision about interpretation of guard's actions -- language used, manner, how other people percieved his state of mind, etc. Not very long, good reading, things to think about.

[C-dub]

And probably nothing will be done to punish the prosecutor, DA, and judge of the first trial or appellate court for their part in this injustice.

[The Annoyed Man]

And probably nothing will be done to punish the prosecutor, DA, and judge of the first trial or appellate court for their part in this injustice.

Seems to me that if the Supreme Court overturns, that makes it a wrongful prosecution, not just a mistake, and the man spent 5 years of his life behind bars for it—a severe deprivation of his civil rights. I would sue if I were him, and I would name the prosecuting jurisdiction, and the DA and judge personally as co-defendants, and I would make it so expensive for the defendants that this type of travesty would not likely happen again.

[C-dub]

And probably nothing will be done to punish the prosecutor, DA, and judge of the first trial or appellate court for their part in this injustice.

Seems to me that if the Supreme Court overturns, that makes it a wrongful prosecution, not just a mistake, and the man spent 5 years of his life behind bars for it—a severe deprivation of his civil rights. I would sue if I were him, and I would name the prosecuting jurisdiction, and the DA and judge personally as co-defendants, and I would make it so expensive for the defendants that this type of travesty would not likely happen again.

I would too, but those that allowed this injustice won't pay anything that is awarded and they will keep their jobs.

[Kythas]

One thing that struck me on the Supreme Court's decision was this line:

The State did not produce any evidence to contradict Petitioner's testimony he routinely carried the concealed weapon, and did not deliberately arm himself in anticipation of a conflict that evening.

I read this as follows: If a person does not routinely carry a concealed weapon, but only does so when he believes the probability of its need is high, this may be seen as a provocation. However, if one routinely carries a concealed weapon, the fact that a person is carrying the weapon would not be seen as a provocation.

Very interesting and further reason to carry 24/7.

[ELB]

One thing that struck me on the Supreme Court's decision was this line:

The State did not produce any evidence to contradict Petitioner's testimony he routinely carried the concealed weapon, and did not deliberately arm himself in anticipation of a conflict that evening.

I read this as follows: If a person does not routinely carry a concealed weapon, but only does so when he believes the probability of its need is high, this may be seen as a provocation. However, if one routinely carries a concealed weapon, the fact that a person is carrying the weapon would not be seen as a provocation.

Very interesting and further reason to carry 24/7.

Yes, that is one of the things that jumped out at me too.

[MasterOfNone]

And probably nothing will be done to punish the prosecutor, DA, and judge of the first trial or appellate court for their part in this injustice.

Seems to me that if the Supreme Court overturns, that makes it a wrongful prosecution, not just a mistake, and the man spent 5 years of his life behind bars for it—a severe deprivation of his civil rights. I would sue if I were him, and I would name the prosecuting jurisdiction, and the DA and judge personally as co-defendants, and I would make it so expensive for the defendants that this type of travesty would not likely happen again.

I would too, but those that allowed this injustice won't pay anything that is awarded and they will keep their jobs.

This is the biggest problem with such lawsuits. The only people who suffer the judgement are the taxpayers of the jurisdiction. It would be much better to make the offending parties individually liable, setting a precedent that will deter inappropriate conduct from future people in such positions.

[ELB]

.... The only people who suffer the judgement are the taxpayers of the jurisdiction. ...

While I have no problem with sticking the bill to judges, prosecutors, cops Senators, Representatives, Mayors, and any one else caught abusing their trust and positions, it is the taxpayers who hired these guys. It might be more instructive to send every taxpayer a separate bill for their share of a judgement, instead of burying it in the regular tax bills.

[MasterOfNone]

.... The only people who suffer the judgement are the taxpayers of the jurisdiction. ...

While I have no problem with sticking the bill to judges, prosecutors, cops Senators, Representatives, Mayors, and any one else caught abusing their trust and positions, it is the taxpayers who hired these guys. It might be more instructive to send every taxpayer a separate bill for their share of a judgement, instead of burying it in the regular tax bills.

But the taxpayers elect a small portion of the agents of a governmental organization.

[Oldgringo]

And probably nothing will be done to punish the prosecutor, DA, and judge of the first trial or appellate court for their part in this injustice.

Seems to me that if the Supreme Court overturns, that makes it a wrongful prosecution, not just a mistake, and the man spent 5 years of his life behind bars for it—a severe deprivation of his civil rights. I would sue if I were him, and I would name the prosecuting jurisdiction, and the DA and judge personally as co-defendants, and I would make it so expensive for the defendants that this type of travesty would not likely happen again.

, this is where the ACLU comes in, eh? After the poor bloke's original legal fees and five years in the slammer, where is the money coming from to sue these misbegotten and misguided rascals?

[VoiceofReason]

.... The only people who suffer the judgement are the taxpayers of the jurisdiction. ...

While I have no problem with sticking the bill to judges, prosecutors, cops Senators, Representatives, Mayors, and any one else caught abusing their trust and positions, it is the taxpayers who hired these guys. It might be more instructive to send every taxpayer a separate bill for their share of a judgement, instead of burying it in the regular tax bills.

Anything important is never left to the vote of the people. We only get to vote on some man; we never get to vote on what he is to do. -Will Rogers