Shooters in Summer Moody case will not be charged.

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/26/16/summer-moody-dies-ar-3678671/

"The three fisherman will not be charged in the shooting death of Summer Moody. Baldwin County District Attorney Hallie Dixon calls it a horrible, tragic accidental shooting.

Moody was shot in the head April 15 after police say her boyfriend, Scott Byrd, Daniel Parnell and Dylan Tyree broke into a fish camp on Gravine Island in the Tensaw River Delta.

Three fisherman, William Hearn, Lonnie Davison and Larry Duncan Jr. heard the 4:00 a.m. burglary and hopped in a boat to check it out. The Sheriff's Office says when the fisherman spotted two of the teenage burglary suspects running away, Hearn and Duncan fired warning shots with rifles in the opposite direction. One of their bullets hit Moody, who was hiding behind a Palmetto bush."

Also, Summer Moody has died after being removed from life support.

[Politicalboi]

1. That's ridiculous

You should NEVER shoot till you see what you're shooting at. I mean what did he think was in the bushes? They had no right to go and shoot at people. I would assume her parents are going to civil court, as they should. I know money doesn't bring her back, but if he can't pay, at least he may be jailed for that. Enough of this "Fire" "Aim" "Ready" shit.

[Atypical Liberal]

3. In Alabama, you can't be charged with a civil suit.

In Alabama, under our SYG laws, you are immune from criminal and civil charges.

[Logical]

5. But this was ruled an accident not SYG

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. I was thinking...

...that SYG did not apply and for that reason there was no civil immunity, but I could be wrong.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. I assumed since they were shooting in defense of property

I assumed since they were shooting in defense of property that the statute that permits that action would apply.

They weren't even arrested.

[Angry Dragon]

2. Nothing but murder

[hack89]

4. Manslaughter at best - not murder.

not if they did not know she was there.

[Hoyt]

8. Yea didn't know she was there, but hit her right square in the head. BS.

[hack89]

9. It's the boys that could be charged with murder

if it is determined she was killed while the group was commiting a felony.

It might be best for them if the DA views this as a tragic accident and takes it no further.

[Angry Dragon]

17. B&E is not a felony I do not think

[gejohnston]

18. Last time I checked

the DA was charging the kids with first degree burglary because one of them possessed a firearm.

[shadowrider]

20. Which means they may be charged with murder/some other charge.

[Atypical Liberal]

31. 2 firearms and a knife.

.22 rifle, .32 pistol, and a knife.

[Callisto32]

46. Burglary generally is.

[frylock]

22. other than "noises" what proof is there that the boys were commiting burglary?

[hack89]

34. There is a reason I said "if it is determined"

I don't know what the investigation will say.

[DonP]

41. Police reports listed stolen items ...

... from several of the cabins on the island were found in their possession, along with a firearm that make it aggravated burglary.

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. I hope they pay a price somewhere down the road.

If there is any justice, they will.

[gejohnston]

25. they just might

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/27/gravine-island-investigation-not-over-ar-3689228/
According to this, the ATF may scoop them up for being felons in possession (mandatory min. of five years. So if you happen to see Tom DeLay or G. Gordon Liddy at the range, please call the ATF hotline) Under Alabama state law, felons may possess long guns but not handguns. Since they had rifles, they are good under Alabama law. Federal law on the other hand, is a different issue. It seems that warning shots are legal, that is why it is an accident.
We probably agree that Alabama law sucks in these cases. Warning shots are rarely if ever good and should not be legal. You either shoot the person attacking you (while he is attacking you) or you don't at all.

[Hoyt]

42. Hope so.

[gejohnston]

43. Hope so about the ATF and felon in possession?

If so,

[Doctor_J]

64. your toon is apt

these killers will be "scooped up" the day after hell freezes over.

[gejohnston]

67. I trust you have as much

faith in the ATF doing their jobs properly as I do? Look on the bright side, before the ATF was created in the 1970s, it was the IRS's job. The IRS simply did not bother doing the job.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Bad call by all concerned.

This was a clear cut case of negligent homicide. Negligent discharging of a firearm. A legal warning shot is one where the shooter knows what or who is possibly in the way. Shooting into the dark does not count.

[hack89]

12. Can you show where "warning shot" is defined in the legal code? nt

[gejohnston]

23. It it seems that warning shots are legal

in Alabama.
forgot link.
http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/27/gravine-island-investigation-not-over-ar-3689228/
the ATF is still investigating the "felon in possession charge"

[Doctor_J]

60. Shots that hit unarmed people in the head should be illegal

even in a zoo like Alabama

[gejohnston]

62. I didn't say I agreed with it

I only said it seems to be the case. I don't vote in Alabama, and I don't have a shit load of money to give to anyone in their state legislature, they really don't care what I think. If you can work to change it, by all means go for it.

[Starboard Tack]

36. No. I don't think it is defined.

But you might find this interesting http://www.laaw.com/sig_warnshot.htm

Or this

1
Things to consider before firing a warning shot

A warning shot is the use of "deadly force" in Florida, and "deadly force" can only be legally used to stop or prevent the imminent commission of a "forcible felony" (ie: only the most serious felonies), or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another person. If you decide to fire a warning shot to try to stop an attack -- your legal position is the same as if you actually shot the intruder.
2
Legal repercussions of firing a warning shot

While a person may lawfully use "non-deadly force" in almost all situations in defending themself -- using "deadly force" when that is not permitted is usually a felony. Thus, under Florida's very tough mandatory minimum sentencing provisions -- the unlawful use of deadly force will normally carry a 20 year mandatory minimum prison sentence! A very good reason not to use warning shots except in the most dire of circumstances
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/warning-shots-----a-hidden-danger-to-those-using-self-defense

or this
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-columns/its-just-the-law/warning-shots/

[gejohnston]

38. in other words

the shooter's ass would be grass in Florida. Might still be with the feds.

[Starboard Tack]

39. Indeed

What surprised me was the DA and supposedly, all the cops investigating signed off on the "accidental shooting" BS. Once the trigger is squeezed, there is no accident.

[gejohnston]

11. How is the federal investigation going?

the local ATF said they were looking in to the claim that the fishermen were convicted felons.

[iverglas]

13. "accidental shooting"?

Nobody accidentally discharged a firearm.

Nobody discharged a firearm at a legitimate, lawful target and, through no fault of their own, hit something else.

Somebody discharged a firearm recklessly.

Here is how they would - unquestionably - be charged in Canada, and what the offence is punishable by:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html

Manslaughter

234. Culpable homicide that is not murder or infanticide is manslaughter.

Manslaughter

236. Every person who commits manslaughter is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Frankly, there's an argument to be made for murder:

Murder

229. Culpable homicide is murder

(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being

(i) means to cause his death, or

(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or

(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

Accident? By bloody definition, no.

edit to add:

Discharging firearm — recklessness

244.2 (1) Every person commits an offence

(a) who intentionally discharges a firearm into or at a place, knowing that or being reckless as to whether another person is present in the place; or

(b) who intentionally discharges a firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of another person.

Punishment

(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(i) five years, in the case of a first offence, and

(ii) seven years, in the case of a second or subsequent offence; and

(b) in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

Firearms offences are among the few mandatory-minimum sentence offences in Canada.


But in some places, if somebody has a gun, whatever they do with it is legal, it seems.

Including killing people. Outrageous and atrocious, to the civilized world.

[shadowrider]

14. In case you haven't noticed, Canada is not Alabama. n/t

[iverglas]

16. ah

So there is no right to life in Alabama, and no duty on the state to enact and enforce legislation that protects and promotes the exercise of that right by individuals within its jurisdiction.

Gotcha.

How sad!

[shadowrider]

19. Strawman. I never said what you said I said

All I said was, Canada isn't Alabama, no more no less.

[iverglas]

21. absolutely; no more nor less than nothing

is what you said.

Mars isn't Pluto, either.

And Pluto isn't Minnie Mouse.

People don't generally say they are. Like I didn't say Canada was Alabama. It was so kind of you to let me know it isn't, nonetheless.

Alabama is apparently not a civilized society, was my point. Perhaps you got it. Hmm, yes, I think you probably did.

[iverglas]

24. Alabama is Alabama

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/codeofalabama/1975/106394.htm

Section 13A-6-3
Manslaughter.

(a) A person commits the crime of manslaughter if:

(1) He recklessly causes the death of another person, or

(2) He causes the death of another person under circumstances that would constitute murder under Section 13A-6-2; except, that he causes the death due to a sudden heat of passion caused by provocation recognized by law, and before a reasonable time for the passion to cool and for reason to reassert itself.

(b) Manslaughter is a Class B felony.


Section 13A-6-4
Criminally negligent homicide.

(a) A person commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide if he causes the death of another person by criminal negligence.

(b) The jury may consider statutes and ordinances regulating the actor's conduct in determining whether he is culpably negligent under subsection (a) of this section.

(c) Criminally negligent homicide is a Class A misdemeanor, except in cases in which said criminally negligent homicide is caused by the driver of a motor vehicle who is driving in violation of the provisions of Section 32-5A-191; in such cases criminally negligent homicide is a Class C felony.

This was not negligence; it was recklessness.

And even in Alabama, recklessly causing the death of another person seems to be a crime.

[gejohnston]

26. could be because they claimed "warning shots"

warning shots are legal in Alabama under those circumstances. That seems to put it in the same class as a hunting accident. Not saying I think that is the way it should be, just saying that seems to be the case.

[iverglas]

27. but nonsense

In the dark or with otherwise obscured vision, a legitimate "warning shot" would be into the ground within short range.

A "warning shot" discharged without regard for where it goes / without knowing what is in the line of fire, as this plainly was, is reckless.

[gejohnston]

28. we agree on that

I'm just saying what seems to be the DA's thinking. I didn't say I agreed with it or that I liked it.

A "warning shot" discharged without regard for where it goes / without knowing what is in the line of fire, as this plainly was, is reckless.

where were you when I needed you?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=25887
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=25902

[iverglas]

29. well, on March 29

I was bashing away like a madwoman trying to get my billing done before govt fiscal year-end, to avoid being throttled by marauding clerks.

There's a false dichotomy in that discussion, though. Shoot in the head vs. shoot over the head.

Not shoot at all is always an option. In the Alabama case, try just yelling. Presumably the would-be camp raiders, or whatever they were doing, had counted on obtaining vacant possession of the premises and finding there was occupation might well have changed their minds. In the case in that thread, wait a tiny instant to see whether the person who broke down the door turns tail upon seeing the gun ("So once he came inside my house, I shot him&quot .


Here's my big question in this case:

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/20/4/men-involved-summer-moody-shooting-identified-ar-3644145/

News 5 did some digging and we learned William Hearn has a criminal record. He was arrested in Lawrenceville, Georgia, outside Atlanta, in 1996 for trafficking cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Hearn was then arrested in Semmes in 2010 because he failed to check in with his probation officer for three months.

He is the one whose shot killed Moody.

Why did he have a firearm, and why is he not being charged in connection with his possession of the firearm?

Just seems to me like a case where his credibility could do with a little trial by jury.

[gejohnston]

32. to answer your question

In that case, it was shooting over the head with a rifle (one powerful and legal for deer in anyplace, likely to go through the wall and keep going) in Detroit. The bullet would still fall in Detroit/Wayne County (or Windsor depending on where the house location or direction). Not shooting in that case did not seem to be a viable option.

Back to Alabama,
In Florida and Wyoming, not shooting would be the only legal option.
according to the link I put in another post, under Alabama law allows felons to have long guns but not pistols.
The ATF is still investigating because it is a federal crime for him to have any firearm as a convicted felon. Will the local US attorney and ATF actually do anything? We will both be hoping for the same thing.

[Scout]

51. thank the Goddess for her favors....

one Alabama is already too many.

[PavePusher]

52. Regional bigotry? Really? n/t

[shadowrider]

53. Consider the source n/t

[iverglas]

65. just because I can't resist

It's never the wrong time for a little Dead Phil

Could just as well have been Alabama.

Some things are truth.

And continue to be:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-rushing/alabamas-immigration-law_b_992801.html

Pretty funny, though, calling someone who disses a bigoted right-wing collective entity a bigot.

[PavePusher]

70. And you endorse the vileness.

Color me unsurprised.

[oneshooter]

33. Why should we care what the law is in Canada. I for one

have no plans to visit such a backward piece of real estate.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ileus]

35. Used to be my territory...in the 90's.

I liked Canada pretty well... I wouldn't mind living there if firearm rights were better and the weather much much warmer.

[Starboard Tack]

37. LOL Have you ever been to Canada?

Why would you call it a backward piece of real estate? I have traveled extensively throughout the world, including a few years in Canada, and I can assure you it is one of the most beautiful places on earth, most people are friendly and respectful, they resist being bullied by their neighbor to the south and I'm sure they respect your decision without prejudice.

[oneshooter]

40. Never been there, don't plan to either.

I base my ideas about Canada from the Canadian posters here. Most all have been foul mouthed, rude, and totally unable to understand US law, and unwilling to try to.

Been all over Africa, South America, some parts of Europe and the Middle East, most of the Far East, and some places that don't really have a name.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

45. You base your ideas about Canada on people you argue with in a gun forum?

That's like basing one's views of Texas and Texans on Dubya and Rick Perry, or the Dallas Cowboys. Or do you base your feelings about everyone on their views and interest in guns?

[oneshooter]

47. They represent Canada on this forum. I find them mostly crude and foul mouthed.

If they are representative of Canada, and Canadians, then I will never want to visit such a backward country.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

49. Your insightfulness is astounding.

It says so much, especially for Canada.

[iverglas]

48. imagine if us furriners ...

based our ideas of people from the US or its various states on what their "representatives" say in the Guns forum ...



Not that I think for an instant that the ideas in question about Canadians are based on what is asserted anyhow.

[Starboard Tack]

50. OMG

Qu'est-ce qu'on peut dire?

[sarisataka]

54. Je dirais leur donnent une pause, pas tous les Américains sont des imbéciles.Jjuste une pluralité

It is their upbringing. I blame it on football (American) and Budwiser.

And on this issue I stand with you. I see negligence that should be sent to a jury.

[Starboard Tack]

55. LOL

[Doctor_J]

58. Once again an unarmed person is dead after being shot,

and not posing any threat to the gunman. And once again no one will be held accountable.

Welcome to USNRA

[petronius]

15. I dislike this, for a couple of reasons: mainly, because I have a high

threshold for what constitutes an excusably 'accidental' shooting, and firing blindly into the bushes doesn't meet that level under any circumstances at all.

More specifically, the bullet wasn't fired by accident, it was fired deliberately in an attempt to communicate a message to other people. I don't know what Alabama law says, but IMO it's only justifiable to fire at other people (and they clearly fired in the direction of the kids, even if they didn't know she specifically was there) when you reasonably fear death or serious injury. It seems premature to let the shooter off the hook before making determinations about the actions (if any) of the teens that would have justified firing.

It could be that AL allows warning shots, but even if so this one wasn't fired responsibly and resulted in death - a jury should be allowed to decide if that's a crime. If warning shots at other people are not generally OK, then it needs to be determined if there was a justification for this one before deciding to not charge the shooter...

[mvccd1000]

44. I don't like "warning shots"

Once you pull the trigger, you're responsible for what happens. If you're not stopping an assault or a criminal advancing toward you, I'd have a hard time imagining any reason to shoot. One those grounds alone, I think the shooters in this case went too far and should be held responsible in some way.

Having said that, I still think the majority of the blame and responsibility in this case lies with the criminals who caused the entire event. The survivors should be charged with felony murder.

[Doctor_J]

56. So the SYG laws now apply to shooting people who are running away

this appears to take the Tayvon case one step further - Tayvon was just standing still. Now a person running away from the gun nut can still be considered a threat.

Tell me again where the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to kill someone who's fleeing.

[gejohnston]

59. catch a clue

this appears to take the Tayvon case one step further - Tayvon was just standing still. Now a person running away from the gun nut can still be considered a threat.

There is more evidence that Trayvon was pounding Zimmerman's head in the pavement than your claim.

Tell me again where the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to kill someone who's fleeing.

Alabama law has nothing to do with the 2d amendment.

[Doctor_J]

63. Really?

There is more evidence that Trayvon was pounding Zimmerman's head in the pavement than your claim.

Alabama law has nothing to do with the 2d amendment.

And here I thought all of the gun culture believed 2A trumps all. That was certainly the claim in Heller. And this woman certainly seems to have been deprived of her life and happiness, by the gun nuts exercising their liberty.

I will admit to a certain admiration for the NRA zombies. Regardless how many unarmed people are gunned down, none of you ever takes even a tiny step back in keeping this the most violent rich nation on earth. Your perseverance and ability to stick with the company line in the face of real life is hereby acknowledged.

[gejohnston]

66. I fail to see the humor in

"trial by media" (which is usually a lynching by media) might want to keep up with all of the facts. Like I said before, all ideologues are liars and hypocrites.
I'll let Alan Dershowitz (a guy who would like an amendment to strike down the 2A) explain it

And here I thought all of the gun culture believed 2A trumps all. That was certainly the claim in Heller. And this woman certainly seems to have been deprived of her life and happiness, by the gun nuts exercising their liberty.

They were barred from possessing firearms under federal law. The ATF is investigating that and may be charged by the local US attorney. Had the woman lived, she would be charged with burglary along with the other kids.

Heller only said that RKBA is an individual right in a federal district. It said nothing about warning shots (nearly all warning shots are irresponsible)

[Doctor_J]

68. I fail to see the humor in another unpunished gun murder

what is not in dispute is that Zimmerman called 911 because there was a black teen walking in "his" neighborhood. That he was told by the 911 operator not to pursue the "suspect". That he did pursue Martin. That he accosted Martin. that George was armed. That Martin was unarmed. And that Zimmerman killed him with a hand gun. The NRA canard that Tayvon was beating Zim's head on the ground is

1. Ridiculous on its face, since there aren't any credible witnesses to that fact, and
2. Immaterial, since Zimmerman attacked Martin to start the altercation. By this "defense", I could walk up to someone I don't like, shove him/her, and when (s)he hits me back, fire away and claim self defense (or at least SYG).

"trial by media" (which is usually a lynching by media)

Ah, yes, here comes the NRA's last line of defense (and all of fascist America's) - "Poor George is a victim of the liberal media". Sorry, the only ones who believe that gave up sanity long ago

[gejohnston]

69. CBS photo is NRA propaganda? Do you even know who Alan Dershowitz even is?

There is no evidence he called because Martin was black, and "his neighborhood" is mixed race.
There is no evidence that he pursued Martin after the operator said "don't need to do that"
It is not a canard because:
there was a witness, and physical evidence. In fact, he was the only eye witness.
there is no evidence Zimmerman attacked Martin at all before being attacked.

Liberal media my ass. Has nothing to do with "liberal" just corporate. Granted the progressive media has parroted it because it serves their purpose. The Chicago Seven was every bit of a trial by media as Casey Anthony, not as much as Richard Jewell.

[Doctor_J]

57. Next up - NRA member claims SYG defense for shooting Obama t-shirt wearer

I will say this - I am pretty sure all of these laws are being enacted because the wingers are 99% certain that they'll being doing all of the shooting.

[gejohnston]

61. No, these laws are

older than you think. California has been SYG since 1895.