Laying down the law

[moroni]

Fed up with crime, 67-year-old man fires on 3 engaged in shootout in his front yard

BY STEVE REEVES
Of The Post and Courier Staff
The last time police came by his Tripe Street home to investigate complaints about drug dealing in the West Ashley neighborhood, William Gates made it clear to them that he had had enough.

"I told the police, 'Bring the coroner and body bags the next time you come out here,' " he said. "Nobody is going to run me out of my home."


<http://www.charleston.net/stories/080203/loc_02shootingx.shtml>

[jody]

1. William Gates should now be under SC's "Victims' Bill of Rights"

SC CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE I., DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 24. Victims' Bill of Rights.
(A) To preserve and protect victims' rights to justice and due process regardless of race, sex, age, religion, or economic status, victims of crime have the right to:
….. (1) be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal and juvenile justice process, and informed of the victim's constitutional rights, provided by statute;
….. (2) be reasonably informed when the accused or convicted person is arrested, released from custody, or has escaped;
….. (3) be informed of and present at any criminal proceedings which are dispositive of the charges where the defendant has the right to be present;
….. (4) be reasonably informed of and be allowed to submit either a written or oral statement at all hearings affecting bond or bail;
….. (5) be heard at any proceeding involving a post-arrest release decision, a plea, or sentencing;
….. (6) be reasonably protected from the accused or persons acting on his behalf throughout the criminal justice process;
….. (7) confer with the prosecution, after the crime against the victim has been charged, before the trial or before any disposition and informed of the disposition;
….. (8) have reasonable access after the conclusion of the criminal investigation to all documents relating to the crime against the victim before trial;
….. (9) receive prompt and full restitution from the person or persons convicted of the criminal conduct that caused the victim's loss or injury, including both adult and juvenile offenders;
….. (10) be informed of any proceeding when any post-conviction action is being considered, and be present at any post-conviction hearing involving a post-conviction release decision;
….. (11) a reasonable disposition and prompt and final conclusion of the case;
….. (12) have all rules governing criminal procedure and the admissibility of evidence in all criminal proceedings protect victims' rights and have these rules subject to amendment or repeal by the legislature to ensure protection of these rights.

(B) Nothing in this section creates a civil cause of action on behalf of any person against any public employee, public agency, the State, or any agency responsible for the enforcement of rights and provision of services contained in this section. The rights created in this section may be subject to a writ of mandamus, to be issued by any justice of the Supreme Court or circuit court judge to require compliance by any public employee, public agency, the State, or any agency responsible for the enforcement of the rights and provisions of these services contained in this section, and a wilful failure to comply with a writ of mandamus is punishable as contempt.

(C) For purposes of this section:
….. (1) A victim's exercise of any right granted by this section is not grounds for dismissing any criminal proceeding or setting aside any conviction or sentence.
….. (2) "Victim" means a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as the result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime against him. The term "victim" also includes the person's spouse, parent, child, or lawful representative of a crime victim who is deceased, who is a minor or who is incompetent or who was a homicide victim or who is physically or psychologically incapacitated.
….. (3) The General Assembly has the authority to enact substantive and procedural laws to define, implement, preserve, and protect the rights guaranteed to victims by this section, including the authority to extend any of these rights to juvenile proceedings.
….. (4) The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights for victims shall not be construed to deny or disparage others granted by the General Assembly or retained by victims. (1998 Act No. 259, Section 1, eff February 17, 1998.)

[iverglas]

2. what on earth

... are you ... how's it go? yapping? ... about now?

"William Gates should now be under SC's "Victims' Bill of Rights"

What does that MEAN?

You've reproduced a whole big thing without any indication of what bit of that thing you might be talking about, and why. I assure you that this will not get you an A, even in high school I should hope.

First things first. What was this man a "victim" of?

"Victim" means a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as the result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime against him. The term "victim" also includes the person's spouse, parent, child, or lawful representative of a crime victim who is deceased, who is a minor or who is incompetent or who was a homicide victim or who is physically or psychologically incapacitated.

It's pretty unclear from the story as reported whether he was even a victim of trespass, for dog's sake. "In his front yard" is a bit of a figure of speech, and I would not conclude from the use of it that someone was actually on his property unless that were somewhat more plainly stated.

(1) A victim's exercise of any right granted by this section is not grounds for dismissing any criminal proceeding or setting aside any conviction or sentence.

When you say that he "should now be under" this Bill of Rights, are you saying that he has some right under this Bill of Rights that he should now be able to exercise? What might it be? The right to be treated with respect, blah blah, etc. etc.? Can you not see that these are all things that apply to victims in the course of prosecutions of persons accused of the crimes of which the victims were victims? How could this possibly apply to this man's situation -- in which no one has been charged with committing any crime against him, and no judicial proceedings are likely ever to take place in that respect?

Just to take one "right" at random, how could this man ever exercise the right

(4) be reasonably informed of and be allowed to submit either a written or oral statement at all hearings affecting bond or bail

???

You just don't have a strong grasp of the concept of "relevance", do you?

.

Just in passing, here's my favourite part of the tale itself:

"I thought they shot my wife," he said. "I went and got my gun and fired three shots."

Most people would have called an ambulance if they thought their spouse had just been shot, I'd have thought. So I'm compelled to conclude that by the time he got his gun and fired his shots, he was perfectly aware that no one in his house had been shot. I don't even see anything about, say, a broken window, that would suggest that there was any reason at all to think that any crime had been committed against the occupants of the house.

Hey, I'm not unsympathetic. And y'know, if I had a gun, I might have done exactly the same thing. Up here, I'm more likely to videotape what criminal activity goes on (I do, very conspicuously, when the occasion arises), and get really loud with my city council and police service. Mind you, I've never actually encountered people shooting each other on my block, let alone all the time. So I don't presume to predict what I'd do, or condemn someone else for what s/he did in that situation.

I just can't figure out what the victim's bill of rights has to do with any of this ...

.

[Romulus]

3. different "culture," I guess

Most people would have called an ambulance if they thought their spouse had just been shot, I'd have thought. So I'm compelled to conclude that by the time he got his gun and fired his shots, he was perfectly aware that no one in his house had been shot.

Around most non-urban places in the U.S., and some urban places to be fair, people don't believe in "waiting around for help" if it looks like they're faced with an immediate deadly threat against them or their family. This guy:

1) knew of drug dealers constantly outside his house, and complained about them to the police
2) heard shots fired from the front of his house at 4:30am, followed by his wife's "yell and fall to the floor"

For all he knew those drug dealers were coming to "do him in" for ratting them out to the cops, and they just killed his wife. Instead of just sitting there next to his dying wife waiting for the drug dealers to finish them off while he fumbled around with a telephone in the dark, he took the fight to them. If some *asshole is shooting at your house while you're still in it, trying to kill you, you have a right to defend yourself and your family. Apparantly, that right is not recognized by Canadian law or culture, as I learned in another thread. Maybe that's why you don't get the "victim's rights" posting -He may have been a victim of attempted murder or something. The police are still trying to figure out what to charge.

I don't even see anything about, say, a broken window, that would suggest that there was any reason at all to think that any crime had been committed against the occupants of the house.

Don't forget about what happened to the wife. I don't know if you've been around shooting ranges much, or heard real-live firearms being fired (not what's shown in the movies), but the sound is deafeningly loud and sharp, like a supercharged firecraker. When your hearing gets disrupted from your body's reaction to that noise, you aren't going to be able to hear a relatively quiet sound like breaking glass. Not to mention that many houses in the South are made of wood, which would easily let a bullet pass through with even less noise.

Hope that sheds some light.