May 10, 2016

"Why a South Carolina man got bail after he shot, buried and ‘slow-cooked’ two people."

Something to do with stand-your-ground law.
“He’s a human being,” defense attorney Stephen Harris said... “He freaked out and thought he was going to prison, so he tried to hide the bodies. Nobody knows how you’re going to react when you kill two people.”

20 comments:

rehajm said...

...he will be on house arrest, allowed only to leave for work, church, or visits with a doctor or his lawyer,

His profession is...?

bagoh20 said...

I could forgive the burying and slow cooking if he just didn't kill them.

Bob Boyd said...

His profession is...?

He has two jobs, landscaper and cook at a BBQ joint.

Bob Boyd said...

His story is he didn't have the money to pay the two guys so he figured he'd just work it off.

Achilles said...

This doesn't sound like stand your ground from the description of the article.

EDH said...

"He wanted his baby-back, baby-back, baby-back..."

JCC said...

Sounds strange to me. The judge who heard the bond issue must be a moron. You can draw some reasonable inferences from the chef destroying and/or hiding the evidence...

YoungHegelian said...

In South Carolina, if he slow cooked the men over mesquite as opposed to hickory wood, he'll get the death penalty.

coupe said...

The killing was legal. You can't abuse a corpse though. Bad, very bad.

Probably will have to pay a huge fine.

The Godfather said...

As described in the article, "stand your ground" isn't involved in the substance of this case. Pre-SYG, the common law "Castle doctrine" applied in most states. Under that doctrine, within your home you could use deadly force against an intruder if you reasonably thought that such force was necessary to protect you or a member of your household from death or severe injury, and you did not have to show that you didn't have a chance to flee to avoid the threat. SYG expanded that doctrine to cover situations outside the home, i.e., the defendant could use deadly force in self-defense even if he had a chance to flee. SYG wasn't an issue in the Zimmerman case because, according to him, the deceased was on top of him, banging his head on the sidewalk, so if the jury believed him, as they evidently did, he had no opportunity to flee. Here, the deceased were in the home, but the story doesn't tell us whether the defendant was put in reasonable fear of death or grevious bodily injury. That's really the $64 question. We shouldn't jump to conclusions until we know more.

SYG laws in some states include some procedural provisions, which apply to self-defense cases generally, and it's possible that such a provision here made it easier for the defendant to get bail; I don't know. But SYG itself wouldn't apply to the facts as reported.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

By the way, you don't "slow cook" with gasoline, idiot.

Virgil Hilts said...

A decade or two ago two teenagers (sister and brother?) near here claimed their really mean stepmom simply died at the kitchen table. Worried that they would be accused of having killed her, they put her body in a dumpster. When the police finally came around 7 days or so later, the kids fessed up to putting dead stepmom in the dumpster. Although landfills were searched (yech!) the body was never found. So the kids were never charged.
Ever since then I have assumed that a lot of bodies put into dumpsters probably end up in landfills without detection. If you really have to get rid of a dead body, a dumpster may be the best way to go.

Char Char Binks said...

The article is just more anti-SYG propaganda. The Castle Doctrine seems more relevant, but even so, the man definitely showed consciousness of guilt. It's bizarre that the man is out on bail after admitting to burning corpses, but that's another matter.

n.n said...

Abortion and cannibalism for purposes other than reactive and planned parenthood executed outside of legally sanctioned businesses should be strictly forbidden by the State establishment; but, it is pro-choice all the way down, and therefore the religious decrees handed out by liberal judges are unpredictable and inconsistent.

Char Char Binks said...

@Virgil Hilts

Thanks for the tip!

jr565 said...

"“He’s a human being,” defense attorney Stephen Harris said... “He freaked out and thought he was going to prison, so he tried to hide the bodies. Nobody knows how you’re going to react when you kill two people.”
I Know, right? Do you barbecue them? do you put them in a wood chipper? Do you chop them up? Choices, choices.

JAORE said...

How were the fried green tomatoes?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

He's charged with murder but at most it's probably manslaughter. Is bail unusual for a manslaughter case? There is an earlier report on this story that indicates that the taxi cab driver who was killed was out on bond in connection with a drive-by shooting that left one man injured.

Thorley Winston said...

From the article three things are clear:

(1) The disputed fact is whether the men he killed were invited into his home or broke in. If they broke in, it might be a castle doctrine case (if he invited or willingly allowed them into the home, he has no such defense). Either way it has nothing to do with “stand your ground” which concerns the use of force (including deadly force) outside of the home.

(2) You don’t “slow cook” with gasoline. The guy burned the bodies and clothes intending to destroy the evidence of the crime he may have committed.

(3) The author who wrote this drivel should never be trusted on again on any topic he writes about and the Washington Post should be barraged with emails, telephone calls and flaming bags of dog poo for giving an idiot like this a column on their website.

Freeman Hunt said...

I'm glad it turned out to be gasoline. I was picturing a crockpot. "Piece by piece? Why?"