Weber released on bond in shooting
By T&D StaffTuesday, June 03, 20086 comment(s) | Default | Large
A North man charged with shooting an alleged burglar on family property last week was released on a $15,000 surety bond Monday.
Officials said 30-year-old Stanley Weber of 262 Breezehaven Road was released Monday after a bond hearing before Orangeburg County Magistrate Don West.
Weber was arrested on a charge of assault and battery with intent to kill, with police alleging he shot an individual around 6 p.m. Friday.
The warrant against him alleges that Weber, “did intentionally, with total disregard for human life, fire a .22-caliber rifle at the victim (Justin Kemmerlin), striking him in the mouth area.”
Meanwhile, 18-year-old Justin Kemmerlin is charged, along with his sister Amanda Kemmerlin, 35, with third-degree burglary. Justin Kemmerlin was expected to be released from the hospital on Monday evening, Orangeburg County Sheriff Larry Williams said.
Investigators are still working with those involved to determine exactly what happened at the remote property about a mile north of Wolfton.
“At this point, we’re working with the solicitor to see what we have,” Williams said. “I understand property owners are fed up, if that’s what we have. But we’ll wait on the outcome,” of the solicitor’s determination in the case.
Weber found the slain body of his brother, Billy Weber, at the same property on Feb. 22. No one has been arrested in Billy Weber’s death.
Deputies believe the Kemmerlins were trying to steal fuel from a backhoe on the property Friday afternoon.
First Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe said he had not received the file on the case as of Monday afternoon. He is, however, scheduled to speak with investigators today, he said.
Without any facts from the case, Pascoe declined to comment specifically on what happened or why Weber was charged by the sheriff’s office.
The solicitor did explain that assault and battery with intent to kill describes doing, “violent injury to another with malice aforethought.”
“Violent injury just means unlawful touching: a fist, a knife, a bullet,” Pascoe said. “Malice has a number of definitions. It’s defined as intentional violence or the willful disregarding of the welfare of others.”
Pascoe said when he goes through the investigation results Tuesday, these are the factors he’ll be considering, along with the four elements of self-defense: the victim has no fault in causing the incident, belief that he or she is in danger of being killed or seriously hurt, a reasonable person would conclude the same and the individual had no means to avoid a conflict.
The final decision gets a bit more complex when private property is factored in.
“On private property, there is no duty to retreat,” Pascoe said, “unlike public property.”
With the attention of the solicitor’s office, the decision to amend or stay the charge against Weber could be made by week’s end.
mikeutsey wrote on Jun 5, 2008 4:33 PM:
Reasonable Force
Excessive Force
Deadly Force
Apply them to the law in defece of property or person, it may help! "
mikeutsey wrote on Jun 5, 2008 4:28 PM:
Self Defense = Not valid argument/conviction
Temporary Insanity = Possible argument/verdict can go either way!
My opinion is he is guilty of assault and battery with intent to kill! "
msjones wrote on Jun 4, 2008 6:11 PM:
mikeutsey wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:32 AM:
Okay....the cases that you have cited, in a sense contradicts what you believe, that he should be exonerated.
Anthony Martin v R (2001) EWCA 2245
PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT
State v. Hibler, 79 S.C. 170, 60 S.E. 438 (1907).
State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 377 S.E.2d 328 (1989) sets forth the elements of self-defense in South Carolina. These are:
you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;
IF you believe you are in such danger, you must use deadly force ONLY IF a REASONABLE or prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in such danger, or, if you actually were in such danger, the circumstances were such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save yourself from serious bodily harm or losing your own life;
You had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance.
I am trying to find the argument of self defense. If we are using the information of the article alone, it substantially lacks the elements that would constitute self defense. Note, that he said, he shot him because he thought he was gonna be shot is not sufficient. I don't recall a gun being recovered from the intruder on his property.
Believing you are in IMMINENT DANGER goes to state of mind. But the intruder was there to attempt to steal personal property in which the courts says is not equal to the value of human life. Again this is being based solely on the article we have and the rule of law as it applies. The intruder did not attempt to do him bodily harm, neither was the intruder in the process of committing a violent crime. The homeowner could have called law enforcement upon noticing the intruders on his property without retreating. He called have yelled at them to leave without retreating, he could obtain license plate numbers of the vehicle the intruders were in and would have lead to the safe apprehension of the intruders. He could have approached the intruder and demand that he leave, by using reasonable force.
Not saying that i personally agree, but this is being based solely on the article and the law that apply.
I would like to hear from others on this matter.
Sad story but great debate! "
msjones wrote on Jun 3, 2008 3:04 PM:
mikeutsey wrote on Jun 2, 2008 11:11 PM: