Sorry guys but more information is needed.
I don't expect anymore is coming.
You trying to tell me that the man wasn't far enough away to simply pull the gun and not shoot----3 times but not far enough away to miss on 1 and way low on the rest.
There is no justification in SC to "pull the gun and not shoot".
Do you really think that Moose was in a life threatening situation vs an unarmed man?
Yes, I 100% without a doubt believe that he was in a life threatening situation. He had already been assulted and robbed of an empty wallet. The bad guy then wanted money from his truck. Who's to say he would have been happy to take the money and leave a witness behind. It is insane to think that the mugger would have just taken his money and said, "Have a nice day, it has been my pleasure robbing you this evening."
In situations of self defense, facts that come out after the fact may not matter at all. What matters is basicially this.
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:
1. you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
2. you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;
3. 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;
4. 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.
Notice the "Or" in the middle of point 3. The first part of that says that you don't have to be in "actual" danger if your belief in the danger is reasonable. I believe that he was both in actual danger and reasonable in his belief that he was. His attacker could have been armed or unarmed, a body builder or a 98lb weakling. The point is that the attacker had the advantage of surprise and was on the offensive, controlling the situation up until the point he got shot. It is perfectly reasonable for anyone in Moose's positions to believe that he is in serious danger. It is asking too much to expect him to believe that the mugger would be content at only robbing him.
Point 4 deal with duty to retreat, which can easily be countered by..
... you need not retreat “if to do so would apparently increase [your] danger.” State v. McGee, 185 S.C. 184, 190, 193 S.E. 303, 306 (1937).
It's amazing to me that simply based on what you read from Moose that you can assertain that he had the right to shoot this guy(over money) 3 times and endanger anyone near the area who may have been hit by a stray. He's damn lucky nobody else was hit or he would be in deep trouble in a situation where once the gun was pulled the "situation" for all intents and purposes was over without having to fire-----3 times!
First, let me answer this by saying that I'm sure we are all glad that no bystander was shot by the one round that got away. Sounds like he was shooting at a downward angle, maybe this was to avoid having a round "get away" or maybe he has a tall truck. Either way it doesn't matter, no one else was shot.
Second, why do you seem to insist that Moose shot this guy over Money? Is it impossible for you to believe that he was actually afraid for his life? I sure as heck know I would be.
Third, what is your hang up with the number 3? He fired 3 times. So what? I admire his restraint. I can't say how many I'd shoot in such a situation, and I pray to God I never find out, but when I try to put myself in his shoes it's not hard to imagine firing more than that.
Fourth and finially, What do you mean when you said "the "situation" for all intents and purposes was over"? What can you possibly base that assumption on?
Do you really think this through, or are you just arguing this for your enjoyment? I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you are starting to remind of a
Monty Pyton sketch.