Man Who Shot Bystander Granted Immunity Under Stand Your Ground Laws

[sir pball]

76. Self-defense laws are all based on "belief", even w/o SYG.

NY law (chosen as my current home state) reads thusly:

Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter`s conduct was provoked by the actor himself with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if he has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat
by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

(emphasis added on part 2 to highlight NY's lack of SYG)

Every self-defense law reads more or less the same, "reasonably believes" - I've never seen a statute that calls for some impartial determination of threat. I'm assuming you don't like the subjective "reasonableness" test and would like to ensure that threats are genuine before lethal force is allowed...I'm legitimately curious (since many others also disagree with the "believes" standard) how you would word a law to do that?

Now, I'd say that if he were in the yard and there were gunfire actively coming from the SUV, 1. that's the bar for using lethal force, firing back, and 2. there's no completely safe ability to retreat...it's hard to outrun a bullet. But firing at the NEXT SUV to come rolling by is just idiotic and I don't see how even a state with SYG would let it fly since he was SHOOTING AT THE WRONG GUY. Even SYG, despite the massive misconceptions surrounding it and apparent abuse of it, doesn't let you just blast at every black SUV because one shot at you. If somebody can quote the relevant SC statutes that allow for this I'd like to see them.