Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Lucylastic -> Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 8:02:49 AM)

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/11/2769631/south-carolina-stand-ground/

On Wednesday, a South Carolina judge granted immunity from prosecution to a man who shot and killed an innocent bystander during a botched confrontation with a group of teenagers. The judge relied on the state’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law.

Seventeen-year-old Darrell Niles was in his car, minding his own business back in 2010 when 33-year-old Shannon Anthony Scott shot and killed him.
Earlier that day, a group of girls had followed and threatened Scott’s 15-year-old daughter. They later drove past Scott’s house in an SUV. But when Scott walked out of his house with a handgun to confront the “women thugs,” as he described them, he instead fired straight into the 1992 Honda of Darrell Niles, who was unarmed. Niles was killed instantly.

Some questions remain in the case: The group of girls may have fired shots first, but testimony is conflicted on if shots were fired at Scott himself, or at all. There is also some indication that Scott was primed to shoot his gun at someone: Even prior to the shooting, he had a sign in his window that read, “Fight Crime – Shoot First,” according to a 5th Circuit Assistant Solicitor.

Despite the defense’s evidence that Scott had no proof the young man was an “imminent threat,” Scott’s attorney — who, oddly enough, is state Rep. Todd Rutherford (D-SC) — argued that if Scott hadn’t shot Niles, he would have had to go back to his home and “hope that the cavalry (police) are going to come.”
“All that matters is that Mr. Scott felt his life was in jeopardy,” Rutherford said.

On Wednesday, Circuit Judge Maite Murphy accepted those arguments and ruled that Scott believed he was aiming for the group that had threatened his daughter, and therefore was protected under South Carolina’s 2006 Stand Your Ground law.

Darrell Niles’s mother was devastated by the order. “It’s not right; it’s not right,” she told a local TV station, saying she fears her son will be vilified in death and seen as one of those threatening Scott’s daughter. “The truth needs to be out there.”
The order has been appealed by Fifth Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson.



Sweet Jesus, Love it..... SYG really needs looking at, this case is worse than zimmys
another 17 year old shot because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time




DomKen -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 8:27:06 AM)

Insanity. Surely if we're going to have these dumbass stand your ground laws we can at least prosecute the Dirty Harry wannabes who shoot people not involved in the incident at all?




Owner59 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 8:34:23 AM)

How much did the gop/nra care when an innocent teenager was killed be Zimmerman?




Enough to call that POS killer......a hero.




Kirata -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 9:49:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/11/2769631/south-carolina-stand-ground/

On Wednesday, a South Carolina judge granted immunity from prosecution to a man who shot and killed an innocent bystander during a botched confrontation with a group of teenagers. The judge relied on the state’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law.

Seventeen-year-old Darrell Niles was in his car, minding his own business back in 2010 when 33-year-old Shannon Anthony Scott shot and killed him.
Earlier that day, a group of girls had followed and threatened Scott’s 15-year-old daughter. They later drove past Scott’s house in an SUV. But when Scott walked out of his house with a handgun to confront the “women thugs,” as he described them, he instead fired straight into the 1992 Honda of Darrell Niles, who was unarmed. Niles was killed instantly.

Some questions remain in the case: The group of girls may have fired shots first, but testimony is conflicted on if shots were fired at Scott himself, or at all.

The coverage I've seen does not say that testimony was "conflicted" on the issue of whether shots were fired from the vehicle. The judge could not have delivered a finding in accord with self-defense absent evidence of that component being present.

And there is no "stand your ground" issue here, because any duty to retreat to avoid a confrontation would have become moot once shots were fired. This is a straight up self-defense case, and it was adjudicated on that basis.

Charges commonly accrue when injury or death arises from a criminal act, even if the offenders did not personally and directly cause it, and in my opinion it is the teens who committed the drive-by shooting who should be facing homicide charges here.

K.




mnottertail -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 9:50:25 AM)

The mother should shoot this guy. He is a clear threat to her family, no?




Nosathro -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 9:59:05 AM)

Stand Your Ground Law = License to Kill




Nosathro -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 10:01:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/11/2769631/south-carolina-stand-ground/

On Wednesday, a South Carolina judge granted immunity from prosecution to a man who shot and killed an innocent bystander during a botched confrontation with a group of teenagers. The judge relied on the state’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law.

Seventeen-year-old Darrell Niles was in his car, minding his own business back in 2010 when 33-year-old Shannon Anthony Scott shot and killed him.
Earlier that day, a group of girls had followed and threatened Scott’s 15-year-old daughter. They later drove past Scott’s house in an SUV. But when Scott walked out of his house with a handgun to confront the “women thugs,” as he described them, he instead fired straight into the 1992 Honda of Darrell Niles, who was unarmed. Niles was killed instantly.

Some questions remain in the case: The group of girls may have fired shots first, but testimony is conflicted on if shots were fired at Scott himself, or at all.

The coverage I've seen does not say that testimony was "conflicted" on the issue of whether shots were fired from the vehicle. The judge could not have delivered a finding in accord with self-defense absent evidence of that component being present.

And there is no "stand your ground" issue here, because any duty to retreat to avoid a confrontation would have become moot once shots were fired. This is a straight up self-defense case, and it was adjudicated on that basis.

Charges commonly accrue when injury or death arises from a criminal act, even if the offenders did not personally and directly cause it, and in my opinion it is the teens who committed the drive-by shooting who should be facing homicide charges here.

K.



Really but the Judge did:
"On Wednesday, a South Carolina judge granted immunity from prosecution to a man who shot and killed an innocent bystander during a botched confrontation with a group of teenagers. The judge relied on the state’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law."

And when did you past the Bar?




stef -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 10:42:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Stand Your Ground Law = License to Kill

Inane statements = Inane statements




DarkSteven -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 10:42:24 AM)

Interesting.

I would support an amendment to SYG which basically states that it only applies if you shoot the correct person. In other words, if your aim is so poor that you get the wrong person, you shouldn't have a gun.




stef -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 10:49:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

The order has been appealed by Fifth Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson.

And it's likely he'll win that appeal, based on the info in that article.




Yachtie -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 2:54:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Insanity. Surely if we're going to have these dumbass stand your ground laws we can at least prosecute the Dirty Harry wannabes who shoot people not involved in the incident at all?



Can we prosecute cops who do likewise?




DomKen -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 3:20:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Insanity. Surely if we're going to have these dumbass stand your ground laws we can at least prosecute the Dirty Harry wannabes who shoot people not involved in the incident at all?



Can we prosecute cops who do likewise?

They have been. The bar is higher since a police officer is supposed to be using his weapon to protect himself and others while these dumbass SYG'ers are simply shooting at parked cars for no reason.




BitYakin -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 3:51:42 PM)

I like how think progrss makes it sound like the man went directly to this guy car and shot him

"he instead fired straight into the 1992 Honda of Darrell Niles, who was unarmed"

but when you go the local new site they tell a SLIGHTLY differant story

"Shots are fired from the street. The friends run inside.
Armed with a gun, Shannon Scott goes to the front yard.
Scott fires several times."

the way think progress tells it you'd think the only shot fired was INTO this guys car!




Lucylastic -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 4:02:41 PM)

with selective reading comprehension, Im sure it must sem like that however, the full sentence was
They later drove past Scott’s house in an SUV. But when Scott walked out of his house with a handgun to confront the “women thugs,” as he described them, he instead fired straight into the 1992 Honda of Darrell Niles, who was unarmed. Niles was killed instantly.
I dont see anything you described, but to each his own




Yachtie -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 4:12:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

I like how think progrss makes it sound like the man went directly to this guy car and shot him

"he instead fired straight into the 1992 Honda of Darrell Niles, who was unarmed"

but when you go the local new site they tell a SLIGHTLY differant story

"Shots are fired from the street. The friends run inside.
Armed with a gun, Shannon Scott goes to the front yard.
Scott fires several times."

the way think progress tells it you'd think the only shot fired was INTO this guys car!



One of the problems these days is juvenile assaults. Start seeing enough of it and one won't wait. Better their family safe than sorry.

Even this writing on it has problems.


Perhaps Scott’s daughter and Scott himself reasonably believed that a car full of teen girl bullies were a threat to their lives. Even so, since when is it acceptable for a parent to point their loaded gun at child bullies? The fact that Scott, an adult, felt immediately inclined to resolve a dispute between children by shooting at them is criminal.

Perhaps they were. But nevertheless, it seems from the piece. These were not children or child bullies. They were young adults. Teenagers. The emotion runs deep with this writer.

It's unfortunate, but I expect to see more of this.




Lucylastic -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 4:21:04 PM)

Smith then saw Niles’ 1992 Honda, and, believing its occupants posed a danger, fired his gun from his front yard across the street, hitting Niles in the head with a .380 bullet, killing him instantly. No evidence indicated Niles was a threat to Scott or his daughter.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/10/09/3029466/exclusive-father-not-charged-in.html#storylink=cpy


Fifth Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson has appealed Murphy’s ruling to the state Supreme Court. Johnson declined to comment Wednesday, citing the case’s appeal status.
A key legal issue in the case is whether the state’s 2006 Stand Your Ground law will protect people who, although in legitimate fear for their lives, also happen to be bad shots or otherwise unintentionally wind up killing bystanders.
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20131011/NEWS10/310110005/Immunity-granted-to-S-C-man-who-killed-unarmed-teen-in-stand-your-ground-case




BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 4:35:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The mother should shoot this guy. He is a clear threat to her family, no?

no




BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 4:37:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Insanity. Surely if we're going to have these dumbass stand your ground laws we can at least prosecute the Dirty Harry wannabes who shoot people not involved in the incident at all?



Can we prosecute cops who do likewise?

They have been. The bar is higher since a police officer is supposed to be using his weapon to protect himself and others while these dumbass SYG'ers are simply shooting at parked cars for no reason.

Two NYC police shootings with nearly a dozen bystanders shoot says otherwise.




BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 4:39:46 PM)

Perhaps Scott’s daughter and Scott himself reasonably believed that a car full of teen girl bullies were a threat to their lives. Even so, since when is it acceptable for a parent to point their loaded gun at child bullies? The fact that Scott, an adult, felt immediately inclined to resolve a dispute between children by shooting at them is criminal.


I suspect this wasn't the girls act of serious violence.




Yachtie -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/12/2013 4:41:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Insanity. Surely if we're going to have these dumbass stand your ground laws we can at least prosecute the Dirty Harry wannabes who shoot people not involved in the incident at all?



Can we prosecute cops who do likewise?

They have been. The bar is higher since a police officer is supposed to be using his weapon to protect himself and others while these dumbass SYG'ers are simply shooting at parked cars for no reason.

Two NYC police shootings with nearly a dozen bystanders shoot says otherwise.



I'll agree with DK. It has happened. But in this case, seems the goose is meeting the gander.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
9.960938E-02