Latest Stand Your Ground in SC

[kelcarry]

Forgive me for not knowing how to get article into forum but in the 8/19 issue of the Post & Courier in Charleston SC, the top article in their Section B-The South, they highlight the story of a man who mistakenly killed a bystander and is now using the argument of self defense and stand your ground. His attorney makes the most outlandish statements such as, "he (the innocent bystander) simply ended up being in the wrong place at the wrong time" and "all that matters is that Scott(the shooter) felt his life was in jeopardy". Not leaving you with many details but these comments from the shooter's lawyer just make me shake my head. Hope someone out there can get this into the forum--very interesting comments that should provoke good and meaningful replies.

 

[BluesStringer]

Here ya go. Interesting story.

Stand Your Ground faces test in S.C.

By JOHN MONK
[email protected]
Posted: August 19, 2013


Shannon Scott argues he should not be prosecuted for shooting and killing an unarmed Keenan High School basketball player. In his Stand Your Ground argument in a Richland County courtroom last week, Scott and his attorney, Todd Rutherford, said Scott fired his weapon from his front yard to protect his daughter, who was being chased by people trying to hurt her.

It’s terrible, but Darrell Niles, a 17-year-old innocent bystander, just got in the way, they said.

“He simply ended up being in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Rutherford said....

....snip....

The real villains in this case, Rutherford said, are the carload of teens that followed Scott’s daughter and her friends home from a club. They should be charged with “felony murder,” a charge that means that they caused Niles’ death, even though Scott was the one who put the bullet in his head, Rutherford said.

That is the same principle applied in cases in which a store owner who shoots and mistakenly kills a bystander during an armed robbery, Rutherford said.

The store owner isn’t charged with the bystander’s murder, but the robber is, Rutherford said....

More at the link.


​

I posted the theory of the defense attorney's case because I find it plausible. A difficult defense to successfully put forth, but the analogy to a store robbery/innocent bystander shooting seems apropos to me. Store clerks and/or owners are not required to have any more training or demonstrated marksmanship skills than those protecting themselves, their families, and their property in SC, are they?

I don't know....This could become one to watch. Brings up some interesting issues to be sure.

Blues

ETA: kelcarry, for some reason I couldn't get the page I found the story on to load any comments. Might be because the link I used was in a bunch of keyword search results, and not the original URL of the story. Not sure, but if someone wants to read the comments section, you'll have to have better search "foo" than I do.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey Blues: Thanks for the article. My problem is that I find a big difference between being a store clerk in a confined store space where clear imminent danger can be shown and proven vs a father who runs out on his lawn and sees his daughter being chased and he fires into the crowd----where the heck is the imminent danger and how can anyone possibly say that he had every right to just "fire away" based on a potential situation that was more in his mindset than in actuality. In other words if my wife is accosted or even pushed in a crowd, I have every right to just pull out a gun and fire away--ridiculous--then again it is my opinion and we will see what the courts have to say---personally he is toast as far as I am concerned. What he is guilty of is another story--probably negligent homicide. Good bye Mr. Scott.

 

[BluesStringer]

Hey Blues: Thanks for the article. My problem is that I find a big difference between being a store clerk in a confined store space where clear imminent danger can be shown and proven vs a father who runs out on his lawn and sees his daughter being chased and he fires into the crowd----where the heck is the imminent danger and how can anyone possibly say that he had every right to just "fire away" based on a potential situation that was more in his mindset than in actuality. In other words if my wife is accosted or even pushed in a crowd, I have every right to just pull out a gun and fire away--ridiculous--then again it is my opinion and we will see what the courts have to say---personally he is toast as far as I am concerned. What he is guilty of is another story--probably negligent homicide. Good bye Mr. Scott.

I get the way you're seeing it, really I do. And I don't flat-out disagree with you. In fact, I *lean* towards your point of view, but, as always, there are a lot of details left out of the story as-covered by a fairly incompetent media when it comes to deadly force issues.

I got interrupted and haven't read the whole article yet, but I think it said that the people who were following Scott's daughter were in a car, and the threat he perceived was a drive-by. Now, I have no idea if the available facts would support that contention or not, but if they do, then I think that has the potential to show a valid analogy between the drive-by-shoot-miss-and-hit-an-innocent-bystander and the same results inside the store.

There are a ton of circumstances that could come to light that would make me conclusively condemn the shooting as illegitimate. I just thought also though, that the attorney's strategy was an interesting one from a legal POV. We'll see. I suspect you're right though. Dude's gonna fry on one level of charges or another.

Blues

 

[farsidefan1]

First thing I was taught was gun safety. Then if the gun comes out I'm looking at target and behind the target for any potential collateral damage. I would have to see some kind of imminent danger or dad goes to jail. Probably for negligent homicide or manslaughter. I leave the details to our law enforcement and law members but I'd say it looks REALLY bad for dad. Are there witnesses that saw the car boys pointing a gun at her? That could be a deal maker for the dad. Then the "charge those in the car" argument makes some real sense. lacking that kind of backup dad is done. Tragic anyway it is painted. Lot to think about there.

 

[whodat2710]

First thing I was taught was gun safety. Then if the gun comes out I'm looking at target and behind the target for any potential collateral damage.

Fair point. If he was in his yard, on his property who is to say he has had training? I could not access the article, but IMHO, based on the facts presented above he should not face criminal charges, but is most definitely liable in a civil suit and will pay dearly.

 

[wolf_fire]

First thing I was taught was gun safety. Then if the gun comes out I'm looking at target and behind the target for any potential collateral damage. I would have to see some kind of imminent danger or dad goes to jail. Probably for negligent homicide or manslaughter. I leave the details to our law enforcement and law members but I'd say it looks REALLY bad for dad. Are there witnesses that saw the car boys pointing a gun at her? That could be a deal maker for the dad. Then the "charge those in the car" argument makes some real sense. lacking that kind of backup dad is done. Tragic anyway it is painted. Lot to think about there.

This is true except if you are a New York City Police Officer. They are able to miss and hit innocent victims at will. NYPD: 9 shooting bystander victims hit by police gunfire | Fox News

 

[BluesStringer]

Fair point. If he was in his yard, on his property who is to say he has had training? I could not access the article, but IMHO, based on the facts presented above he should not face criminal charges, but is most definitely liable in a civil suit and will pay dearly.

Not sure what's up with that newspaper's website. It took like five searches even knowing both the shooter's and the deceased's names to find that article (using keywords other than their names), but anyway, looks like the link from the search results had a self-destruct bug in it.

Here's Link Removed from the same writer, but on another site and posted three days prior to the previous link I found. Got that one off a regular web search (StartPage), and I'm pretty sure it's just a semi-permanent link.

Blues

 

[jhodge83]

if he had hit/killed one of the actual attackers, i can see stand your ground since it was in protection of his daughter, but not a bystander.

 

[Nightmare45]

Failed the basic test of firing your gun.

 

[BluesStringer]

if he had hit/killed one of the actual attackers, i can see stand your ground since it was in protection of his daughter, but not a bystander.

That's another thing.....I don't think there ever were any "actual attackers." From the article:

At time of the shooting, about 1:30 a.m., Scott was in fear of his life, and he was the only one who could take action against a carload of menacing teen “women thugs” who had just followed his daughter and her girlfriends home on the night of April 17, 2010, Rutherford said.


On their way home, his daughter telephoned Scott to tell him they were being followed. He met them outside and told them to go and lie down on the kitchen floor while he went outside with a pistol.

So, the daughter and her friends were only victims of being followed. Well, maybe........

Murphy also heard conflicting testimony as to whether anyone fired at Scott while he was in the front yard that night. According to police, who took statements from people at the scene that night, Scott fired first.

However, Rutherford presented witnesses who said someone fired a shot at Scott before he fired.

“Should he have gone back in (the house) while people were shooting at him? That is exactly what the General Assembly said you do not have to do,” said Rutherford, a state representative who voted for the 2006 Stand Your Ground law.

The plot thickens. Personally, if my wife called to say she was being followed and couldn't get to a cop-shop or other safe place, I would direct her home sho 'nuff, and I'd be outside and guard her while getting into the house, but I'd go in the house with her and we'd both defend our "castle" just the way we've planned and practiced many times.

Regardless though, if there is credible evidence that Scott was being fired upon, that changes everything for both Scott and the judge who has to rule on a SYG immunity claim.

But there's also another fly in the ointment for me.....

Scott was fearful of a drive-by at the time he fired his gun at Niles’ 1992 Honda, and he was “faced with what he thought was an imminent threat” from Niles’ car, Rutherford said.

So now we're beyond the "innocent bystander" meme and into Scott hitting the target he was aiming at, only that target (Niles' car) was a case of mistaken identity. He thought Niles' car was the one following his daughter, but even Scott admits:

Rutherford acknowledged that Niles was an innocent bystander, who in all probability was on the scene because he intended to help Scott’s daughter.

Nowhere in the article does it say whether the carload of "women thugs" have even been identified. There's no description of their car in the article. There's nothing indicating what information led Scott to think he was about to be the victim of a drive-by shooting, except the rather ambiguous detail of unnamed "witnesses" who said a shot was fired before Scott fired his weapon.

To me, everything hinges on whether or not there really was a shot fired other than Scott's. If there was, he might have a case, but it's still gonna be a tough row to hoe if he really did fire at Niles' car in a case of mistaken identity.

In short, what a freakin' mess!

Blues

 

[whodat2710]

I would direct her home sho 'nuff, and I'd be outside and guard her while getting into the house, but I'd go in the house with her and we'd both defend our "castle" just the way we've planned and practiced many times...

In short, what a freakin' mess!

Blues

Your 2 best points, and it sums it up rather nicely.

 

[kelcarry]

The Circuit Court in SC just ruled in favor of the homeowner and the expanded nature of "stand your ground". "When the defendant fired the shot, he reasonably believed he was being attacked with deadly force directed at his home". The Solicitor for the Fifth Circuit is going to appeal this ruling to the SC Supreme Court. This current ruling, if it stands, gives SC citizens very broad rights when in fear of their lives. All you have to have is a legitimate fear for your life and you can discharge your firearm almost without consequence and, as in this case, kill an innocent bystander. I do have a significant question to ask--was the shooter white or black and was the victim white or black? I tend to think both were either white or black since I have not seen any Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson antics. I still think the SC Supreme Court will either overturn the Circuit Court or narrow the "reasonable" nature of indiscriminate discharge of a firearm. Certainly one of the primary rules of gun safety is knowing where your bullet is going.

 

[thru]

yes, this "blanket of fire" bs, as employed by our cops, has to stop. As El Jefe said:'There are worse things than being shot, and shooting someone dear to you is the worst".

 

[jcreek]

I had the same though as blues in his later posts (sorry, wouldn't let me quote). If the people "following" her were actually committing a violent crime, I can see the robbery analogy working. However, with the given details, I don't see how, even if these guys were following her, this guy was justified in firing his weapon. Even if he had hit the right person, since when is shooting somebody simply for following you justified?

 

[kelcarry]

As I said in my last reply, this Circuit Court judge has expanded "reasonable imminent danger" to a crazy level that will lead to a slew of crazy cases. I would be astounded if the SC Supreme Court does not rein this judge's ruling in with some limiting conditions or just throw it all out.