Finally, after almost 4 years, which is ridiculous in the first place, a tow truck operator in Bluffton, SC was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 26 years in jail. He was found not guilty of murder in this xmas 2010 shooting, which is hard to believe since he shot his adversary as the adversary was walking away and shot him again in the back after he was on the ground and not even a threat anymore. What started this? The adversary was having an argument with the tow truck operator who had just "booted" his car; during the argument the adversary opened his coat and clearly revealed his handgun. That one "brandish" ended in the adversary's death and, based on the shooting, an abysmal decision on not finding the tow truck operator guilty of murder, solely for the last shot in the back as his adversary lay there with imminent danger not even a possibility. The tow truck operator even had the gall, after firing the final shot into the adversary's back, turned to his latino relatives and gleefully said "feliz navidad".If the tow truck operator had not fired those last shots and his adversary had died, the brandishing could very well have been enough for this tow truck operator to have been found not guilty on all counts.
What Brandishing Will Sow
- Thread starter kelcarry
- Start date
Fallschirmjäger
New member
That is possibly the most nonsensical thing I've read this week.
If you shoot someone in the back and then did shoot them again when he is helpless on the ground you are very likely to be accused of, and convicted for, murder. The guy could have taken out his gun and waved it around, heck, he could even have robbed the tow truck driver and the driver would still be convicted for murder for shooting someone when they were no longer a threat.
Perhaps the experience of Link Removed would illustrate -
If you shoot someone in the back and then did shoot them again when he is helpless on the ground you are very likely to be accused of, and convicted for, murder. The guy could have taken out his gun and waved it around, heck, he could even have robbed the tow truck driver and the driver would still be convicted for murder for shooting someone when they were no longer a threat.
Perhaps the experience of Link Removed would illustrate -
I always thought of that case when, even before the trial started, there was difficulty in the prosecutor's office in even trying this tow truck guy for murder. I was surprised that it even ended up as a potential decision for the jury to make and even then they obviously discounted it--really hard to believe--at least he is going away for at least 20 years based on time served and parole only after 85% served..
Rhino
New member
Yes, but the story in the OP is what the victim's family originally claimed to the media. The events the prosecution presented at trial were slightly different. The victim, Carlos Olivera, didn't just display his gun. He pulled it out during an argument after Oates had booted his van. He did put it away though. The assailant, Preston Oates, who wasn't armed at the time, went back to his truck and retrieved his own gun. Oates didn't then shoot Olivera as he walked away. Olivera attempted to remove the boot from his van and that's when Oates started shooting, and he continued to shoot even as Olivera turned to walk away. The last shot was fired into Olivera at an angle the coroner said could only have come as he was lying face down on the ground. So the story is somewhat different from what was first presented. Still sounds like murder to me, but I don't know South Carolina law very well, and I don't know what else may have been presented in the courtroom that may have been significant as far as mitigating circumstances or maybe premeditation are concerned. I learned long ago not to judge court cases too harshly based on what's seen in news reports.
Exactly right on not believing what you read in the news. If you believe that then the current slimy pencil necked geek in the whitehouse is the next coming of our lord. Back to your reply. SC gun laws and defense are similar to any other state as far as Castle Doctrine, imminent danger, stand your ground etal. Shooting someone in the back just trumps all of it. Read reply #2 and read up on the pharmacist who was (I believe) convicted of murder after shooting the BG in the back once he was down (I think I got this right). You are correct that the family of Olivera screwed things up also by not "coming clean" on everything that went on and that led to manslaughter as the primary charge in the beginning. I did not follow all of it and was surprised to see that murder actually ended up on the jury's slate and very much surprised that they did not vote guilty on that charge. And it all started with some kind of brandishing. As you indicated, I am not really sure if anyone will ever know the truth since the brandisher is dead and I would never believe the tow truck guy who, from all indications, is and still is a real piece of yada yada. Too many times I read comments about how showing the firearm will somehow "mellow" the situation or confrontation and I think anyone who wants to believe that may, unfortunately, end up regretting it permanently like this poor guy who started up with someone who was truly a BG.
Rhino
New member
I 'm sure there's also a lot of times when people draw their guns thinking they'll need it, and then put it away after deciding it wasn't necessary or is no longer necessary, and the act is reported by someone else as brandishing. I'm not saying that's what happened here. In fact I don't believe it was. But I think in some cases people do draw their guns thinking there's a need to, put it back away, and it gets reported as brandishing when that isn't really the case. Some of those people may have reacted prematurely and later realized the error, and some may have drawn in reaction to a real threat that subsequently went away and allowed them to re-holster. But we all know how many members of the public can grossly overreact to the sight of a gun, so I'm absolutely positive that non-brandishing events get reported as brandishing, probably with some regularity.
I agree. Actually it comes down to the police and prosecutor, once the appearance of a firearm is reported in the manner you describe. I am sure the response is different in the asylum states and asylum cities than it is in the rest of the country---heck our lady Gov in SC gladly showed off, with pride, her last Xmas present from her husband--a nice new Beretta.
So,the Governor received a gun from her husband. Isnt that a straw purchase, technically? LOL
In todays day and age, I would think the left would lose their mind over this.
Thanks
Rocketgeezer
New member
A straw purchase would have been if the governor could not have legaly bought the gun in her name, and I doubt that's the case..........if this is not right I'm sure I will be corrected, so to the self appointed teachers who cannot wait to tell me so, I don't care
You are absolutely right and this entire discussion about straw purchases sounds more like it started as a sarcastic comment than anything of fact.
Thanks. I wasnt trying to dig on anything. But the way anti gun people are nowadays, you have no idea the angle they would play politically.
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.