moapaadom
Posts: 31
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
As a family, we have waited patiently, quietly and painfully for the last three years. We even remained silent, painful, yet hopeful during the Zimmerman case. We did not come this far not to receive justice for Darrell. We know that there is nothing we can do to bring Darrell back, but we will now speak on behalf of all innocent bystanders.
We were present in court every day and heard every statement. We are appalled by the judges decision. The 4 teenagers that testified on Shannon Scott's behalf, gave 4 different stories. After each of their testimonies, it was revealed that each of them changed their stories from three years ago (statements were read aloud in court). Please, please, please understand that there are so many details being left out. Kudos to Todd Rutherford for being a good lawyer. However, Shannon Scott's roommate and his girlfriend testified that Shannon came into his room, grabbed his gun without telling them to get down or about any threat and immediately walked outside shooting.
They testified that the first shot was close to the house and happened immediately after Shannon went out of his front door. They said the second shot was far off. This matches the statement (read in court) given by the shooter in the car of so called "women thugs". She said she wanted the person that was shooting at her to know that she also had a gun, so she shot back.
As Rutherford mentioned on WIS news, the young lady did give a statement to police stating that she was going to shoot Shannon's house up, but Rutherford failed to mention that her sentence ended in "after someone shot at me, but my friends talked me out of it."
She felt the need to defend herself. Prior to this case, Shannon had no knowledge that the girls planned to shoot at his home. He found out in court and Mr. Rutherford capitalized on it in his closing statement to paint a picture that did not happen. Even the 911 call made by Shannon's wife, at the time girlfriend, which was played in court said, "there is a white SUV full of girls parked at Allstate".
She stated that Shannon heard her say this. So, how did he end up shooting a red Honda that contained two boys? The young man riding with Darrell also testified that Shannon shot first. He saw him walk out and start shooting. He also testified of a second shot that was far off. The 911 call gave details on where the girls were (parked at Allstate...a few houses down and two the right of Shannon's home) and pictures revealed where my Darrell's car ended (pictures shown in court....like two houses down and to the left of Shannon's home).
That doesn't make for an off shot. That makes for bad judgement. Shannon also testified that he saw the vehicle that posed a threat come down the street with it's headlights off. Pictures shown revealed that Darrell's headlights were on. Nonetheless, this man was shooting at kids. Yes, teenagers can pose a threat and we understand wanting to protect your child, but by any means necessary and without judgement?!?
There was a sign at his home that said, "Shoot first. Ask questions later." He did exactly that. Regardless of what his lawyer wants people to believe, Shannon shot first. He created the biggest threat and took an innocent bystanders life. He shot at a car that had the windows up (pictures shown in court).
That is not standing your ground.
We understand that the stand your ground law has caused an uproar in our nation at this time, but we do not feel as if it is applicable to this case.
We are confident in the facts. Not the painted picture of Rutherford, who helped write the stand your ground law. Thanks to everyone in support of justice in this case. We thank you. We solicit your prayers. One thing is for sure, facts do not lie!!
the FULL statement... now
please tell me, which part states the families objection to SYG?? the red part?? sounds to me, like they are calling for a real charge of manslaughter*at least*
PS legalinsurrection.com is a conservative blog
This original OP was removed and then reposted as I was looking for more info, the further links are ON the first page, and further thru the thread...I do not only use activist sites, nor one newspaper.... Ive linked to links others did not post.
That's a lot of words to confirm that what I said was correct.
I have no idea why you want to pretend that the families formal statement, which they prepared with their lawyer, means something other than what they specifically said. But it is clear that the ghoulish left (which is not all the left, just a subset) doesn't give a damn about their wishes. Shannon WAS charged with Murder, so I doubt saying SYG is not applicable to this case means they want him charged with manslaughter.
I think their formal statement is what they meant. You are free however, to use the family as pawns if you like though. It seems disgusting to me though.
|
RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread