RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (Full Version)

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



Message


Lucylastic -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 11:11:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Maestro702

The original article was from a left wing, activist Blog, it wasn't a news source at all.....


We have not got the details to make a real judgment here. Not that that would stop a ridiculous blog like Thinkprogress, from making judgments. Or getting its drones all fired up about it.

Pssssst smarty pants.....
I backed it up on page 1, with two local sources.
For a reason.
Is there a fact wrong? Did the victim die needlessly.
Biased? Depends on your definition.
The decision is being appealed.
The fewer idiots with guns thinking they can get away with killing innocent people via a law with more holes in it than a second hand dart board, the better.




BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 11:17:54 PM)

FR


Note that this one is from AP


COLUMBIA, SC (WIS/AP) - A Columbia man arrested in the 2010 shooting death of a Keenan High School student won't be tried for murder, a Richland County judge has ruled.




Additional Links





Read the statement from the Niles family








Judge Maite Murphy filed an order stating that Shannon Anthony Scott reasonably believed his life was in danger and it entitled to immunity under the state's Protection of Persons and Property ACT, otherwise known as the Castle Doctrine or "Stand Your Ground" law.

Scott was arrested on April 18, 2010 and charged with murder in the death of 17-year-old Darrell Andre Niles. The teen had been found shot to death in his car.

Shortly before the shooting, an SUV filled with young people who had threatened Scott's teenage daughter drove by his house and fired shots. Authorities say Smith then saw Niles' car and fired his gun from his front yard, hitting Niles, who was not armed, in the head.

Scott's attorney, state Rep. Todd Rutherford, argued that the defendant's actions were protected under the Castle Doctrine, which states, in part, that a person in his or her own home or vehicle has no duty to retreat from an aggressor.

Judge Murphy granted a hearing on the request in August.

Murphy finalized her ruling on September 30. "I hearby conclude that the Defendant is entitled to the grant of immunity under the Act because he and his family were clearly under attack," she wrote. "The Legislature clearly did not intend for any father to stand idly by as his family lay on the kitchen floor in fear of being shot and killed."

Rutherford was pleased with the ruling.

"I think this judge's decision is strong," said Rutherford. "I think again the mistake was made in not arresting those female thugs who were going to do the drive-by."

Niles' mother, Deatra Niles, can't believe Scott may never come to court

"It's not right; it's not right," said Niles. "Just to think he took my child's life away when my baby was helping his child get home."

The family worries evidence they know exists proving this isn't 'stand your ground' may never be heard.

"Shannon shot first," said Niles. "The truth needs to be out there, the roommate testified, Eric, Boo Boo's best friend that was in the car testified. If you sit and look at the whole case the distance everything from where he shot from."


Solicitor Dan Johnson has appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press and WIS. All rights reserved.




BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 11:21:11 PM)

Nobody seems to care about the thugetts




Lucylastic -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 11:32:45 PM)

So he was driving the girl home........only to get shot.......that makes it all better.
Or are you talking about shannon shot first, (shannon being the father???)and boo boos friend ?
Why does the defense chap rutherford, say....the mistake was made not arresting those female thugs who were going to do the drive by. Not, by the girls who did the drive by?
Something stinks.... im sorry, the mothers statement says to me that he should indeed be doing time.




BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 11:46:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So he was driving the girl home........only to get shot.......that makes it all better.
Or are you talking about shannon shot first, (shannon being the father???)and boo boos friend ?
Why does the defense chap rutherford, say....the mistake was made not arresting those female thugs who were going to do the drive by. Not, by the girls who did the drive by?
Something stinks.... im sorry, the mothers statement says to me that he should indeed be doing time.

Why do the anti gun people keep pretending that we think Neil's death is ok?
Nobody I repeat nobody says anything remotely resembling that.
Nothing makes the death better.
There is no indication he shot first.
Witnesses heard them shooting so pretending they didn't start it is nothing but a straw man.




Lucylastic -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 11:51:56 PM)

Ahhhhhh i see lmao
Now find out for me why the thugettes werent arrested and lets see the spin you put on it.




Just0Us0Two -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 12:09:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So he was driving the girl home........only to get shot.......that makes it all better.
Or are you talking about shannon shot first, (shannon being the father???)and boo boos friend ?
Why does the defense chap rutherford, say....the mistake was made not arresting those female thugs who were going to do the drive by. Not, by the girls who did the drive by?
Something stinks.... im sorry, the mothers statement says to me that he should indeed be doing time.


It also says "Shortly before the shooting, an SUV filled with young people who had threatened Scott's teenage daughter drove by his house and fired shots." Of course the mother is upset. Anyone's mother would be upset at losing a child, especially to something so tragically stupid.

You keep saying that "someone should pay", and most people here have agreed with you. Someone should absolutely pay. However, if the girls who precipitated the incident can't be found or charged for some reason, that doesn't mean the next convenient person should be. The shooting was ruled legal. A judge, who had all the facts in front of him, (which we don't) has said that the shooting to be justified. Whatever you think of that, at this moment he can't be charged. The ruling is being appealed, so that may change, but as of right now he can't. So, if you want someone to pay, you should start asking where those girls are.

Has anyone found any info on the girls in the SUV? Unfortunately, every search I've done just comes up with this recent ruling. I'd think at a minimum they should have been charged with menacing, possibly attempted murder for the drive-by. For murder if the felony murder rule applies, which it seems like it should.




BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 12:14:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Ahhhhhh i see lmao
Now find out for me why the thugettes werent arrested and lets see the spin you put on it.

I have been trying to.




BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 12:15:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So he was driving the girl home........only to get shot.......that makes it all better.
Or are you talking about shannon shot first, (shannon being the father???)and boo boos friend ?
Why does the defense chap rutherford, say....the mistake was made not arresting those female thugs who were going to do the drive by. Not, by the girls who did the drive by?
Something stinks.... im sorry, the mothers statement says to me that he should indeed be doing time.


It also says "Shortly before the shooting, an SUV filled with young people who had threatened Scott's teenage daughter drove by his house and fired shots." Of course the mother is upset. Anyone's mother would be upset at losing a child, especially to something so tragically stupid.

You keep saying that "someone should pay", and most people here have agreed with you. Someone should absolutely pay. However, if the girls who precipitated the incident can't be found or charged for some reason, that doesn't mean the next convenient person should be. The shooting was ruled legal. A judge, who had all the facts in front of him, (which we don't) has said that the shooting to be justified. Whatever you think of that, at this moment he can't be charged. The ruling is being appealed, so that may change, but as of right now he can't. So, if you want someone to pay, you should start asking where those girls are.

Has anyone found any info on the girls in the SUV? Unfortunately, every search I've done just comes up with this recent ruling. I'd think at a minimum they should have been charged with menacing, possibly attempted murder for the drive-by. For murder if the felony murder rule applies, which it seems like it should.

I have been trying to, doesn't look like anybody cares about them, much like on here.




Just0Us0Two -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 12:16:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Ahhhhhh i see lmao
Now find out for me why the thugettes werent arrested and lets see the spin you put on it.


What spin? Almost all accounts say that the girls in the SUV shot first. That's the precipitating incident. All that is unclear is whether the girls were still shooting when Scott came out onto the porch.




Lucylastic -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 12:34:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So he was driving the girl home........only to get shot.......that makes it all better.
Or are you talking about shannon shot first, (shannon being the father???)and boo boos friend ?
Why does the defense chap rutherford, say....the mistake was made not arresting those female thugs who were going to do the drive by. Not, by the girls who did the drive by?
Something stinks.... im sorry, the mothers statement says to me that he should indeed be doing time.


It also says "Shortly before the shooting, an SUV filled with young people who had threatened Scott's teenage daughter drove by his house and fired shots." Of course the mother is upset. Anyone's mother would be upset at losing a child, especially to something so tragically stupid.

You keep saying that "someone should pay", and most people here have agreed with you. Someone should absolutely pay. However, if the girls who precipitated the incident can't be found or charged for some reason, that doesn't mean the next convenient person should be. The shooting was ruled legal. A judge, who had all the facts in front of him, (which we don't) has said that the shooting to be justified. Whatever you think of that, at this moment he can't be charged. The ruling is being appealed, so that may change, but as of right now he can't. So, if you want someone to pay, you should start asking where those girls are.

Has anyone found any info on the girls in the SUV? Unfortunately, every search I've done just comes up with this recent ruling. I'd think at a minimum they should have been charged with menacing, possibly attempted murder for the drive-by. For murder if the felony murder rule applies, which it seems like it should.

The next convenient person? You mean the man that fired the gun that put a bullet in his head?
While i agree about the thuggettes...... he is NOT just a convenient person, he killed someone.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 12:40:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman


quote:

ORIGINAL: AdorkableAiley

I wish America could be gun free, but that is just not going to happen and you know what even if it did things would get way worse before they would ever get better. Like drugs people would find ways to have guns anyway only then with them not being legal average Joe has no gun to protect himself against someone else who illegally has a gun.

In one paragraph you clarified the entire reason behind the right to keep and bear arms argument.

And it is complete poppycock as the UK and Australia proved beyond doubt when they did it at a stroke.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 12:43:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The most reliable source is the judge, he said Scott wasn't at fault for the incident.
What reason do you have for not accepting this except that you don't like it.

And you were there to in person to back up that report?
Or have another creditible source for an identical report?

It is not a reliable source of info to quote.




BitYakin -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 12:45:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman


quote:

ORIGINAL: AdorkableAiley

I wish America could be gun free, but that is just not going to happen and you know what even if it did things would get way worse before they would ever get better. Like drugs people would find ways to have guns anyway only then with them not being legal average Joe has no gun to protect himself against someone else who illegally has a gun.

In one paragraph you clarified the entire reason behind the right to keep and bear arms argument.

And it is complete poppycock as the UK and Australia proved beyond doubt when they did it at a stroke.

last time I checked both those countries were ISLANDS, and didn't share a border with a country whose major export is drugs!

yeahhh lets ignore that lil detail!




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 12:59:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
last time I checked both those countries were ISLANDS, and didn't share a border with a country whose major export is drugs!

yeahhh lets ignore that lil detail!

Australia is flanked to the north by the Philipines and Indonesia that is rife with drugs and human traffickers.
We are only a spit from the biggest occupied land mass of the world that can be bridged by a small boat and it is linked by a tunnel too.

The US is no more more than a big island that is much smaller than the land mass right next to us.

Yeah, perhaps we should forget that simple fact too!!




Just0Us0Two -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 1:23:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

The next convenient person? You mean the man that fired the gun that put a bullet in his head?
While i agree about the thuggettes...... he is NOT just a convenient person, he killed someone.


Yes, he did. And morally I suspect that's something that's going to haunt him the rest of his life. But legally he was judged to be not responsible and given immunity. That pretty much ends that. The ruling has been sent up to the SC Supreme Court, so it's not guaranteed to be the last word, but it is for now.


Not sure if anyone will find this a credible source, but since it's written by an attorney, I'd say it's more likely to get the legal details right.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/south-carolina-father-wins-self-defense-immunity-in-shooting-of-bystander/




Just0Us0Two -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 1:39:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The most reliable source is the judge, he said Scott wasn't at fault for the incident.
What reason do you have for not accepting this except that you don't like it.

And you were there to in person to back up that report?
Or have another creditible source for an identical report?

It is not a reliable source of info to quote.


No offense, but that statement is ridiculous. So far, the judge's ruling hasn't been made available on-line, not anywhere I've been able to find at least. However EVERY source, regardless of the slant they put on their article, has said that the shooting has been ruled justified. So arguing the credibility of one source seems rather silly.

If you don't like his source, use Google. (or page back through the thread, there's several already posted) I was able to find pages of sources in a matter of minutes. The one I just posted above was written by an attorney. The site does seem rather right leaning, but the author does quote (& link to) the relevant statutes to back up his assertions.




eulero83 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 1:48:42 AM)

FR

not going after the "thuggettes" but who actually committed the crime of killing a person for mistake (call it manslaughter instead os murder but still a crime) would mean declaring a gun is not a toy and it brings responsibilities with it. I don't think that being entitled to shoot whatever it moves on a public raod because you're scared increase safety. Than if the point is that if only responsible person would buy a gun smith and wesson would go broke it's another matter.




Lucylastic -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 1:51:47 AM)

After all, Rutherford told the judge, it was 1:30 a.m., and Scott — with no police around — 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 18, 2010, Rutherford said.

According to evidence in the case, Scott’s daughter telephoned him on her way home to tell him she was being followed. Scott met his daughter and some friends outside his house, told them to go in and lie down on the kitchen floor and then went around to the front yard with a gun.

It was unreasonable to expect that Scott is required "to go back into his house, in his castle . . . 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.

Rutherford’s view of events was challenged by 5th Circuit Assistant Solicitor April Sampson, who presented evidence hoping to show Scott had no idea who he was firing at.

Sampson said during the August hearing that if Murphy granted immunity to Scott it would "be the first time any state in this Union" has granted immunity for killing an innocent bystander in a Stand Your Ground case.

"If this law were to be applied the way (Scott) wants to apply it, he could shoot a 4-year-old playing in her front yard and still be immune from prosecution," Sampson said. South Carolina would turn into "the Wild, Wild West" if fearful people can go around shooting just about anyone, Sampson said.

Under the state’s Stand Your Ground law, people have the right to use deadly force against an assailant. However, the law doesn’t specifically say a person using deadly force can kill a bystander by mistake and be immune from any criminal prosecution.
http://articles.aberdeennews.com/2013-10-10/news/42872154_1_immunity-front-yard-columbia-case


In the early morning hours of April 17, 2010, Scott shot and killed Darrel Niles, 17, after Niles followed two cars to the residence of Mr. Scott.

"These were people that had followed his daughter home from the club," Rutherford said. "Both cars. When they swung into the driveway, [Shannon Scott] is standing in the front yard, he sees both cars go by, and now they're coming at him from separate directions."

"He ascertained the threat and he reacted."

Court records say shots were fired in the direction of the home, and that's when Scott shot back.

"In firing at them, [Scott] also fired at a second car which had fired at them as well," Rutherford said. "killing an individual who was not armed."

Rutherford said his clients acs were justified under those circumstances, and a judge agreed granting Scott immunity under South Carolina's "Stand Your Ground" laws.

"Who better to defend the law than someone who helped to write it?" Rutherford questioned when asked if he felt there was a conflict of interest in him defending Shannon Scott.
http://www.wltx.com/news/article/252394/2/2010-Case-Challenges-States-Stand-Your-Ground-Laws

During the hearing, Murphy heard conflicting testimony as to whether anyone fired at Scott while he was in his front yard that night.

Rutherford said Niles’ death is tragic but, “He simply ended up being in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Niles might have had “honorable intentions,” Rutherford said, but the teen put himself in danger “by following my client’s daughter home at 1:30 in the morning.”

Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott, an opponent of giving people broad latitude to kill others under the authority of a Stand Young Ground law, said, “In this military, you would call Niles’ death ‘collateral damage.’

“I guess the question is, ‘How much collateral damage do we want to have?”

TIMELINE FOR APRIL 18, 2010 shooting

>> A 15-year-old girl and five friends leave a nightclub just after midnight

>> They are pursued by four young women in an SUV.

>> They arrive home and tell her father, Shannon Scott, they’re in danger.

>> 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.

>> Bystander Darrell Niles, 17, in a separate car, is killed.

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

just more bits to the puzzle




Lucylastic -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/14/2013 2:18:59 AM)

no court files available, IM guessing thats because its being appealed, but the man has an interesting record,




Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875