Posted on 10/14/2013 4:10:49 AM PDT by Morgana
FULL TITLE: South Carolina man who shot unarmed teenager dead will NOT face trial under controversial Stand Your Ground law
A South Carolina mother has spoken out in shock after it was announced on Friday that the man who shot dead her 17-year-old son will not be tried for his murder because of the state's 'Stand Your Ground Law'.
In April 2010, Shannon Anthony Scott, who was then 33, opened fire on a SUV full of teenage girls outside his home in Columbia and unintentionally hit unarmed 17-year-old Darrell Andre Niles in his car, killing him.
Despite being arrested and charged with the murder of Niles immediately after the shooting, Scott's legal team successfully argued for immunity under the state's Protection of Persons and Property ACT, otherwise known as the Castle Doctrine or 'Stand Your Ground' law.
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.'
Richland County Judge Maite Murphy ruled that Scott genuinely believed his life was in danger and was therefore justified in using deadly force.
The court heard that Scott meant to shoot at a car that was full of teenage girls who had threatened the life of his daughter and who drove past his house and fired shots.
Scroll Down for Video
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The people that started the incident should be charged with murder not Scott. A jury shouldn’t have the power to decide that a man defending himself should be tried with murder.
So, it sounds to me like a car load of girls needs to be hauled in and arrested and prosecuted for, at the very least, involuntary manslaughter as their malevolent actions were the root cause of this young man’s death.
Haul those females in first.
It is almost like someone ran it through babble fish to turn it into another language and then back through to get it into English.
Zimmerman shot the person who was attacking him and threatening his life. Yet the "Stand Your Ground" law was not applied. Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty of murder or manslaughter.
The Scott case is completely different. Here, the "Stand Your Ground" law was applied when Scott missed the people in the car who were threatening his life and killed an innocent bystander in another car.
Here is the story on your “rest of the story”
“This is, of course, pure speculation, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Scott, a seemingly white man, feared these teens because they were nonwhite and therefore considered inherently violent.
On a side note, I realize Scott doesn’t necessarily look white,(He is obviously black) but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t benefit from white supremacy/privilege that our criminal justice system was built on, especially given that his victim was a young black male.”
This whole incident is black on black violence, yet the author blames “white supremacy/privilege” for the verdict! The author destroys her credibility with this absurd charge even if some of her other points are valid.
But then, in the eyes of guilt tripping white “liberals”, whites are to blame for EVERYTHING bad that happens to black people.
The mother says this...
‘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.’
Reality says this...
“The court heard that Scott meant to shoot at a car that was full of teenage girls who had threatened the life of his daughter and who drove past his house and fired shots.”
Society’s problems always start in the home. Teach your children to walk a Godly path and they won’t be pulling crap like this thus getting themselves killed.
I agree with you too. Manslaughter charges but not murder should be brought.
“We live in Bizarro World.”
Oy, that writer certainly does. Thanks for pointing this link out.
I will say no matter that blogger’s confused thinking on “white privilege” he or she did a much better job of recounting the events than the newspaper did.
Yes, we know a little more.
“Maybe one of the teenaged girls was the baby-mama.”
Never thought of that!
Well, now I’m thinking there is no baby involved, except “Boo Boo” Niles himself. When his mother said “his child,” she was referring to Mr. Scott’s daughter. The implication is that Mr. Niles was on the side of Mr. Scott’s daughter in whatever dispute was going on.
From this account is sounds like the SUV with the girls fired shots near, but not at the home. The story makes it sound like after hearing the shots Scott ran out and fired at the first person he saw.
Now I’m thinking this story is so strange we may never know what really happened only that a 17 year old was shot.
It is my understanding that in any case where a death occurs in the commission of a felony (making terroristic threats and firing shots from a car)
that all criminals involved are charged with first degree murder.
“feared these teens because they were nonwhite and therefore considered inherently violent”
Statistically, how would this be an erroneous consideration?
It’s probably all part of an ongoing gang conflict in the local high school, and there will be plenty more episodes to come.
“The case involved the 2010 shooting of Darrell Niles, 17, a Keenan High School student and basketball player, who was across the street in a car when Shannon Scott, then 33, fired his handgun. Shortly before, an SUV filled with youths who had been threatening his 15-year-old daughter drove by his house and they fired shots, according to testimony in the case.
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...
...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.”
http://www.thestate.com/2013/10/09/3029466/exclusive-father-not-charged-in.html#storylink=cpy
As best I can tell, the kid shot was one of the ones following the daughter.
“Society’s problems always start in the home. Teach your children to walk a Godly path and they won’t be pulling crap like this thus getting themselves killed.”
Except the guy who was killed wasn’t “pulling crap like” anything. He had nothing to do with the girls in the SUV.
Agree. I’m a strong supported of “Stand Your Ground” laws but feel this case takes it to an extreme that is out of bounds. In my opinion, manslaughter charges at the minimum are warranted. As you say, then let a jury decide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.