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 ...
Of course, you won’t see Al and Jesse down there, because the shooter was also black.
i too agree. from what i read this is very questionable. if i shoot 2 people who have pulled guns on me but my bullets go through the target and hit an innocent person, i am responsible for that death. not murder but some type of manslaughter charge
On the night in question, the daughter came home and said she was being followed by a group of girls. A disputed fact is that the girls in the car fired shots toward the house; defendant claimed it, evidence was not found to substantiate it.
Father then went outside, and shot at the first car he saw, which happened to be a parked car with the victim in it. The victim had nothing to do with the girls in the SUV, and in fact may have been a friend of the daughter's who followed the others home to make sure the girls didn't beat up the daughter. Nobody really knows why he followed. But he was not armed, and nobody suggests he was part of the activity.
The father originally said nothing to the police about shooting the boy; 4 days later he told them, and was arrested. This was in 2010.
The judge ruled that, based on the belief that girls in some car had shot at the house, the father was justified in walking outside and shooting at a random car in the street.
-----
MY OPINION: The judge is wrong. We are all endangered by people who own guns who think that they have a right to shoot at anything that moves any time they think they might be threatened. Under this judge's ruling, if a guy was sitting in his house, and heard a car backfire but thought it was a shot, the guy could walk outside, see someone walking past his house, and shoot them dead.
I found an pro-gun blog who looked into this story and agreed that the judge was wrong in this case, and that the case will make it harder for people to use their guns properly to protect their families.
In which I agree with Think Progress for once
Also: The guy sure looks black to me, although I guess he could also be a dark-skinned hispanic. The attempt to claim he is "white" is absurd.
That is one of the articles that originally claimed the shooter was white — you can still see that in the URL link name. But they removed “white” from the headline. Later they argue that the guy was “white enough” to get the advantage of “white privilege”.
I pretty much laugh at anybody who uses the term “white privilege”. IT is the latest attempt by the left to not have to deal with facts.
This story is so short of details that I’m not sure that you can actually say that. Sure… the story says Niles was a ‘bystander’, but does not provide an evidence for that assertion. It was 1:30 am… why was he there? One assumes that if Niles was the one who had just dropped off the girls, that point would have been made in the article right? So one assumes that can’t be the case…. the article also says that “he followed her home”. What does that mean and what was the evidence for that? Was he friends with the thug girls in the SUV and was just following along behind them to watch the hell that was about to break out? Or was he friends with the 15 year old and had some insight into what was going on and thus what could happen and so was trying to see those girls safely home? Was he also in the nightclub with either groups of girls? Did he know any of them? More details needed in so many areas….the article says that Niles was in his car when he got shot but unless I missed it, the article doesn’t make it clear if he was simply driving the car down the road or was sitting parked in his car. Was he in his car but had he been out of it just prior to being shot? And when the father says that he acknowledged shooting him, did that mean that he took specific aim at him to shoot him? Or was he (as somewhat intonated) just a bad shot? I don’t know how any conclusions can be made from this and one wonders why it was so poorly written…. Did the 12 page document written by the judge not give any of these details?
Not that it has much to do the issue at stake but why were a bunch of 15 year olds in a night club?
The guy’s attorney actually made that argument, that the girls in the car should be charged. But they don’t seem to have ever found the girls in the car, or charged them with anything.
There also was no evidence found of other shots fired, although the judge seems to have accepted that at least the father THOUGHT there were shots fired.
Reading from other articles, it APPEARS that by the time the father went outside with his gun, the SUV with the girls in it was gone, and all that was there was this parked car with the victim.
If there were shots fired from the car, then all lives in the car could be forfeit. The story does a pretty good job of glossing that over.
The guy who was shot was in a different car.
Yup. That's why the term "innocent bystander" is so misleading here. Saying that he was an innocent bystander suggests that the shooter shot at the SUV, missed, and hit this guy instead. But, based on other articles, it seems that the shooter intentionally shot at the victim, thinking that the shot came from the victim's car.
"Innocent bystander" doesn't capture that - "mistaken identity" seems more accurate, and paints a whole different picture. It's one thing to say that self-defense/SYG should apply where you are justifiably defending yourself and accidentally kill someone who got in the way; it's another thing to say that it should apply where you intentionally kill the wrong person.
Yes, I saw that later. Sad story all around.
The Bible also says to be careful of the company you keep.
“The Bible also says to be careful of the company you keep.”
How does that apply here? What company was he keeping? By all accounts, the guy who was shot had nothing to do with the girls in the SUV. He just happened to be on the same street. Whose company was he keeping?
Mr. Niles was in a different car. The article describes him as an innocent by stander.
What a mess. The girls who shot at the man’s house could certainly be charged with felony murder. I wonder if they have been?
I thought the guy who was shot was with the girls. Evidently he was a passerby. Charge the girls with murder.
LMBO!!
Thanks for that link - - hilarious!
You funny.
Sure, but charge the shooter too. If you’re going to start shooting in self-defense, you’d damn well better shoot the right person/people.
If they’re all under 18, it seems unlikely they’ll be charged with much of anything.
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.