Um, yeah, for sure.
This article is garbled even by Daily Mail standards. Was young Mr. “Boo Boo” Niles in the car with the teenaged girls who were shooting at Mr. Scott’s house? And where was the baby?
Stupid Brits. Do they not realize that if the other teenagers in the car were committing a crime at the time of Trayvon's Darrell's death, they would be charged with his murder, as if they'd killed him themselves.
"Stand Your Ground" is only one law that protects citizens in this country who are not the aggressors and not the criminals in a deadly force situation. It is only controversial to people who wish only the police had guns. That was tried once: Communism. Its outcome was predictable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Of course, you won’t see Al and Jesse down there, because the shooter was also black.
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.
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.