Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 13, 2013, 11:00 PM   #1
steve knight
macrumors 65816
 
steve knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Another Stand your ground fiasco kill an innocent person get off free.

this is hard to believe. I mean the guy fired a shot with no clue where the bullet would go. he did not shoot anyone threatening him but a innocent person. and worse yet no big deal he is not responsible for his actions.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...-stand-ground/
On Wednesday, a South Carolina judge granted immunity from prosecution to a man who shot and killed an innocent bystander during a botched confrontation with a group of teenagers. The judge relied on the state’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law.

Seventeen-year-old Darrell Niles was in his car, minding his own business back in 2010 when 33-year-old Shannon Anthony Scott shot and killed him.

Earlier that day, a group of girls had followed and threatened Scott’s 15-year-old daughter. They later drove past Scott’s house in an SUV. But when Scott walked out of his house with a handgun to confront the “women thugs,” as he described them, he instead fired straight into the 1992 Honda of Darrell Niles, who was unarmed. Niles was killed instantly.

Some questions remain in the case: The group of girls may have fired shots first, but testimony is conflicted on if shots were fired at Scott himself, or at all. There is also some indication that Scott was primed to shoot his gun at someone: Even prior to the shooting, he had a sign in his window that read, “Fight Crime – Shoot First,” according to a 5th Circuit Assistant Solicitor.

Despite the defense’s evidence that Scott had no proof the young man was an “imminent threat,” Scott’s attorney — who, oddly enough, is state Rep. Todd Rutherford (D-SC) — argued that if Scott hadn’t shot Niles, he would have had to go back to his home 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.

On Wednesday, Circuit Judge Maite Murphy accepted those arguments and ruled that Scott believed he was aiming for the group that had threatened his daughter, and therefore was protected under South Carolina’s 2006 Stand Your Ground law.

Darrell Niles’s mother was devastated by the order. “It’s not right; it’s not right,” she told a local TV station, saying she fears her son will be vilified in death and seen as one of those threatening Scott’s daughter. “The truth needs to be out there.”

The order has been appealed by Fifth Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson.
__________________
CNCrouting.biz
steve knight is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13, 2013, 11:24 PM   #2
Grey Beard
macrumors 6502a
 
Grey Beard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Antipodes.
Send a message via AIM to Grey Beard
If only those misguided morons who would stand their ground, did so on a bed of quicksand.

I cannot fathom the idiocy of the American legal system.

KGB
__________________
I am what I am.
Grey Beard is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 12:51 AM   #3
steve knight
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
steve knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
I know this one is just crazy. It seems like a lot of these SYG situations the people who do it create the problem in the first place.
__________________
CNCrouting.biz
steve knight is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 01:10 AM   #4
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve knight View Post
I know this one is just crazy. It seems like a lot of these SYG situations the people who do it create the problem in the first place.
Which plays to my contention that guns actually affect a person's behavior. The gun advocates will always tell me I am wrong, because they act the way they do all the time. But an average person not holding or carrying a gun will generally tend to avoid confrontation while a person who has a gun will feel empowered, to the point that they are likely to do things that they would not do without a gun handy. People without guns do not kill people, at least not as readily.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 07:56 AM   #5
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
Which plays to my contention that guns actually affect a person's behavior. The gun advocates will always tell me I am wrong, because they act the way they do all the time. But an average person not holding or carrying a gun will generally tend to avoid confrontation while a person who has a gun will feel empowered, to the point that they are likely to do things that they would not do without a gun handy. People without guns do not kill people, at least not as readily.
Oooooohhhhh...you're about to get it!!

I agree with everything you said, though.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 08:53 AM   #6
mrkramer
macrumors 601
 
mrkramer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere
They really need to get rid of or at least rewrite these Stand Your Ground laws to make the shooters take some responsibility. Unfortunately as it is now I'm pretty sure this was the right decision on the judge's part based on how the law is written. Of course it is also a sign that the law is horrible and needs to be gotten rid of since it basically condones murder.
__________________
"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind." -Mikhail Gorbachev
mrkramer is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 10:09 AM   #7
LIVEFRMNYC
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
If I ever get killed and the killer gets off cause of some bogus defense claim, I will not walk towards the light. I'll spend years of my afterlife haunting the #@$! out of the killer and family.
LIVEFRMNYC is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 11:16 AM   #8
ElectronGuru
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Oregon, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIVEFRMNYC View Post
If I ever get killed and the killer gets off cause of some bogus defense claim, I will not walk towards the light. I'll spend years of my afterlife haunting the #@$! out of the killer and family.
This is why laws and courts were created in the first place, to prevent citizens from taking matters into their own hands. But if the higher authority becomes powerless to intervene, that will no longer be the case.
__________________
MBP, IM, MM, IPM, IP, AT
ElectronGuru is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 11:36 AM   #9
LIVEFRMNYC
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectronGuru View Post
This is why laws and courts were created in the first place, to prevent citizens from taking matters into their own hands. But if the higher authority becomes powerless to intervene, that will no longer be the case.
The "stand your ground" law was created from domestic violence situations, which sadly isn't helping.
LIVEFRMNYC is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 11:52 AM   #10
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
A fine example of reckless homicide... but that's ok, we all get to keep our guns which is the more important thing.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 12:11 PM   #11
astrorider
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Seems pretty clear...blame should go to those in the SUV that opened fire on the guys house, even though his reaction of firing back to defend himself and daughter was the direct cause of death. But, blame a law or guns in general if you prefer. I'm sure if the guy and his daughter were gunned down in their house instead nobody here would think it worthy of mention.

Thinkprogress's usual slant on gun issues doesn't help either, so here:
http://www.wltx.com/news/article/252...ur-Ground-Laws
astrorider is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 12:13 PM   #12
Kilamite
macrumors G3
 
Kilamite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Last week's episode of South Park, while typical in their way to get their point across (plus the inclusion of race), demonstrated how ridiculous the SYG law is.

I wonder how much of an uproar the Mark Duggan case would've got in the US.
__________________
15" MacBook Pro 2GHz i7 8GB 750GB Hybrid | Mac mini 2.3GHz i7 16GB 1TB Fusion | OS X 10.10
iPhone 5 64GB | Apple TV 3 1080p | iOS 7.1.2
Home Theatre Hackintosh i3 3.5GHz 4GB 3TB | OS X 10.9.2
Kilamite is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 03:26 PM   #13
steve knight
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
steve knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrorider View Post
Seems pretty clear...blame should go to those in the SUV that opened fire on the guys house, even though his reaction of firing back to defend himself and daughter was the direct cause of death. But, blame a law or guns in general if you prefer. I'm sure if the guy and his daughter were gunned down in their house instead nobody here would think it worthy of mention.

Thinkprogress's usual slant on gun issues doesn't help either, so here:
http://www.wltx.com/news/article/252...ur-Ground-Laws
well this article says he was not involved at all.
http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/10/...ge-grants.html
__________________
CNCrouting.biz
steve knight is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 03:42 PM   #14
astrorider
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Again, sounds like a good case to apply the Felony murder rule, namely that those in the SUV are responsible for this bystander's death by committing the dangerous felony that culminated in his death. While SYG is being used by the defense to avoid prosecution, the prosecutor should be charging those in the SUV for this person's murder, if they haven't already.
astrorider is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 04:50 PM   #15
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrorider View Post
Again, sounds like a good case to apply the Felony murder rule, namely that those in the SUV are responsible for this bystander's death by committing the dangerous felony that culminated in his death. While SYG is being used by the defense to avoid prosecution, the prosecutor should be charging those in the SUV for this person's murder, if they haven't already.
That would indeed be ridiculous. They did not kill anyone.
skunk is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 05:48 PM   #16
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrorider View Post
Again, sounds like a good case to apply the Felony murder rule, namely that those in the SUV are responsible for this bystander's death by committing the dangerous felony that culminated in his death. While SYG is being used by the defense to avoid prosecution, the prosecutor should be charging those in the SUV for this person's murder, if they haven't already.
In the accounts I've read, it said it was disputed that shots were fired from the SUV.

Would you try them for murder just for passing in front of the house?
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 06:08 PM   #17
astrorider
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk View Post
That would indeed be ridiculous. They did not kill anyone.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's the law in 46 states (plus the UK, Canada, etc).

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
In the accounts I've read, it said it was disputed that shots were fired from the SUV.

Would you try them for murder just for passing in front of the house?
That would depend on the strength of the evidence that the SUV did shoot at the house.
astrorider is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 06:14 PM   #18
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrorider View Post
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's the law in 46 states (plus the UK, Canada, etc).
Incorrect. Abolished in the UK in 1957, and in any case it would not apply in this case. They did not cause anyone's death.
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 06:32 PM   #19
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrorider View Post
That would depend on the strength of the evidence that the SUV did shoot at the house.
Yes. It would.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 06:40 PM   #20
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Yes. It would.
No, it would not. Under no possible interpretation of Felony Murder, even if it applied at all, which it doesn't, would the people in the SUV have been responsible for the death. Felony Murder can be used to bring a charge of murder where, despite the absence of an intent to kill, a person is killed by someone committing a dangerous felony.
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 06:47 PM   #21
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk View Post
No, it would not. Under no possible interpretation of Felony Murder, even if it applied at all, which it doesn't, would the people in the SUV have been responsible for the death. Felony Murder can be used to bring a charge of murder where, despite the absence of an intent to kill, a person is killed by someone committing a dangerous felony.
I wouldn't be so sure. A death that occurs while committing a felony can be charged as murder.

Quote:
Felony murder rule

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the commission of a felony, the offender can be charged with murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 06:51 PM   #22
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
I wouldn't be so sure. A death that occurs while committing a felony can be charged as murder.
Your quote reinforces my point. The death was not caused by them during or in furtherance of committing a felony. I rest my case.
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 07:06 PM   #23
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk View Post
Your quote reinforces my point. The death was not caused by them during or in furtherance of committing a felony. I rest my case.
If they shot at the man, and he returned fire, hitting the innocent bystander, then they could very well be held liable for that death.

However, there is nothing proving that they did fire any shots.

And I'm not trying to speak authoritatively about what happened in this specific incident.

I'm trying to lay out a general application of the rule.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2013, 10:07 PM   #24
sviato
macrumors 68000
 
sviato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: HR 9038 A
'Murica, not even once!
sviato is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2013, 01:58 AM   #25
astrorider
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk View Post
Incorrect. Abolished in the UK in 1957, and in any case it would not apply in this case. They did not cause anyone's death.
You're right. I shouldn't have said it's the law in the UK, but as the Wikipedia notes:
Quote:
...its effect is preserved by the application of the Common Law principle of "Joint Enterprise"
So the effect may be the same. If the SUV fired upon the house and the homeowner, protecting himself and family, returned fire and accidentally killed a bystander, those firing from the SUV could be held criminally liable and charged with murder of the bystander.
astrorider is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Stand Your Ground Thread Huntn Politics, Religion, Social Issues 170 Mar 15, 2014 08:31 PM
Florida man invokes ‘Stand your ground’ after shooting sheriff’s deputy steve knight Politics, Religion, Social Issues 13 Mar 8, 2014 10:43 AM
Only in Florida - Stand Your Ground Law rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 60 Jun 5, 2013 03:19 PM
Florida Court Allows Felon Illegally Possessing A Firearm To Invoke Stand Your Ground rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 45 Apr 15, 2013 01:40 AM
Stand O'Food Free Game?? ivnj Mac OS X 10.7 Lion 0 Aug 17, 2012 09:43 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:23 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC