Another Stand your ground fiasco kill an innocent person get off free.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Oct 13, 2013.

  1. macrumors 68000

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    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/2013/10/11/2769631/south-carolina-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.
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    Grey Beard

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Location:
    The Antipodes.
    #2
    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:cool:
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 68000

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #4
    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.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #5
    Oooooohhhhh...you're about to get it!!

    I agree with everything you said, though.
     
  6. macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #9
    The "stand your ground" law was created from domestic violence situations, which sadly isn't helping.
     
  10. macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    A fine example of reckless homicide... but that's ok, we all get to keep our guns which is the more important thing.
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    #11
    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/252394/2/2010-Case-Challenges-States-Stand-Your-Ground-Laws
     
  12. macrumors G3

    Kilamite

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #12
    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.
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 68000

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #13
    well this article says he was not involved at all.
    http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/10/09/5291031/stand-your-ground-sc-judge-grants.html
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    That would indeed be ridiculous. They did not kill anyone.
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    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?
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    #17
    You're entitled to your opinion, but it's the law in 46 states (plus the UK, Canada, etc).

    ----------

    That would depend on the strength of the evidence that the SUV did shoot at the house.
     
  18. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    Yes. It would.
     
  20. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    I wouldn't be so sure. A death that occurs while committing a felony can be charged as murder.

     
  22. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    Your quote reinforces my point. The death was not caused by them during or in furtherance of committing a felony. I rest my case.
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 68020

    sviato

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Location:
    HR 9038 A
    #24
    'Murica, not even once! :D
     
  25. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    #25
    You're right. I shouldn't have said it's the law in the UK, but as the Wikipedia notes:
    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.
     

Share This Page