Latest Stand Your Ground in SC - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Latest Stand Your Ground in SC

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,412
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodge83 View Post
    if he had hit/killed one of the actual attackers, i can see stand your ground since it was in protection of his daughter, but not a bystander.
    That's another thing.....I don't think there ever were any "actual attackers." From the article:

    At time of the shooting, about 1:30 a.m., Scott was in fear of his life, and he was the only one who could take action against a carload of menacing teen “women thugs” who had just followed his daughter and her girlfriends home on the night of April 17, 2010, Rutherford said.


    On their way home, his daughter telephoned Scott to tell him they were being followed. He met them outside and told them to go and lie down on the kitchen floor while he went outside with a pistol.
    So, the daughter and her friends were only victims of being followed. Well, maybe........

    Murphy also heard conflicting testimony as to whether anyone fired at Scott while he was in the front yard that night. According to police, who took statements from people at the scene that night, Scott fired first.

    However, Rutherford presented witnesses who said someone fired a shot at Scott before he fired.

    “Should he have gone back in (the house) while people were shooting at him? That is exactly what the General Assembly said you do not have to do,” said Rutherford, a state representative who voted for the 2006 Stand Your Ground law.
    The plot thickens. Personally, if my wife called to say she was being followed and couldn't get to a cop-shop or other safe place, I would direct her home sho 'nuff, and I'd be outside and guard her while getting into the house, but I'd go in the house with her and we'd both defend our "castle" just the way we've planned and practiced many times.

    Regardless though, if there is credible evidence that Scott was being fired upon, that changes everything for both Scott and the judge who has to rule on a SYG immunity claim.

    But there's also another fly in the ointment for me.....

    Scott was fearful of a drive-by at the time he fired his gun at Niles’ 1992 Honda, and he was “faced with what he thought was an imminent threat” from Niles’ car, Rutherford said.
    So now we're beyond the "innocent bystander" meme and into Scott hitting the target he was aiming at, only that target (Niles' car) was a case of mistaken identity. He thought Niles' car was the one following his daughter, but even Scott admits:

    Rutherford acknowledged that Niles was an innocent bystander, who in all probability was on the scene because he intended to help Scott’s daughter.
    Nowhere in the article does it say whether the carload of "women thugs" have even been identified. There's no description of their car in the article. There's nothing indicating what information led Scott to think he was about to be the victim of a drive-by shooting, except the rather ambiguous detail of unnamed "witnesses" who said a shot was fired before Scott fired his weapon.

    To me, everything hinges on whether or not there really was a shot fired other than Scott's. If there was, he might have a case, but it's still gonna be a tough row to hoe if he really did fire at Niles' car in a case of mistaken identity.

    In short, what a freakin' mess!

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I would direct her home sho 'nuff, and I'd be outside and guard her while getting into the house, but I'd go in the house with her and we'd both defend our "castle" just the way we've planned and practiced many times...

    In short, what a freakin' mess!

    Blues
    Your 2 best points, and it sums it up rather nicely.
    Chief

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    The Circuit Court in SC just ruled in favor of the homeowner and the expanded nature of "stand your ground". "When the defendant fired the shot, he reasonably believed he was being attacked with deadly force directed at his home". The Solicitor for the Fifth Circuit is going to appeal this ruling to the SC Supreme Court. This current ruling, if it stands, gives SC citizens very broad rights when in fear of their lives. All you have to have is a legitimate fear for your life and you can discharge your firearm almost without consequence and, as in this case, kill an innocent bystander. I do have a significant question to ask--was the shooter white or black and was the victim white or black? I tend to think both were either white or black since I have not seen any Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson antics. I still think the SC Supreme Court will either overturn the Circuit Court or narrow the "reasonable" nature of indiscriminate discharge of a firearm. Certainly one of the primary rules of gun safety is knowing where your bullet is going.

  5. #14
    yes, this "blanket of fire" bs, as employed by our cops, has to stop. As El Jefe said:'There are worse things than being shot, and shooting someone dear to you is the worst".

  6. #15

    Latest Stand Your Ground in SC

    I had the same though as blues in his later posts (sorry, wouldn't let me quote). If the people "following" her were actually committing a violent crime, I can see the robbery analogy working. However, with the given details, I don't see how, even if these guys were following her, this guy was justified in firing his weapon. Even if he had hit the right person, since when is shooting somebody simply for following you justified?

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    As I said in my last reply, this Circuit Court judge has expanded "reasonable imminent danger" to a crazy level that will lead to a slew of crazy cases. I would be astounded if the SC Supreme Court does not rein this judge's ruling in with some limiting conditions or just throw it all out.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast