Stand Your Ground: SC judge grants immunity to man who mistakenly killed a bystander

[Foxrac]

COLUMBIA — In a potentially landmark state court ruling, a South Carolina judge – citing the state’s Stand Your Ground Act – has granted immunity from prosecution to a man charged with shooting and killing an unarmed bystander in a Columbia case.

“When the defendant fired the shot, he reasonably believed he was being attacked with deadly force directed at his home,” said a 12-page order by Circuit Judge Maite Murphy filed Wednesday afternoon.

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.

Fifth Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson has appealed Murphy’s ruling to the S.C. Supreme Court. Johnson declined comment Wednesday, citing the case’s appeal status.

A key legal issue in the case is whether the state’s 2006 Stand Your Ground law will protect people who, although in legitimate fear for their lives, also happen to be bad shots or otherwise unintentionally wind up killing bystanders.

According to Scott’s attorney, Todd Rutherford of Columbia, the law gives people in fear of their lives broad rights.

“Judge Murphy followed the law,” said Rutherford, a Democratic state representative who in 2006 helped write the law.

Someone like Scott who is put in a life-and-death situation “cannot be expected to shoot straight always because they are not supposed to have their life in jeopardy," Rutherford said at Scott’s three-day immunity hearing in mid-August.

The hearing was held right before Scott was to stand trial on murder charges for killing Niles. At that hearing, Scott took the witness stand and acknowledged firing the shot that killed Niles.

Scott “was faced with what he thought was an imminent threat" from Niles’ car, Rutherford said at that hearing.

After all, Rutherford told the judge, it was 1:30 am. in the morning, and Scott – with no police around – 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 18, 2010, Rutherford said.

According to evidence in the case, Scott’s daughter telephoned him on her way home to tell him she was being followed. Scott met his daughter and some friends outside his house, told them to go in and lie down on the kitchen floor and then went around to the front yard with a gun.

It was unreasonable to expect that Scott is required “to go back into his house, in his castle ... 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.

Rutherford’s view of events was challenged by 5th Circuit Assistant Solicitor April Sampson, who presented evidence hoping to show Scott had no idea who he was firing at.

Sampson said during the August hearing that if Murphy granted immunity to Scott it would be “be the first time any state in this Union” has granted immunity for killing an innocent bystander in a Stand Your Ground case.

“If this law were to be applied the way (Scott) wants to apply it, he could shoot a 4-year-old playing in her front yard and still be immune from prosecution,” Sampson said. South Carolina would turn into “the Wild, Wild West” if fearful people can go around shooting just about anyone, Sampson said.

Under the state’s Stand Your Ground law, people have the right to use deadly force against an assailant. However, the law doesn’t specifically say a person using deadly force can kill a bystander by mistake and be immune from any criminal prosecution.

The matter is being aired elsewhere. This week in Florida, the state legislature was considering amendments to that state’s Stand Your Ground law that would make people who shoot and kill someone by mistake while claiming Stand Your Ground protections liable for the killing.

During the August hearing, Rutherford said the real villains in this case were the carload of teens that followed Scott’s daughter and her friends home from a club. They should be charged with “felony murder,” a charge that means that they caused Niles’ death, even though Scott was the one who put the bullet in his head, Rutherford said.

If a store owner shoots and mistakenly kills a bystander during an armed robbery, Rutherford said, the store owner isn’t charged with the bystander’s murder, but the robber.

During the hearing, Murphy heard conflicting testimony as to whether anyone fired at Scott while he was in his front yard that night.

Rutherford said Niles’ death is tragic but, “He simply ended up being in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

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.”

Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott, an opponent of giving people broad latitude to kill others under the authority of a Stand Young Ground law, said, “In this military, you would call Niles’ death ‘collateral damage.’

“I guess the question is, ‘How much collateral damage do we want to have?”

COLUMBIA: Stand Your Ground: SC judge grants immunity to man who mistakenly killed a bystander | Crime | Rock Hill Herald Online

Oh wow.

 

[Smithtr]

oh that is grief

 

[whatdidyousay!]

COLUMBIA: Stand Your Ground: SC judge grants immunity to man who mistakenly killed a bystander | Crime | Rock Hill Herald Online

Oh wow.

Oh wow is right!

It's not safe to be a bystander anymore with the stand your ground law.
It should be called 'open hunting season' because people can go out and shot anyone they do not like the looks of.

 

[ambrosia]

Okaaaaay, stand your ground and use deadly force against an assailant. Except the guy wasn't an assailant..........dude was just sitting in a car across the street. This is freaking ridiculous. I totally believe in the right to bear arms, the right to defend yourself. But I also believe that with gun ownership comes great responsibility. If you behave irresponsibly with a gun, you should be held accountable in some way.

Seriously I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. Okay so the guy is afraid he's going to attacked. But if you're going to be shooting at someone you should probably be damn sure you're shooting at the right person, not just someone you "think" might attack. You should have to wait til they have actually attacked, if not you're not defending yourself against....anything but paranoia. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Bummer......dafaqing faq???

 

[Lau2046]

“If this law were to be applied the way (Scott) wants to apply it, he could shoot a 4-year-old playing in her front yard and still be immune from prosecution,” Sampson said. South Carolina would turn into “the Wild, Wild West” if fearful people can go around shooting just about anyone, Sampson said.

Typical liberal reaction to a law they distort because they want people to hate it the way they do. The law protects people and allows them to defend themselves with cause....unlike laws in my state where a criminal can shoot at a cop out of their car while driving, but the laws prohibit a cop from doing the same in self defense. They must stop the car, and pull over to return fire....stupid....

No one is going to be in fear of a four year old playing and walk up and shoot it. However, I do recall a young punk that walked up to a toddler and shot him point blank in the head. (I'll bet he didn't have a gun permit for that either). There was more sympathy on this board for the "troubled young man" then there was for the dead child. Now if I lived in a stand your ground state and saw this punk walking with the gun in hand up to the father holding his child, I would have shot him on sight...and let the liberals sob over him...and I wouldn't apologize for defending the child and his father, or lose sleep over it. But then I always side with the victims....unpopular as that may be.

Laura

 

[Foxrac]

Okaaaaay, stand your ground and use deadly force against an assailant. Except the guy wasn't an assailant..........dude was just sitting in a car across the street. This is freaking ridiculous. I totally believe in the right to bear arms, the right to defend yourself. But I also believe that with gun ownership comes great responsibility. If you behave irresponsibly with a gun, you should be held accountable in some way.

Seriously I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. Okay so the guy is afraid he's going to attacked. But if you're going to be shooting at someone you should probably be damn sure you're shooting at the right person, not just someone you "think" might attack. You should have to wait til they have actually attacked, if not you're not defending yourself against....anything but paranoia. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Bummer......dafaqing faq???

Oh yes, I don't think it was liberal reaction.

SYG law has some flaws, even people in both sides agreed. SYG law is supposed to protect someone's life in real danger from criminal or bad guys, not innocent or bystanders.

 

[ambrosia]

Oh yes, I don't think it was liberal reaction.

SYG law has some flaws, even people in both sides agreed. SYG law is supposed to protect someone's life in real danger from criminal or bad guys, not innocent or bystanders.

Exactly! If the person you shot just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, guess what, you're not standing your ground against them. This is horrible.

Dear dead guy, sorry you got shot, that's a wicked bummer. But see this guy here, he was scared that someone would attack him. Sure you weren't attacking him, but see he was scared, so he has the right to shoot anyone he he "thinks" "might" be a threat. Sucks to be you dude.

 

[ambrosia]

“If this law were to be applied the way (Scott) wants to apply it, he could shoot a 4-year-old playing in her front yard and still be immune from prosecution,” Sampson said. South Carolina would turn into “the Wild, Wild West” if fearful people can go around shooting just about anyone, Sampson said.

Typical liberal reaction to a law they distort because they want people to hate it the way they do. The law protects people and allows them to defend themselves with cause....unlike laws in my state where a criminal can shoot at a cop out of their car while driving, but the laws prohibit a cop from doing the same in self defense. They must stop the car, and pull over to return fire....stupid....

No one is going to be in fear of a four year old playing and walk up and shoot it. However, I do recall a young punk that walked up to a toddler and shot him point blank in the head. (I'll bet he didn't have a gun permit for that either). There was more sympathy on this board for the "troubled young man" then there was for the dead child. Now if I lived in a stand your ground state and saw this punk walking with the gun in hand up to the father holding his child, I would have shot him on sight...and let the liberals sob over him...and I wouldn't apologize for defending the child and his father, or lose sleep over it. But then I always side with the victims....unpopular as that may be.

Laura

Hmmmmm except in this case the victim was the 17 year kid sitting in a car minding his own business. And it sure doesn't sound like you're siding with him.

 

[whatdidyousay!]

Okaaaaay, stand your ground and use deadly force against an assailant. Except the guy wasn't an assailant..........dude was just sitting in a car across the street. This is freaking ridiculous. I totally believe in the right to bear arms, the right to defend yourself. But I also believe that with gun ownership comes great responsibility. If you behave irresponsibly with a gun, you should be held accountable in some way.

Seriously I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. Okay so the guy is afraid he's going to attacked. But if you're going to be shooting at someone you should probably be damn sure you're shooting at the right person, not just someone you "think" might attack. You should have to wait til they have actually attacked, if not you're not defending yourself against....anything but paranoia. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Bummer......dafaqing faq???

I know what you mean , what if someone got lost and drove into 'the wrong neighborhood' it could cost you your life with the 'stand your ground law'.
I heard of someone getting lost and going to a person house to ask for help
and the owner of the house sot and killed that 'lost' person and there was no stand your ground law.

 

[whatdidyousay!]

“If this law were to be applied the way (Scott) wants to apply it, he could shoot a 4-year-old playing in her front yard and still be immune from prosecution,” Sampson said. South Carolina would turn into “the Wild, Wild West” if fearful people can go around shooting just about anyone, Sampson said.

Typical liberal reaction to a law they distort because they want people to hate it the way they do. The law protects people and allows them to defend themselves with cause....unlike laws in my state where a criminal can shoot at a cop out of their car while driving, but the laws prohibit a cop from doing the same in self defense. They must stop the car, and pull over to return fire....stupid....

No one is going to be in fear of a four year old playing and walk up and shoot it. However, I do recall a young punk that walked up to a toddler and shot him point blank in the head. (I'll bet he didn't have a gun permit for that either). There was more sympathy on this board for the "troubled young man" then there was for the dead child. Now if I lived in a stand your ground state and saw this punk walking with the gun in hand up to the father holding his child, I would have shot him on sight...and let the liberals sob over him...and I wouldn't apologize for defending the child and his father, or lose sleep over it. But then I always side with the victims....unpopular as that may be.

Laura

I am not sure if you have any kids or a boy , if you did and that was your 17 yo kid how would feel then? The stand your ground law can be abused very easy as a dead person can't tell their side of the story. I had a guy sit in his car right across from my condo all the time. He lived in another building and he had threaten me once , if we had stand your ground law in our state do think I should had gone outside shot the guy because he had already threaten me once? I did call the cops and they spoke to the guy.
That guy sat outside for at least a hour and at time fall asleep.
If I had a child today I would never let them try to go to people houses to try and sell any things for school . There are too many nuts out there and some will shot then ask questions.