Man Who Shot Bystander Granted Immunity Under Stand Your Ground Laws

[Julian Englis]

Source: The New York Times

A man charged with killing a bystander in Columbia, S.C., has been granted immunity from prosecution after citing the state’s Stand Your Ground Act. In the early morning hours of April 17, 2010, an S.U.V. filled with teenage boys had been threatening Shannon Scott’s 15-year-old daughter, driving by their home and firing a gun. Shortly after, Darrel Niles, 17, a high school basketball player, drove by, and mistakenly believing Niles was involved with the earlier menacing, Scott, 33, shot him in the head with a .380 bullet, killing him instantly.

“He ascertained the threat and he reacted,” said Todd Rutherford, who is both Scott’s lawyer and the Democratic state representative who helped write the law in 2006. When questioned about a conflict of interest in his defense of Scott, Rutherford replied, “Who better to defend the law than someone who helped to write it?”

Read more: http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/the-gun-report-october-11-2013/?_r=0

---

It just keeps getting stupider.

[Blue_Tires]

1. I can't wait to see some of the usual suspects try to spin this...

Assuming they even appear in this thread....

[Julian Englis]

2. Here's a link to a longer version of the story that the NYT cites

http://www.thestate.com/2013/10/09/3029466/exclusive-father-not-charged-in.html

[lunasun]

55. with timeline

TIMELINE FOR APRIL 18, 2010 shooting

>> A 15-year-old girl and five friends leave a nightclub just after midnight

>> They are pursued by four young women in an SUV.

>> They arrive home and tell her father, Shannon Scott, they’re in danger.

>> Shots are fired from the street. The friends run inside.

>> Armed with a gun, Shannon Scott goes to the front yard.

>> Scott fires several times.

>> Bystander Darrell Niles, 17, in a separate car, is killed.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/10/09/3029466/exclusive-father-not-charged-in.html#storylink=c

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

[sakabatou]

3. And people say SYG won't be abused

[heaven05]

4. irresponsible gun owners=

OPEN SEASON ON ALL WHO LOOK ALIKE.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Hit him in the head from across the street with a .380 pistol?

Man, don't fuck with that guy.


This entire case, as reported, sounds like a wildly unreasonable implementation of SYG. He didn't shoot at the actual bad guys and miss, he intentionally shot that kid, having mistakenly identified him as a threat.

There has to be some accountability for that mistake.

[jeff47]

19. Sorry, but no.

Most SYG laws are based on the shooter's belief that the person is a threat.

There's no requirement that the shooter be accurate in that assessment.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. More complex than that.

http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring08/15/

My state is a weird grey area. We have no duty to retreat, but no explicit SYG either. In my state, you are likely to face a grand jury to determine if your fear was 'reasonable' or not.

I prefer that to the generic SYG statutes, but they do vary from state to state, on apprehension of fear.

[jeff47]

21. Which would be why I said "Most". (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Ok, I accept the qualifier.

But I didn't specify in this case, or in the future in the original post you objected to.

This case is probably a good 'example' of why the law was badly crafted/needs repair or repeal.


I get the idea of the law. There seems, to me, an inherent injustice in requiring that a victim attempt to flee an aggressor. But, this law's implementation in this case seems such a blatant over-reach/swing of the pendulum in the other direction... that it has become unjust itself.

This must be fixed.

[moriah]

51. You sound like Arkansas. Of course, since it sounds like that guy shot into a public street...

... which is completely and totally illegal in Arkansas...

He'd fail the "reasonable" test pretty fast.

[sir pball]

76. Self-defense laws are all based on "belief", even w/o SYG.

NY law (chosen as my current home state) reads thusly:

Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter`s conduct was provoked by the actor himself with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if he has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat
by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

(emphasis added on part 2 to highlight NY's lack of SYG)

Every self-defense law reads more or less the same, "reasonably believes" - I've never seen a statute that calls for some impartial determination of threat. I'm assuming you don't like the subjective "reasonableness" test and would like to ensure that threats are genuine before lethal force is allowed...I'm legitimately curious (since many others also disagree with the "believes" standard) how you would word a law to do that?

Now, I'd say that if he were in the yard and there were gunfire actively coming from the SUV, 1. that's the bar for using lethal force, firing back, and 2. there's no completely safe ability to retreat...it's hard to outrun a bullet. But firing at the NEXT SUV to come rolling by is just idiotic and I don't see how even a state with SYG would let it fly since he was SHOOTING AT THE WRONG GUY. Even SYG, despite the massive misconceptions surrounding it and apparent abuse of it, doesn't let you just blast at every black SUV because one shot at you. If somebody can quote the relevant SC statutes that allow for this I'd like to see them.

[jeff47]

78. That's why those laws used to have "duty to retreat".

Retreating meant fewer actual conflicts - one party disengages. If the other party pursues, then it's quite obviously a threat. If they don't pursue, then "cooler heads can prevail".

The number of situations where retreat was dangerous or not possible is rather small. So the "reasonable" test, and errors applying it, would occur in such a vanishingly small number of cases that leaving it "reasonable" is acceptable.

Even SYG, despite the massive misconceptions surrounding it and apparent abuse of it, doesn't let you just blast at every black SUV because one shot at you. If somebody can quote the relevant SC statutes that allow for this I'd like to see them.

Can't be bothered to read the OP, or the other stories about it?

[sir pball]

79. I think you have a rose-tinted ideal of retreat.

The NY law reads "knows with complete safety" as do most other DTR laws...which leaves an awful lot of ambiguity and "reasonableness" in there. Is it completely safe to try and retreat from somebody with, say, a knife in the park? I'm a fast runner so I might try, but if I were on a jury I wouldn't say it was possible. Guy coming at you while you're in your car, assuming you don't have to ram through traffic or drive on the sidewalk, yes, that's retreating in safety. Gunshots? Ain't no way. Years ago when I got my pistol permit in CT (required for owning one), we covered DTR and my instructor told us that if you reasonably feel in danger and there isn't a retreat path "so obvious a child could do it" you're in the clear - CT law explicitly requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you could retreat, not that you prove that you could not escape. I don't know about other states, but I wouldn't be surprised. How do you feel about that? Should the state have to prove, to the level of criminal prosecution, that you couldn't retreat, or vice versa?

I can't find any real information on how often people in DTR states are caught up in that legal construct and don't have time to keep hunting before work. I'm SYG-ambivalent, if I were to use deadly force it wouldn't be a situation where the state could prove I had an option...and I don't carry anyway.

I did read the linked in-depth The State article, it doesn't give any statues and I'm not combing SC law at the moment. It is a terrible precedent - now in SC if you're in reasonable fear you can just start blind-firing and as the prosecutor said, shoot a toddler in the yard and be immune from criminal and presumably civil charges. Funny thing though, at the end of the day I don't think SYG even has a role in this since the shots were fired at his house. Castle Doctrine instead, are there any states that don't have that one?

[jeff47]

81. I think you have a rose-tinted ideal of not-retreating.

Is it completely safe to try and retreat from somebody with, say, a knife in the park?

You're setting up a scenario that almost never happens and treat it as common.

If the guy is waving a knife around on the other side of the park, you have plenty of time to retreat.
If they guy is close to you, and/or running at you, you are in obvious danger and even "duty to retreat" would not apply.

There is no, "you have to figure out if you can outrun him" step.

Gunshots? Ain't no way.

The dumbest thing you can do when being shot at is stand there so you can draw a weapon, take aim and return fire. Drop to the ground immediately. Then try to figure out your options.

if you reasonably feel in danger and there isn't a retreat path "so obvious a child could do it" you're in the clear - CT law explicitly requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you could retreat, not that you prove that you could not escape. I don't know about other states, but I wouldn't be surprised. How do you feel about that?

That's the compromise I'm saying we need to return to.

Funny thing though, at the end of the day I don't think SYG even has a role in this since the shots were fired at his house. Castle Doctrine instead

First, nobody's managed to actually find the bullets or other actual evidence of shots at his house.
Second, Castle Doctrine still requires an identified threat. You can't just shoot wildly out of your house.

[sir pball]

83. Oh, he should definitely be charged.

IF events happened the way he said they did, I'll give him negligent homicide and the shooter and driver of the SUV both felony murder. If he's lying, throw the book at him.

The whole "reasonableness" of safe retreat standard sets up some interesting logic. If our Reasonable Man is certain he can retreat in complete safety, then he isn't in Reasonable fear for his life in the first place. And if he Reasonably believes he's in fear of his life, then he must be incapable of complete safety. (Mind you this is the legal Reasonable Man construct, not Zimmy.) It almost makes the whole DTR clause redundant - perhaps it could be eliminated, but other legal mechanisms put in place for the state to prosecute somebody who didn't take an obvious, reasonable retreat. Clearly and unambiguously raise the bar for DTR to the level set in CT, which we both seem to agree is a comfortable place to be; I'm not OK with generally putting the burden of proof on the shooter claiming self-defense but giving the state an option to meet the reasonable doubt standard is perfectly fine.

I never meant to imply that Castle allows you to shoot wildly either, just that I'd think that would be the relevant law the judge would be citing in this utterly insane decision.

[sulphurdunn]

33. Actually, we only have his word

about mistaken identity.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Also true.

Were there any witnesses?

I wonder... if he advanced across the street to get closer. That distance with a .380 is a pretty fucking awesome shot, against a target that small, in a high adrenaline situation.

[sulphurdunn]

36. Either he fired a single shot

and got lucky, or he emptied his weapon and got lucky, unless he walked across the street and blew the kid away point blank. In which case it wasn't luck.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Exactly. That's why I wonder about a witness.

Past a certain number of feet, it gets harder for forensics to determine distance... (outside powder burn range.)

[neverforget]

6. Holy shit. Unfuckingbelievable..........

Kills an INNOCENT bystander and walks under SYG. I'm at a loss for words.......

[progressoid]

7. Fucked up...

doesn't begin to describe this.

[Baitball Blogger]

14. +1

[valerief]

8. apparently, in SC, WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, and

Democratic is Republican.

[lunasun]

56. all doubleplus good there~!!!

[blackspade]

9. WTF?!

There is no stand your ground here.
This is just a reckless murder.

[DFW]

10. Second that

He chose a kid at random, aimed, and shot to kill. Murder. One or two, makes no difference.

He deliberately murdered an innocent and said he had every right to. If that is justice in America, we are all in danger.

[malletgirl02]

49. Exactly.

Seems like we are heading into Mad Max territory.

[DFW]

63. Well put.

I live most of the time in Germany, so it won't be like here until Jan. 1 of next year.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Julian Englis.

[tosh]

12. This is just WRONG!

When will it end???

[ThoughtCriminal]

13. No comments from the Gungeon?

So far...

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Post 5.

Or, did you imagine that people from 'the gungeon' would defend any and all uses of firearms, including negligent ones?

[IveWornAHundredPants]

39. Negligent?

In a shoot-first-ask-questions-later society, the word has lost all meaning, Surely you must appreciate that.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Actually, I would call it criminally negligent.

But, I agree, it does lose meaning when the person who did it cannot be charged with a crime.

[Blue_Tires]

42. oh, I've seen stranger things from a few gungeoneers

especially when race is involved....

Don't pretend that you don't know who I'm referring to....

[AtheistCrusader]

43. I actually don't know.

All the names that come to mind have long since had posting privs. removed.

[Blue_Tires]

44. Perhaps many, if not most of them are gone

I'd had about 200+ posters on ignore after the conclusion of the Trayvon Martin case...I only cleared out the list a couple days ago...

[AtheistCrusader]

45. I notice my 'not allowed to serve on juries of your posts' list

is empty all save one...

[raccoon]

15. this is just fucking insane. What states don't have this dumbass law? nt

[stillcool]

16. my traveling days are over..

At least in this country.

[Pakid]

18. So if Darrel father shot Scott then can he claim stand your ground?

That would be different then what Scott did. Scott shot Darrel who did nothing wrong and got away with it. Scott is guilty of shooting an innocent kid. Should Darrel father get a free pass at shooting Scott? At least in Darrel father case he would be shooting a person who did something very wrong!!!! WOW talk about a stupid law and a Idiot for a DA Columbia SC has both and the saddest part is that Darrel is dead because of them. What kind of country do we live in and what kind of people have we become that we accept things like this?

[hughee99]

80. If I were Darrel's father, I'd fear for my life from this man.

After all, he's already killed one person in the family.

Someone who would shoot someone in the head because they THINK they might be a threat, IS A THREAT to everyone, and therefore, under SYG, is a fair target.

[MynameisBlarney]

22. There are no words

to accurately describe my sadness and outrage over this.

[Kelvin Mace]

24. This is the kind of story

that makes me not want to leave my house.

[leftyohiolib]

25. idk why someone from his (Darrel Niles) family wouldnt go over and just shoot him claim syg

[noiretextatique]

26. can his family sue for wrongful death?

in civil court?

[Kablooie]

61. Probably not because it wouldn't be considered a wrongful death.

He was scared of someone and so killed he someone.
I guess that's all it takes for justifiable homicide in NC.

[noiretextatique]

68. unfortunately not just NC

legalized murder and a perversion of self-defense.

[red dog 1]

69. Excellent question!

I would think the Niles family would, indeed, be able to sue the jackass that killed their son,
the Stand Your Ground Law notwithstanding.

[avebury]

27. That is a guy that I would definitely not

want to live next to. It is amazing that he did not shoot and kill more people that night.

[SunSeeker]

28. "No evidence indicated Niles was a threat to Scott or his daughter."

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/10/09/3029466/exclusive-father-not-charged-in.html#storylink=cpy

SYG could not possibly apply. WTF.

Is this idiot immune from CIVIL prosecution too? Niles' family should at least be able to sue that idiot for negligence/wrongful death.

[lunasun]

57. During the hearing, Murphy heard conflicting testimony as to whether anyone fired at Scott while he

was in his front yard that night.!!!!!!!

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/10/09/3029466/exclusive-father-not-charged-in.html#storylink=cpy

[secondvariety]

29. In Florida,

someone who successfully uses the SYG law can't be sued in a civil court no matter how many innocent by standers are injured by his bullets. Some kid gets in the way-too bad.

[SunSeeker]

37. This kid did not get in the way. The dad AIMED at him and shot him.

It was a case of mistaken identity. But the kid was doing NOTHING to threaten the dad or his daughter. How can this be SYG?

This is unbelievably sad, particularly if there are civil immunity provisions in this SYG law like there is in Florida. I bet they're in there, since these SYG laws are all cookie cutter legislation using ALEC templates.

[SoapBox]

30. Sick and sickening.

[msongs]

31. the 2A crowd rejoices as open hunting authority is granted by "law" makers and courts nt

[Jerry442]

32. Should I even bother to research this story to find out the races of the shooter and victim? n/t

[azurnoir]

38. I did both are Black

the shooter's picture



http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=86543

[lunasun]

58. WHY does that matter?

[sulphurdunn]

35. Last time I was in SC on a Sunday

I was informed by a rather pious snot of a grocery clerk that they didn't sell beer on Sunday. Had I but known about the "stand your ground law." Come to think of it, unless I'm reading this wrong, I can kill anyone I want in SC so long as I claim I felt threatened, even if not by the person I kill. Think I'll stay out of SC.

[ManiacJoe]

46. Anyone have any links to the SC laws related to this?

My search at sc.gov is coming up empty.

The results of the hearing suggests that their is more to this story than is being published in the news. The news articles do not contain enough facts to support a claim of self defense (ability, opportunity, jeopardy). Without that claim, a claim of SYG is not possible under the usual legal grounds.

[ManiacJoe]

53. Found the links:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c011.php

SECTION 16-11-440 (A and B) -- your normal "castle law"
SECTION 16-11-440 (C) -- SYG
SECTION 16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions

As I suspected, there seems to be more to this story than is being reported, or the lawyers and judges are reading these laws very differently than I am.

[BronxBoy]

65. So the rights of inncocent bystanders....

are trumped by the second amendment. Why does this young man and his family have NO legal recourse from an asshole ,who shot the wrong party? And not to open another can of worms but if civil suits were permitted, I wonder if this guy has the assets to pay a civil judgement.

[ManiacJoe]

67. You would need to ask the lawyers and judge.

Based on the facts as reported in the press, I don't see how the claim of self defense holds up. Without that, there is nothing to base SYG on.

[Blue_Tires]

77. The legal system *always* gives a lot of leeway in self-defense cases

1. Especially when the decedent is African-American, and
2. Especially when the incident occurs in the deep south

You're operating under the assumption that there's some kind of logic or common sense or fairness associated with these so-called SYG laws...

[ManiacJoe]

82. There is nothing special about SYG laws.

They just remove the requirement to retreat. Before you get to SYG you need to get passed the claim of self defense which requires a "reasonable belief" of a lethal attack.

That said, I cannot speak to any shenanigans the South may be playing with self defense laws.

[ConcernedCanuk]

47. Sad - I liked visiting the USA

.
.
.

Been through over half the States from the late 50's to early 90's

- down both coasts, and one trip cross country from SanDee to Toronto.

Actually decided never to visit USA again a few years back because of all this Patriot Act bullshit,

recent recurring events convince me that my decision is a wise one.

Still, I liked most of the people I met down there;

it's sad the USA has turned out the way it has.

So sad.

CC

[awoke_in_2003]

66. And I immensely enjoyed...

the three weeks I spent in Montreal on business. I met nothing but nice folks. I wish I could emigrate to a saner country.

[NeoConsSuck]

71. I agree 100%

every time I visit Montreal it becomes so depressing to have to leave and return to 'Merca. I'm a US citizen by birth, certainly not by choice.

[awoke_in_2003]

72. It didn't feel like a big city at all...

but I do have a powerful hankering for some poutine.

[malletgirl02]

48. Civil Court

I know the situation is terrible, but can the victim's family at least sue for damages in civil court?

[ManiacJoe]

50. The defendent seems to be protected from civil suits

See my previous post (#53) for the law links.

[blkmusclmachine]

52. Absurd.

[Hoyt]

54. NRA and gun culture wins again.

[Doctor_J]

59. Statistically Niles has never been safer

Would you be happier if Scott had killed him with a baseball bat?

:lol:

[agentS]

60. This case is even more ridiculous than the Martin-Zimmerman case!

The victim wasn't even engaged in hostilities! Whatever happened to "look before you shoot?"
At least in "Silent Scope" you get a 1000 point penalty for shooting civilians, accidental (or otherwise)!

[malletgirl02]

62. Silent Scope

Isn't it sad then there is a larger penalty for shooting innocents in a video game than in real life?

[Comrade Grumpy]

64. If a law leads to nonsensical results like this, it needs to be changed.

But this is South Carolina, so don't hold your breath.

[red dog 1]

70. Kicked!....Thanks for posting.

[struggle4progress]

73. The "shoot whoever you like and then claim you were afraid" law: good for gun sales,

good for killers, hard on innocent bystanders

[warrant46]

74. Todd Rutherford Democratic state representative who helped write the law

Should show up here and be flailed with a whip