Posted on 10/10/2013 4:08:00 PM PDT by servo1969
I am therefore going to use my natural racist talents, which I have been assured I was born with and will never be able to apologize enough for, to make the following assumptions:
Either...
1. The shooter, Shannon Scott, is a black man which makes the race of the victim irrelevant to any national media outlets.
OR
2. The victim was white which makes the race of the shooter irrelevant to any national media outlets.
Interesting. The article doesn’t say if anyone in the aggressors’ car was prosecuted for felony murder, but it sounds like they should have been.
So instead of charging the aggressors with the bystanders death, as the law dictates, the State's Attorney wants to hang this on the home owner. There is no fate to cruel for scum like this lawyer.
Option 1.
Shannon Scott is black, at least as identified in mug shot pub’d by Columbia, S.C., tv station.
The self-defense ruling is good, but I’m surprised there is no liability for shooting a bystander.
Black or white, this is a righteous ruling. Good news for a change.
What ever the race of those involved, it is a victory for our Second Amendment and our right to protect our property.
I was thinking the same thing. All my training revolved around taking bystanders into account. I won’t judge this case because I don’t know the details but a blanket exemption sounds like a bad idea.
Yep. Another poster was just questioning why there hadn’t been more publicity, and whether the lack of publicity might have had something to do with the shooter’s race.
Both shooter and the young bystander appear to be black, or mostly black, which by the mainstream media’s metrics means that none of it matters.
That was my thought exactly.
The attackers are guilty of murder in the accidental defensive shooting.
What was his 15-yr girl old doing in a nightclub at midnight?
Maybe if he had been a better parent an innocent wouldn’t be dead now.
It works for cops. It ought to be good enough for private citizens as long as the self defense aspect was righteous.
The article describes five conditions that must be met for the exemption to apply. IANAL, but from the sound of them, a defensive shooter would not be protected if he went "spray and pray," took out someone not in the line of fire between himself and the perp, or otherwise engaged in intrinsically irresponsible conduct.
I’d really like an answer to that one.
Would an LEO be judged guilty under similar circumstances?
In a previous ruling on the castle doctrine, the SC supreme court embraced an expansive view of that doctrine. If I recall it correctly, the justices ruled that an aggressor need not be armed to justify a shooting by the homeowner.
I don’t understand the relevance of your question to my point. I’m not arguing that the legal verdict is wrong, I am pointing out that there is some moral culpability.
If you let your 15-year old daughter run wild, you shouldn’t be shocked if trouble follows her home. I find it sad that an innocent party lost their life because of it.
Yes, and has. But the agency is going to get sued. That’s why they all have liability insurance, which goes through the roof when one of these shootings (or any use of force that brings a lawsuit).
It’s the cost of business.
I find it interesting that no one is making light of the marksmanship skills of Shannon Scott? He did shoot the “wrong guy”.
If he had been a cop, there would have been 300 posts about “the cop needs more range time” “it was murder” “I would have hit him from 1000 yards away iron sites with my Kimber classic”....
If he were a cop, the victim would have had 40-50 rounds in him from the 1000s discharged in random pattterns across the target area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.