Teens Chasing Your Daughter

Teens Chasing Your Daughter

This is a discussion on Teens Chasing Your Daughter within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Teens chasing after your daughter.What would you do? COLUMBIA, SC: Is shooting a bystander in South Carolina someone else’s fault? | Crime | The State...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 74
Like Tree82Likes

Thread: Teens Chasing Your Daughter

  1. #1
    Ex Member Array Manderinobyebye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,029

    Teens Chasing Your Daughter



  2. #2
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,364
    I could see Scott being tried for negligent homicide; after all you are responsible for each round you fire. As far as the criminals he was shooting at they should be charged with felony murder since their actions resulted in the shooting and the death of an innocent.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  3. #3
    Ex Member Array Bullet1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    963
    Scott is going to jail ,,,, and rightly so,
    atctimmy and USM1976 like this.

  4. #4
    Distinguished Member Array squid86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,850
    Quote Originally Posted by msgt/ret View Post
    I could see Scott being tried for negligent homicide; after all you are responsible for each round you fire. As far as the criminals he was shooting at they should be charged with felony murder since their actions resulted in the shooting and the death of an innocent.
    This is how I feel on this matter too. I can understand he didn't mean to shoot him but he should be aware of what is behind the intended target.

    Sent from my Kindle Fire HD using Tapatalk 2
    USM1976 likes this.
    USN Veteran
    "A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again."

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Mandpgrl View Post
    Shannon Scott argues he should not be prosecuted for shooting and killing an unarmed Keenan High School basketball player.
    The first thing I'd do is change my name to something more masculine like Shannon Rambo.
    pittypat21 likes this.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Mandpgrl View Post
    Teens chasing after your daughter.What would you do?
    Whatever was required to keep her from harm. If being actively assaulted by a gang of followers to the point of fearing for innocent life, probably much the same as this father did. Exactly when/where would depend on the severity of the threat, proximity, details of course. In this case, the daughter had telephoned the father, indicating the fear, and then the group pulled up.

    But, it's totally unclear from that one article, IMO, whether the group of apparent assailants remained in the car, or whether they'd verbally threatened or otherwise threatened (ie, shot first), or ... At this point, there seems to be a lot of partial claims, partial info, partial statements about this or that aspect of the situation, but little actual concrete detailing of the timeline and details. The prosecution would have us believe a carload of folks was sitting there, and an innocent, unrelated bystander was struck (who was most likely there to assist the girl anyway). The defense would have us believe that lives were at risk and there was no other choice, but there's no detail as to whether the group was violent (or merely pursuing), overtly threatening (beyond following), had proximity that actually provided the opportunity for any harm at all, or had even gotten out of the car.
    Ghost1958 likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member
    Array oldnfat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,462
    It would seem he did not have to shoot at all. He could have chosen to stay in the house with the girls and been ready if the attackers attempted to enter the home. We need more details.
    I shoot with a pistol and a Canon. We must all hang together amigos, or we will all hang separately. NRA life member.

  8. #8
    Ex Member Array Manderinobyebye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,029
    Yea it doesn't give all the facts,i don't think..It seems a couple of people are using the i feared for my life,and using a gun when it could be avoided.

    I do believe if someone is trying to harm a person,that person should be able to defend theirself without a doubt.Someone tries to harm me,whether they have a weapon or not,i will use whatever means to stop them.

    This particular story i don't know.It would seem firing like he did,might not have been a smart thing to do.That said,i don't know how much danger she was in at the time.

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,390
    Need more detail, but being "in fear of a drive-by" seems weak. Unless there were muzzles sticking out of the windows and he just had to open up on them, that will be a tough sell.

    I'm thinking it would have been better to stay in the house in the first place. And not have the stupid "shoot first" sign up.
    "Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way... The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way."

  10. #10
    New Member Array diver123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    wa
    Posts
    6
    There is a lot of missing information. He had no legal obligation to return to his house. Its his property. Imagine if we were required to "hide" in our homes every time there was a perceived threat. Also a witness says he was fired at first. If true and he was returning fire then he shouldn't be tried. The attackers should be for the death of the other kid. It happens. Innocent people get shot by cops and no charges are filed against them. Such as the kid that was fleeing from a store robbery in progress, ran around the corner where an officer was and ran into him. The officers gun discharged and killed him. Now if there was nothing more than a group of guys following some girl because they wanted her number no law is being broke. I can legally follow you anywhere on public property taking your picture if I want. You cant do a thing about it unless I interfere with your ability to conduct your business and even then the paparazzi as an example seam to get away with quite a bit of harassment. The girl can call the cops and the police can check it out. Stop the car and maybe put some sense into those fools that maybe there actions, however legal, may not be the smartest. Bottom line to me is if he was in real danger then he is free. If he wasn't then he has got some serious problems. Just my thoughts.

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array Secret Spuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,884
    Terrible situation. Claiming stand your ground, or castle doctrine is in my opinion the only way this guy Scott has a chance of not becoming a maytag. Strictly based on the story, if nothing else the man failed to use common sense. I'm not saying he should have retreated. I am saying he had the option of not confronting the group, and awaiting the police. There is some discussion of who fired first. Not enough detailed information to determine that. I garner from the artical that the dispute was between a group of girls, and Scotts daughter. Scotts daughter was safe at home when it happened. Scott armed himself, and confronted the group after his daughter was safe. It would have been reasonable to call and wait for the police.

    The kicker for me is that Scott shot into the victims car intentionally. Turns out it the victim may have been a friend of his daughter, and was there to help her. The only saving grace for Scott is if there were other shots fired. When were they fired, and where did they come from. My opinion based on the limited information available is Scott commited murder in the second degree. He fired a shot with the intention of killing the occupant of the victims car, and he did in fact kill the victim.

    This is the issue I have with the way some current SYG laws are written. I was afraid of what may happen is a very subjective standard. A person could dream up any scenario to justify using deadly force. I think this is one such instance. This guy screwed up... BIG TIME!... now he wants to hide behind the SYG laws. He intentionally killed an innocent person, and his excuse is "I didnt know he was an innocent person, I was afraid of what could happen"

    Bah!
    atctimmy likes this.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,003
    Minus any real details, it's impossible to know what was lawful in this specific situation.

    But, imagine slight variations on the script. In all cases, the daughter calls, distraught, claiming carload of people threatening violence is following her aggressively; she then arrives in front of the home (ie, in driveway via her own car). Depending on details, IMO the use of lawful and justifiable deadly force doesn't clearly and irrefutably occur until far down the list:

    1. Allow her to quickly approach the door; bring her inside; await police.

    2. Go out to meet her as carload arrives, escorting her quickly back into the house; await police.

    3. Go out to meet her as carload arrives, escorting her quickly back toward the house; get continued verbal threats from carload, but no further apparent threat; once in the house, await police.

    4. Go out to meet her as carload arrives, escorting her quickly back toward the house; get continued verbal threats from carload, and one or more people quickly exit car to follow toward house; turn to warn off property; daughter's inside calling police.

    5. Go out to meet her as carload arrives, escorting her quickly back toward the house; get continued verbal threats from carload, and one or more people quickly exit car to follow toward house; get fired upon by one or more from the car; seeking cover, return fire; daughter's inside calling police.
    6. etc



    A.O.J.: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy. Short of anyone actually exiting the car in this scenario, and/or short of anyone actually firing from within that car, it's hard to claim mere presence alone equates to deadly threat. If that's all the guy experienced, despite claims of first-fire having come from within the car, he's going to have a rough time in court. But if he can actually show the deadly threat was legitimate via those witnesses he indicates saw the first firing from the car, then it should be seen for that: use of deadly force against clear unjustifiable deadly force being used against innocents. So long as that "bystander" was actually part of the carload of folks, in that case, then, I'd say he has a good case. Still, if in trial, anything's possible. You never know what 12 "peers" will be capable of seeing, for all their biases and close-mindedness.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  13. #13
    Distinguished Member
    Array Str8upguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,355
    Sad situation all around. However, what Mr. Scott did happens everyday in Somewhere, USA when a gang banger shoots at another gang banger, misses and kills an innocent bystander. This is the same thing. It's murder. Jail will be tough for Mr. Scott.
    Don't let the facts cloud your judgement.
    Bad luck has perfect timing Joe "the donster" deBunker
    Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying...Ralph Waldon Emerson
    NRA Member

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,017
    IF he was fired at first he is in the right plus he waited to long to act. If he saw weapons being pointed from the car he is well within his rights to fire first. You dont have to be shot at first to fear for your life.

    If in either of those to acts he struck an innocent by mistake, thats bad but nothing cops dont do with great regularity and no charges. Level playing field this guy shouldnt be charged.


    Those are just some of the conclusions one can come too from what is available and there are likely others that are bad for the shooter also. Would have to see more or know more.

    But this incessant chant over and over by some that one should retreat and hide in the corner with no duty to do so. and if one doesnt, somehow they are guilty of something and need to charged with some from of murder is getting very old.

    And a wee bit suspicious
    blitzburgh and packinnova like this.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  15. #15
    Ex Member Array IndianaSig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    733
    Not much to work with here but the illegal activity by the "female thugs" is alleged only. There doesn't appear to be any hard evidence that they had done anything illegal. The shooter, however, definitely did. The best he's going to be able to hope for criminally is involuntary manslaughter. Civilly? He won't have to worry again about going back into the house because there won't be one; the family of the decedent will own it. This guy's life is ruined forever....as it should be.

    This hot head is our worst enemy; he makes The Brady Center look like a friend. We in the gun community have a responsibility to throw guys like this to the wolves and applaud when their lives are destroyed due to their actions. Absolutely no sympathy. None.
    BadgerJ likes this.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors