Sunday, August 18, 2013

South Carolina Gun Owner Shoots and Kills an Innocent Bystander and Blames the "Bad Guys" He Was Aiming At

Shannon Scott argues he should not be prosecuted for shooting and killing an unarmed Keenan High School basketball player.

In his Stand Your Ground argument in a Richland County courtroom this week, Scott and his attorney, Todd Rutherford, said Scott fired his weapon from his front yard to protect his daughter, who was being chased by people trying to hurt her.

ead more here:
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.

It is 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. We know that because everyone there felt their lives were in jeopardy,” Rutherford said.

Isn't this the kind of situation the gun-rights fanatics say never ever happens. According to them, the police often shoot innocent people but civilian gun owners never do.

Well, there goes another well-worn pro-gun lie.

Read more here:


  1. Umm, we've never said that. Quite the opposite really--this is why we talk about the need to practice regularly, to try and prevent these tragedies from happening. But congratulations for making up another straw man to beat down. You look much tougher beating up scarecrows and trying to put words in our mouths.

    1. You and Greg are the masters at denying things when you're caught out. Your side has very goddamned well said that. When the Empire State shooting happened I remember it well.

    2. Well, Mike, I wasn't here at that time, but I remember us discussing that shooting several times after I showed up in December. Yes, we did note that many police officers are shockingly bad shots, which we blamed on departments not spending the money on ammo and emphasizing practice.

      As for citizens, as I said above, we talked about the need for regular practice to try to prevent these things from happening. I remember discussing shootings like this being one of our greatest fears. I remember that we have discussed warning shots and how it's reckless to shoot into the air or a random direction because something like this can happen, etc. etc. etc.

      You are the one in the wrong here, bub, and the one who needs to apologize for misrepresenting what we've said. Of course, first you'll have to stop twisting your own perception of reality so that you can even see that you're wrong.

  2. Here's one T.

    "My response to Robert's latest podcast.

    Robert, You can't remember one single incident of a concealed carry causing collateral damage."

    Farago said that on a podcast last Nov. In the comments, many of his followers agreed. Never, not a one.

    1. Well, then show this one to him. As Greg says below, neither of us are Farago--I don't even know for sure who Farago is, though I'm gonna take a stab that he's one of the folks on TTAG since you spend so much time there.

      If you want to rephrase that Some gun rights people make that statement and that those people are idiots, I'll agree with you. Thankfully, my experience suggests that such idiots are in the minority since everyone I know who carries worries about such incidents and practices to keep their groupings as small as possible because they know that in a stressful situation their aim will not be as good as at the range and a notecard size grouping might become the size of a paper plate.

    2. So you agree with me then. It is not unheard of for a lawful gun owner to inflict collateral damage in the execution of his defensive gun use.

    3. It's also not unheard of for meteorites to strike people, but we don't ban above-ground homes as a result.

    4. I did from the start. I couldn't have named an incident off the top of my head (other than some tragic mistaken identity cases), but it happens, just like it happens with police. That's why carriers need to practice regularly. And since police are in these situations more often, they especially need to practice more.

      Our whole damn fight was because you were accusing me, Greg, and gun rights people, in general, of all claiming that such collateral damage Never happened--a foolish claim that I've never seen anyone on this blog make.

  3. Mikeb, do you notice how neither of us is named Robert Farago? What I've said is that the record is carry license holders is better than many police departments. Not perfect. Perfection is impossible. But better.

    In this situation, I don't see why the man shot in the first place, since apparently the daughter and friends got inside. Standing on the porch and telling the thugs to go away might have made more sense here.

  4. "Isn't this the kind of situation the gun-rights fanatics say never ever happens."

    Civilians who carry are less likely to shoot innocents because they have a different tactical goal. Civilians are only required to defend themselves and others. If the criminal choses to retreat, the civilian isn't required to pursue.
    Police however work under the expectation that they will pursue and apprehend criminals. An added challenge is that they often enter a situation after the fact which can result in the wrong person being shot.