Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 

 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 6799
Karma: -5 (+26/-31)
Reply | Quote
Re: Police kill 73 year old man with dementia:


quote:

mais oui wrote:

quote:

An almost identical vehicle with similar passengers has just fired a dozen shots into the house



Sorry no sale, Niles did nothing had no intentions of doing anything and was unarmed.

Also the car with the girls in which threatened his daughter and fired shot AT but not INTO his house was an SUV Niles car a 92 Honda Accord? Not so "almost identical"
So far as I can find the only person that reported shots was Scott no strike marks were ever found

Wasnt it you that said
quote:

No one has any legal authority to kill someone else because they MIGHT start killing others



Well Niles had no intention of killing any one but he is dead and his killer got way free

the police acted on a report (actually two reports but lets not split hairs) that Serna was armed - he wasnt - Scott mistook a car with two males occupants for a SUV 'full' of girls you excuse Scott but not the police?



First of all, I think the prosecutor was wrong. No one should shoot at a moving vehicle that is no longer shooting at him and driving away.

But your description does not match what I have read.

{...
In April 2010, Shannon Anthony Scott, who was then 33, opened fire on a SUV full of teenage girls outside his home in Columbia and unintentionally hit unarmed 17-year-old Darrell Andre Niles in his car, killing him.
...}

The only way Niles could have been in anything other than the SUV with girls, would be is his car was in another lane or something, as the girl's SUV passed by.

But that is why I would still have convicted him of at least reckless endangerment.
It is wrong to not to take your backdrop into account. And there was no longer any need to fire once the SUV had passed. Warning shots in the ground were likely all that were warranted.

But a couple bad cases does not determine what the law says or usually is.
12/16/2016, 12:26 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 5097
Karma: 25 (+31/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Police kill 73 year old man with dementia:


But your description does not match what I have read.

try
https://raniakhalek.com/2013/10/10/south-carolina-grants-stand-your-ground-immunity-to-white-man-who-killed-unarmed-black-teen/


quote:

The only way Niles could have been in anything other than the SUV with girls, would be is his car was in another lane or something, as the girl's SUV passed by



or parked?
Actually Scott DIDNT shoot at a passing SUV he shot at Niles Honda Accord he intended to shoot the occupant of the accord it was not an accident.


quote:

But that is why I would still have convicted him of at least reckless endangerment.
It is wrong to not to take your backdrop into account. And there was no longer any need to fire once the SUV had passed. Warning shots in the ground were likely all that were warranted.



wreckless endangerment of who? he had his target he fired he hit it!


the business about the shots fired into his house never happened it is only his account that includes gun shots other than his own.

the short version is that it started out as a squabble between teenage girls (known here as "handbags at dawn") and daddy used the nuclear option and the state law supported him.

Better yet his attourney (also a democratic politician) Tod Rutherford want the alleged girls to be charged with "felony murder"

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
12/16/2016, 12:44 am Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 6799
Karma: -5 (+26/-31)
Reply | Quote
Re: Police kill 73 year old man with dementia:


quote:

mais oui wrote:

But your description does not match what I have read.

try
https://raniakhalek.com/2013/10/10/south-carolina-grants-stand-your-ground-immunity-to-white-man-who-killed-unarmed-black-teen/


quote:

The only way Niles could have been in anything other than the SUV with girls, would be is his car was in another lane or something, as the girl's SUV passed by



or parked?
Actually Scott DIDNT shoot at a passing SUV he shot at Niles Honda Accord he intended to shoot the occupant of the accord it was not an accident.


quote:

But that is why I would still have convicted him of at least reckless endangerment.
It is wrong to not to take your backdrop into account. And there was no longer any need to fire once the SUV had passed. Warning shots in the ground were likely all that were warranted.



wreckless endangerment of who? he had his target he fired he hit it!


the business about the shots fired into his house never happened it is only his account that includes gun shots other than his own.

the short version is that it started out as a squabble between teenage girls (known here as "handbags at dawn") and daddy used the nuclear option and the state law supported him.

Better yet his attourney (also a democratic politician) Tod Rutherford want the alleged girls to be charged with "felony murder"



There is nothing in any account I have read to suggest Niles was not in the SUV with the girls, or that anyone deliberately aimed at him.

However, the law is clear that the shooting at Niles, much less hitting him, was totally illegal. The prosecutor and lawyer were likely corrupt.
12/16/2016, 6:12 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 5097
Karma: 25 (+31/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Police kill 73 year old man with dementia:


quote:

There is nothing in any account I have read to suggest Niles was not in the SUV with the girls, or that anyone deliberately aimed at him.



were you reading these accounts with your eyes closed?


quote:

Scott was fearful of a drive-by at the time he fired his gun at Niles’ 1992 Honda, and he was “faced with what he thought was an imminent threat” from Niles’ car, Rutherford [Scotts attourney]said. https://raniakhalek.com/2013/10/10/south-carolina-grants-stand-your-ground-immunity-to-white-man-who-killed-unarmed-black-teen/
 



quote:

Scott, who had intended to shoot at a car full of teen girls on the street outside his home, says he shot Niles, who was also parked outside, by mistake.

same source


quote:

Niles was found shot to death in a Honda Accord at about 2:30 a.m. on Bonner Avenue. http://www.wistv.com/story/12330693/coroner-identifies-17-year-old-killed-in-columbia



Just to be clear Niles was in a Honda Accord - a vehicle which does not fit the description "SUV" there for Niles could not have been in an SUV


quote:

However, the law is clear that the shooting at Niles, much less hitting him, was totally illegal. The prosecutor and lawyer were likely corrupt.



the prosecutor, the defense and the judge were all wrong but you are right , is that what you are going with?

BTW the law - which you seem totally ignorant of says - 'private citizens have the right to use deadly force whenever and wherever they feel threatened' -
Protection of Persons and Property Act 16-11-420 (paraphrased)

the threat does not have to be real you just have to show that YOU had a 'reasonable fear' that it was real



Last edited by mais oui, 12/16/2016, 11:18 am


---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
12/16/2016, 10:49 am Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 6799
Karma: -5 (+26/-31)
Reply | Quote
Re: Police kill 73 year old man with dementia:


quote:

mais oui wrote:

quote:

There is nothing in any account I have read to suggest Niles was not in the SUV with the girls, or that anyone deliberately aimed at him.



were you reading these accounts with your eyes closed?


quote:

Scott was fearful of a drive-by at the time he fired his gun at Niles’ 1992 Honda, and he was “faced with what he thought was an imminent threat” from Niles’ car, Rutherford [Scotts attourney]said. https://raniakhalek.com/2013/10/10/south-carolina-grants-stand-your-ground-immunity-to-white-man-who-killed-unarmed-black-teen/
 



quote:

Scott, who had intended to shoot at a car full of teen girls on the street outside his home, says he shot Niles, who was also parked outside, by mistake.

same source


quote:

Niles was found shot to death in a Honda Accord at about 2:30 a.m. on Bonner Avenue. http://www.wistv.com/story/12330693/coroner-identifies-17-year-old-killed-in-columbia



Just to be clear Niles was in a Honda Accord - a vehicle which does not fit the description "SUV" there for Niles could not have been in an SUV


quote:

However, the law is clear that the shooting at Niles, much less hitting him, was totally illegal. The prosecutor and lawyer were likely corrupt.



the prosecutor, the defense and the judge were all wrong but you are right , is that what you are going with?

BTW the law - which you seem totally ignorant of says - 'private citizens have the right to use deadly force whenever and wherever they feel threatened' -
Protection of Persons and Property Act 16-11-420 (paraphrased)

the threat does not have to be real you just have to show that YOU had a 'reasonable fear' that it was real





No, it is clear in all the links you provided, that the shots were only fired at the SUV that has started the shooting, and that Niles was shot by accident with a shot that missed its intended target.

Niles was NEVER an intended target.

And no, there can never be a law that tries to justify the use of deadly force simply because a person feels threatened.
I have taken the classes on the subject, and know you have to be completely wrong. The use of force is heavily restricted by law. It varies state to state, but there can never be one as you claim. For example, you could feel threatened of physical harm by being punched, and then you can NOT respond with deadly force. That would be an illegal escalation.

12/16/2016, 10:24 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3067
Karma: 12 (+17/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: Police kill 73 year old man with dementia:


Police kill 73 year old man with dementia

... was he black, too ?
12/16/2016, 11:49 pm Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 5097
Karma: 25 (+31/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Police kill 73 year old man with dementia:


quote:

No, it is clear in all the links you provided, that the shots were only fired at the SUV that has started the shooting, and that Niles was shot by accident with a shot that missed its intended target.



here let me assist you although I suspect that there are none so blind as those who will not see

Scott was fearful of a drive-by at the time he fired his gun at Niles’ 1992 Honda, and he was “faced with what he thought was an imminent threat” from Niles’ car, Rutherford said

help you any?

Now it is just possible that Scotts attourney gives this version of events because he thinks that for some reason it puts his client in a better light and that mistakenly shooting at a car sounds better than shooting at the right car and missing - but some how I doubt it!

and another source - just incase you think that that source is wrong

quote:

Scott went outside with his pistol and fired across the street at Darrell Niles’ vehicle.

http://theindependentmag.org/case-stand-ground/




I suppose that BOTH those sources have it wrong so how about a third?

quote:

Scott walked out of his house with a handgun to confront the “women thugs,” as he described them, he instead fired straight into the 1992 Honda of Darrell Niles, who was unarmed. Niles was killed instantly
https://thinkprogress.org/south-carolina-man-gets-off-thanks-to-stand-your-ground-after-shooting-and-killing-innocent-bf7fdf751f10#.qnk1gzo9f



Well I think that even you must be starting to think that you might be wrong (hey there is a first time for every thing)

so how about yet another source?

quote:

Scott went around to the front of the house with a handgun and fired at Niles’ 1992 Honda. Niles died
https://editoriallyspeaking.com/2013/10/10/perhaps-south-carolina-shouldnt-stand-its-ground/



quote:

Scott had fired his pistol at a car he thought contained people who were menacing his daughter. In reality, the car contained 17-year-old Keenan High School basketball player Darrell Niles,
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article13839647.html





So? can we now put this "Niles was NEVER an intended target." in the trash can where it belongs?


quote:

I have taken the classes on the subject, and know you have to be completely wrong. The use of force is heavily restricted by law



Not presumably in South Carolina - or if it was you failed.
I posted the law read it! you are wrong


quote:

For example, you could feel threatened of physical harm by being punched, and then you can NOT respond with deadly force.



If only you had advised Trayvon Martin's legal team of that before the court gave Zimmerman a pass, history could have been so much different!

Last edited by mais oui, 12/17/2016, 12:42 am


---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
12/16/2016, 11:58 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 6799
Karma: -5 (+26/-31)
Reply | Quote
Re: Police kill 73 year old man with dementia:


quote:

mais oui wrote:

quote:

No, it is clear in all the links you provided, that the shots were only fired at the SUV that has started the shooting, and that Niles was shot by accident with a shot that missed its intended target.



here let me assist you although I suspect that there are none so blind as those who will not see

Scott was fearful of a drive-by at the time he fired his gun at Niles’ 1992 Honda, and he was “faced with what he thought was an imminent threat” from Niles’ car, Rutherford said

help you any?

Now it is just possible that Scotts attourney gives this version of events because he thinks that for some reason it puts his client in a better light and that mistakenly shooting at a car sounds better than shooting at the right car and missing - but some how I doubt it!

and another source - just incase you think that that source is wrong

quote:

Scott went outside with his pistol and fired across the street at Darrell Niles’ vehicle.

http://theindependentmag.org/case-stand-ground/




I suppose that BOTH those sources have it wrong so how about a third?

quote:

Scott walked out of his house with a handgun to confront the “women thugs,” as he described them, he instead fired straight into the 1992 Honda of Darrell Niles, who was unarmed. Niles was killed instantly
https://thinkprogress.org/south-carolina-man-gets-off-thanks-to-stand-your-ground-after-shooting-and-killing-innocent-bf7fdf751f10#.qnk1gzo9f



Well I think that even you must be starting to think that you might be wrong (hey there is a first time for every thing)

so how about yet another source?

quote:

Scott went around to the front of the house with a handgun and fired at Niles’ 1992 Honda. Niles died
https://editoriallyspeaking.com/2013/10/10/perhaps-south-carolina-shouldnt-stand-its-ground/



quote:

Scott had fired his pistol at a car he thought contained people who were menacing his daughter. In reality, the car contained 17-year-old Keenan High School basketball player Darrell Niles,
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article13839647.html





So? can we now put this "Niles was NEVER an intended target." in the trash can where it belongs?


quote:

I have taken the classes on the subject, and know you have to be completely wrong. The use of force is heavily restricted by law



Not presumably in South Carolina - or if it was you failed.
I posted the law read it! you are wrong


quote:

For example, you could feel threatened of physical harm by being punched, and then you can NOT respond with deadly force.



If only you had advised Trayvon Martin's legal team of that before the court gave Zimmerman a pass, history could have been so much different!




You posted nothing but nonsense.
Every source I look at disagrees about your claim it was not an accident.
You main source is not even real, but is called, "Dispatches from the Underclass", and has no legitimate media affiliation.
You are just wasting our time.
12/17/2016, 1:03 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 5097
Karma: 25 (+31/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Police kill 73 year old man with dementia:


Every source I look at disagrees about your claim it was not an accident

I posted what a half dozen sources?
Including a magazine, a reputable internet site and a news paper
quote:

The State is a daily morning newspaper published in Columbia, South Carolina, in the United States. Owned by The McClatchy Company and distributed in the Midlands region of the state, The State is the second largest newspaper in the Palmetto State.



and they all say the same thing Scott intentionally shot Niles and you cant see it - like I said there is none so blind as one who will not see

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
12/17/2016, 1:09 am Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Police kill 73 year old man with dementia:


quote:

Geezess wrote:

Police kill 73 year old man with dementia

... was he black, too ?



No he was white and by what happens in my city far to often due to the high number of mentally ill and homeless, it is not by colour. It is the lack of skill dealing with the mentally ill, as I've said the ER's deal with those who are very violent coming through the doors and no one has shot them.
12/17/2016, 2:36 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)