HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Teen's lawyer: the fisher...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:48 PM

Teen's lawyer: the fishermen intentionally shot at the teens, resulting in Summer Moody's death

A radically different story about Summer Moody's fatal shooting is emerging, after the DA has decided not to press charges against the shooters -- or even to name the man whose gun fired the bullet that killed her. The DA said it was nothing but a "tragic accident."

It's impossible to know which of the two stories is correct -- which is why I think there should have been a trial: to determine the facts. A trial not just of the alleged teen burglars, but of the men who, at the very least, recklessly fired their weapons into the darkness at some teens who may or may not have been involved in burglarizing an empty cabin on property that belonged to none of them.

http://blog.al.com/live/2012/04/attorney_for_burglary_defendan.html

BAY MINETTE, Alabama -- An attorney for one of the teenagers charged with burglarizing a Baldwin County fishing camp in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta said today that the shooting of a 17-year-old girl in their group was intentional.

Donald D. “Wayne” Doerr Jr., who represents Daniel Parnell, said his client described a sequence of events that radically contradicts the version offered by law enforcement authorities when they announced Thursday that they would not file charges against any of the 3 men who had come from a neighboring camp on Gravine Island to investigate noises in the wee hours of April 15.

Doerr said his client talked to investigators the night he was arrested and told them that all 4 of the teens were together when the men shined a spotlight on them and fired a shot that hit former Baldwin County High School student Summer Moody. He said that after the shooting, the men yelled at the youths to put their hands up and put their faces on the ground.

Doerr said one of the men immediately said at the time that he knew he had shot the girl, contradicting the account by law enforcement that he could not see her. If true, Doerr said, the scenario would indicate more than mere recklessness on the part of the shooters.


SNIP

Doerr disputed other parts of the official account. He said the teenagers had a rifle in their boat but were not armed during the shooting. He said the teens were frog gigging and never went into a building. He said they were not even on private property, but land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, when the shooting occurred.

SNIP

84 replies, 6215 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 84 replies Author Time Post
Reply Teen's lawyer: the fishermen intentionally shot at the teens, resulting in Summer Moody's death (Original post)
pnwmom Apr 2012 OP
Angry Dragon Apr 2012 #1
Cali_Democrat Apr 2012 #2
Comrade Grumpy Apr 2012 #3
Fumesucker Apr 2012 #4
pnwmom Apr 2012 #10
hack89 Apr 2012 #5
Hoyt Apr 2012 #7
hack89 Apr 2012 #8
pnwmom Apr 2012 #12
hack89 Apr 2012 #14
pnwmom Apr 2012 #17
hack89 Apr 2012 #20
pnwmom Apr 2012 #21
hack89 Apr 2012 #25
pnwmom Apr 2012 #36
hack89 Apr 2012 #39
pnwmom Apr 2012 #47
hack89 Apr 2012 #57
pnwmom Apr 2012 #11
hack89 Apr 2012 #13
pnwmom Apr 2012 #15
hack89 Apr 2012 #19
pnwmom Apr 2012 #22
hack89 Apr 2012 #27
pnwmom Apr 2012 #34
hack89 Apr 2012 #38
pnwmom Apr 2012 #50
hack89 Apr 2012 #58
pnwmom Apr 2012 #59
hack89 Apr 2012 #63
pnwmom Apr 2012 #67
hack89 Apr 2012 #72
pnwmom Apr 2012 #74
hack89 Apr 2012 #75
pnwmom Apr 2012 #77
petronius Apr 2012 #64
hack89 Apr 2012 #66
petronius Apr 2012 #70
hack89 Apr 2012 #73
rhett o rick Apr 2012 #29
hack89 Apr 2012 #30
polly7 Apr 2012 #6
Kalidurga Apr 2012 #9
AmazingSchnitzel Apr 2012 #71
cr8tvlde Apr 2012 #16
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #18
pnwmom Apr 2012 #23
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #24
pnwmom Apr 2012 #40
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #45
pnwmom Apr 2012 #46
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #49
pnwmom Apr 2012 #53
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #55
rhett o rick Apr 2012 #28
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #31
rhett o rick Apr 2012 #32
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #33
rhett o rick Apr 2012 #35
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #37
rhett o rick Apr 2012 #41
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #43
rhett o rick Apr 2012 #68
pnwmom Apr 2012 #42
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #44
pnwmom Apr 2012 #48
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #51
pnwmom Apr 2012 #52
Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #54
pnwmom Apr 2012 #60
morningfog Apr 2012 #65
sudopod Apr 2012 #26
jpak Apr 2012 #81
Dont call me Shirley Apr 2012 #56
trof Apr 2012 #61
LisaL Apr 2012 #62
rhett o rick Apr 2012 #69
hack89 Apr 2012 #76
rhett o rick Apr 2012 #78
hack89 Apr 2012 #79
rhett o rick Apr 2012 #80
hack89 Apr 2012 #83
rhett o rick Apr 2012 #84
fascisthunter Apr 2012 #82

Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:56 PM

1. Murder

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:00 PM

2. Yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:02 PM

3. It sounds like maybe this case could use a special prosecutor.

The local DA seems to have been way to quick to exonerate the shooters and charge the teens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:04 PM

4. I'm starting to wonder about who the three men are possibly connected to..

It seems fairly clear that in the Zimmerman case family connections had something to do with the original decision not to press any charges at all against the shooter.

I've lived in places like that for most of my life and I know all too well how the good ol' boy network operates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:26 PM

10. That's what I'm curious about, too. I saw another case in Alabama recently

where a woman -- who was sleepy, but not under the influence of anything else -- fell asleep at the wheel and caused the death of someone else. And she was charged with negligent homicide. So how can these shooters not be charged with at least that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:05 PM

5. No criminal is ever guilty - just ask them. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:15 PM

7. Nor are men who shoot unarmed teenager(s) unnecessarily . . . . . according to the gun culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:18 PM

8. That's why we let the police do an investigation and find out the facts. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:29 PM

12. The initial police investigation into the Zimmerman's case didn't get out the facts.

Sometimes it seems the police investigation is more a way to cover up the facts.

Did you read the whole article? The Sheriff was only interested in hearing one side of the story -- the shooters'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:31 PM

14. And of course the defendant's lawyer is the perfect place to get the impartial and balanced story.

he is trying to keep his client from going to prison for the rest of his life - what do you expect him to say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:35 PM

17. I didn't say that. I said there are TWO sides to the story, and we've only been hearing one.

And I don't see anything that would make me think the shooters' story is any more credible than the teens'. This is why we have trials, and why the teens should be tried for burglary and the adults should face charges for the shooting.

From the OP:

"Stankoski questioned why investigators did not make a greater effort to talk to all of the witnesses. He said he told the lead investigator and a prosecutor from the District Attorney’s Office that his client and Tyree would be willing to answer questions about the shooting as long as investigators did not ask about the burglary allegations.

The answer Stankoski said he received was that authorities were not interested in the self-serving statements of the defendants.
“They didn’t want to hear our side,” he said.
Lowery said Tyree and Byrd chose not to give a statement.
“They had been given the opportunity to talk, and we moved on,” he said.
Stankoski said the campers -- 2 of whom have criminal records -- have just as much reason to give self-serving statements as the teens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:39 PM

20. Do you expect the police and the DA to hold a press conference

and release every statement and every piece of evidence in an ongoing investigation? Is that how you think the process should work - screw the actual trial and dispense justice via the media and press release?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:41 PM

21. Do you not understand that the DA has already announced she's NOT pressing charges

against the shooters? She won't even name the person whose bullet killed Summer?

She says it was all just a tragic accident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:52 PM

25. But there is an ongoing investigation into the youths actions, correct?

and the grand jury still has to convene, correct? So perhaps it is inappropriate for the DA to publicly release everything until the entire process is complete?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:52 PM

36. I agree. The DA shouldn't be publicly releasing information now.

But I think there should have been some kind of charges pressed against the shooters for recklessly shooting into the darkness, and that the DA is wrong for not pursuing them. And that if the defense attorney is correct, she and the Sheriff are wrong for not taking the teens' testimony about what happened outside the cabin during the shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:00 PM

39. I suspect that a murder investigation against the kids is a bigger priority.

the kid's are not willing to cooperate fully and talk about the burglary then they can testify at trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #39)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:13 PM

47. It obviously is. But why?

Why isn't a case against the shooters with the prior felony convictions a bigger priority?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #47)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:06 PM

57. No - we are talking potential first degree murder charges for the kids

manslaughter at best for the shooters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:27 PM

11. Yeah, no convicted cocaine trafficker with a record of gun violations

would ever be guilty of knowingly shooting at anyone -- just ask them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:29 PM

13. And no kid with a murder charge hanging over his head would ever lie about his guilt. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:32 PM

15. The teens ARE facing charges. Why aren't the shooters?

Why are the teens stories discounted because they are "self-serving" and yet the convicted drug trafficker-shooters statements are considered completely credible?

"Stankoski questioned why investigators did not make a greater effort to talk to all of the witnesses. He said he told the lead investigator and a prosecutor from the District Attorney’s Office that his client and Tyree would be willing to answer questions about the shooting as long as investigators did not ask about the burglary allegations.

"The answer Stankoski said he received was that authorities were not interested in the self-serving statements of the defendants.
SNIP

"Stankoski said the campers -- 2 of whom have criminal records -- have just as much reason to give self-serving statements as the teens."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:36 PM

19. Because the DA and the police don't have your legal acume?

Why is he playing legal games with the DA if the truth is so important to him:

He said he told the lead investigator and a prosecutor from the District Attorney’s Office that his client and Tyree would be willing to answer questions about the shooting as long as investigators did not ask about the burglary allegations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:43 PM

22. He isn't playing legal games. He's exercising his 5th amendment rights.

The shooting took place outside of the cabin, on what may even be public property. There's no reason the Sheriff can't question them about the shooting without also questioning them about anything that may or may not have happened in the cabin before the shooters arrived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:59 PM

27. So let me get this straight

the police say to the lawyer:

"We don't care about the circumstances that led up to the shooting. I only want to hear what happened when the trigger was pulled." ? So intent and motivation and possible contributing actions on their part are completely irrelevant?

There were not two separate crimes - it was a single crime. They can't be separated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:49 PM

34. According to media reports, the shooters have never claimed they were present during a burglary

or that they saw the teens inside the cabin.

There would be no logical or legal problem in questioning the teens about what occurred outside the cabin when the adults encountered them.

It's not that the authorities wouldn't care about what the motivations of the shooters were -- but they would find that out by talking to the shooters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:55 PM

38. But the kids are murder suspects

they don't get to pick and choose what they tell the cops. They can always tell their story at trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:16 PM

50. That's true. They don't get to pick and choose. But the DA does have that discretion.

And for the sake of Summer Moody's memory, the DA should exercise that discretion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #50)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:09 PM

58. It is clear in the eyes of the law

if she was killed during the execution of a felony crime, then the boys are guilty of first degree murder. The law holds their responsibility to be greater - you may not like it but that is the law. She is not going to jeopardize a murder conviction to press a lesser charge against the shooters.


In the eyes of the law, the DA is honoring Summer Moody's memory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #58)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:54 PM

59. It is not clear at all that she was killed during the execution of a felony crime.

The teens, according to the attorney, were on Federal property and no evidence, other than the shooters' claims, has yet been presented to prove that they were burglarizing the property.

I think that human life matters more than a few tools (what was supposedly missing from the cabin) and that charges against the shooters should take priority. But I don't see any reason why charges against the teens and the adults can't be pursued at the same time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #59)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:24 PM

63. So you have access to the police investigation

including the forensic evidence? Or are you assuming that all the facts are available in the media?

First degree murder takes priority over a lesser charge. The DA needs to focus on the teens first - it is a much more serious crime and she has to get it right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #63)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:10 PM

67. No, I don't. But a lot of people here are assuming that the teens are guilty

and I'm presuming they are innocent, which they are, until the state proves them guilty in an actual trial.

I strongly disagree with you that what the teens MAY have done -- possibly breaking into an empty cabin and possibly taking some tools --is much more serious than firing off a gun into the dark, in the vicinity of human beings.

The authorities tried to locate the handgun that the shooters claimed a teen had, even dredging the water for one, but so far only have the shooters' word for it. According to reports, the teens did have a rifle but that was in their boat, not with them when they were at the cabin.

I think that recklessly shooting a gun that hits someone in the head is a much more serious crime than any property crime -- morally. If it isn't legally, that's because something is wrong with Alabama's legal system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #67)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 07:02 AM

72. You are not disagreeing with me - you are disagreeing with the law

so lets leave it to the DA and the police to figure it out. And it is not Alabama's legal system - they could be charge with murder is every state. It is an old and common principle of US law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #72)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:07 PM

74. Not every state would let the shooters off with no charges and no trial.

That would only happen in some states.

And the possibility of felony murder for the teens depends on whether what happened was "foreseeable" or not (assuming they were proven to have been involved in burglary). The defense attorney claims that it wasn't foreseeable --and that the DA proves that in saying that it was just a "tragic accident." No one could foresee a tragic accident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #74)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:30 PM

75. So are the police and the DA acting in malicious manner

or are they simply incompetent? Or are you willing to admit that possibily their knowledge of the law is greater than yours?

It would appear to me that it being deemed a tragic accident and the shooter not being charged is good news for the teens if it means they are not charged with murder. If it was a not an accident but a foreseeable result of the teens actions then they can be charged with murder. You can't have it both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #75)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 03:02 PM

77. You're right. If that reasoning is followed, it will be better for the teens.

However, that is only assuming the teens were actually burglarizing the place, which has not been proven.

If the teens' story is true, then the teens are innocent, they were all together, and the men fired knowingly at the group.

Without a trial, we'll never come closer to the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:52 PM

64. I disagree that they can't be separated - if there isn't a valid justification

for discharging the firearm, then it really doesn't matter what the teens were doing (or even if the shooter know of the teen's existence). The question to me is whether or not AL law allows you to fire 'warning' shots to prevent someone from fleeing or to disrupt a suspected crime - if not, the shooter had no legal basis for shooting and ought to be charged.

Absent a legal justification for shooting in response to the teens' actions, it's no different than shooting blindly into the brush under any other circumstances - and I believe that not knowing they were there is never an exculpation for shooting a bystander.

At the same time, it seems improper to make announcements about the shooter before making a final determination about the teens' case - if the case of the shooter depends on whether or not the teens were committing a crime, then how can she say the shooter is clear without determining whether or not the kids were in fact burglarizing, trespassing, or whatever else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #64)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:01 PM

66. If they were commiting a felony when she was shot

then the teens will be charged with her murder. I suspect there is enough evidence to reach that conclusion.

Given a choice between teens charged with 1st degree murder or a possible manslaughter or negligent death, the DA is going to make the murder case the priority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #66)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:23 PM

70. I get that, but it doesn't mean the shooter shouldn't be charged, and there's no

reason the DA couldn't or shouldn't pursue both legitimate cases. It is certainly possible that two crimes occurred (or none, or just one on either side) and the DA is not in any way limited to just working one of them. A higher charge may be the most important, but DAs don't have a quota on how many cases they can file.

The question is whether the shooter had a legally valid reason to fire, and all I can see is a reasonable fear of injury/death (which hasn't been suggested) or an Alabama law allowing you to fire warning shots to communicate a message to halt or to interrupt a suspected crime. Not knowing she was there is not any sort of justification - blindly shooting someone is negligence under any circumstances.

So absent a valid justification for the shooting, the shooter deserves charges, and the outcome for the teens is wholly irrelevant to that.

Possible murder charges against the teens don't negate charges against the shooter: if a person catches someone committing a crime but doesn't have a legal justification to kill them, yet does anyway, any accomplices may be charged with murder but that doesn't erase the shooters crime in any way at all.

And, if there is a possibility that the precise actions of the teens has bearing on whether or not the shooter was justified, how can the DA say no "charges" before completing both inquiries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #70)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 07:08 AM

73. Until the teens talk to the police about what happened prior to the shooting

then the police can't say if there were two crimes or one. The fact their lawyer refuses to let them talk about the burglaries is telling.

The DA and the police seem to view the entire incident as one crime - and the teens are more responsible. I agree that the shooter should be charged with something but I can understand the cops concentrating on the possible murder case. The teens not willing to talk without restrictions makes that decision easy for the DA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:07 PM

29. Are you referring to the shooter? or the dead girl? i am guessing you side with the gun. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:09 PM

30. No - I am talking about the kid with a murder charge hanging over his head.

but I do think the shooter should have been charged with at least manslaughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:06 PM

6. Kick. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:20 PM

9. This case needs to be made high profile as well.

And the one where the new homeowners were arrested for being black and buying a house in the wrong neighborhood. And Kenneth Chamberlain needs to be a lot more high profile. I don't know if it is linked or not, but it seems that those shooters in Tulsa Oklahoma were paid more attention due to the outrage over cases like these. I think it is high time that citizens were unarmed. I really hate to say it. But, I wouldn't take away people's guns. What I would do is have them have to train to be part of an armed militia and they would have to get extra certification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:46 AM

71. This one is much less likely to gain traction...

 

Part of the "hook" of the Trayvon Martin case was that until the incident happened, nothing illegal had taken place.

You will be much harder pressed to find people willing to actively defend potential home invaders. Not that they aren't out there but high profile people are less likely to spend their media and political capital.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:33 PM

16. This has gone on for decades ... might makes right

but the internet and social media and the ability to speak to a large audience...pro and con...has changed the conversation. Back in the old days, what the Sheriff or DA said was the end of the road...like it or not. Seems many of their counterparts count on that.

Today, as all of the articles about Gunning Down/Open Season on Teens emerge, publicity at least demands something beyond the Good Ol' Folks rule...that includes Boys and Girls.

And gun owners defend these nuts at their own peril. Too many of these cases, and yes, legal gun rights are going to suffer. So message to the NRA and apologists, best begin to sort through the facts before automatically giving a Free Pass to the shooter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:35 PM

18. If you can't trust a defendant's lawyer, who can you trust?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:46 PM

23. Are you saying that the shooters' lawyers would be more reliable?

Or that the shooters statements would be less self-serving?

Or that it isn't important to get both sides of the story?

Or that it makes sense that the teens are being tried for burglary but the shooters aren't be charged with anything? Even a misdemeanor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:51 PM

24. What has the shooter's lawyer said? nt

 

I believe both the DA and the sheriff have commented on the case. I would think the shooters would get some sort of misdemeanor for the warning shot fired, but I am not sure how hard that is to prosecute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:01 PM

40. The shooters lawyer said that it was all a big accident.

That first they called out to the scattering teens (outside of the cabin), telling them to stop, and then they fired "warning shots" to "get them to stop." He said they wanted the teens to wait there while they called the authorities.

The DA isn't charging them with anything -- not a misdemeanor or anything. Meanwhile, I heard of a case in Alabama recently where a woman is being prosecuted for falling asleep at the wheel. Even though she wasn't under the influence of anything except lack of sleep, she's being charged with negligent homicide.

Apparently it's easier to prosecute people who fall asleep and kill people with their cars, than people who deliberately fire guns into the dark when teens are in the vicinity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #40)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:05 PM

45. So we should believe the defendant's lawyer over the shooter's lawyer why exactly? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #45)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:12 PM

46. No, we shouldn't. We should have a TRIAL of the shooter to sort everything out. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #46)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:15 PM

49. On what charge exactly?

 

Note that I'm not arguing that he should not be charged with something I just don't know what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #49)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:21 PM

53. Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide -- SOMETHING. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #53)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:24 PM

55. I outlined why this will not happen in my other post further down the thread. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:04 PM

28. I agree with you. If you dont support the authoritarians, you would have chaos. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:11 PM

31. So the DA and sheriff are the authoritarians in this scenario?

 

“I would like to think that somebody has the human decency to call up and say, ‘What am I doing covering up for a bunch of hooligans.’”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #31)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:24 PM

32. Is that a rhetorical question? It sure as hell isnt the dead girl. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:29 PM

33. So you believe everything a defense attorney says as long as someone is dead? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #33)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:52 PM

35. Why dont you state your case instead of asking me questions in the hopes of me stating your case?


I believe that if someone with a gun kills someone there needs to be a serious investigation. I said serious investigation, not some bullshit, good ole boy look the other way.

The authoritarians among us think that if someone is doing something wrong (in Trayvor Martins case, being in the wrong neighborhood with a hoody) and get killed, tough shit. I dont agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:53 PM

37. Please list the details of the investigation performed in this case. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #37)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:02 PM

41. I said I agree with your support of the authoritarians with the guns. Why

are you having trouble with that? If we dont let the bullies kill whom ever they want, we would have chaos.

The man with the gun rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:03 PM

43. So you can't answer the question? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #43)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:16 PM

68. This is too crazy. What question? I can answer any question. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #37)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:02 PM

42. Google is your friend.

I've posted plenty of links to articles already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:04 PM

44. I have not seen the details of the police investigation in any of those. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:15 PM

48. And you never will if they don't decide to press charges against the shooter.

Are you comfortable with that? That a felon can shoot a teen in the back of the head and the details of the investigation may never be known?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #48)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:17 PM

51. On what charge exactly?

 

I'm sure he'll be called as a witness at the trial for the burglary charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #51)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:20 PM

52. On any charge. Reckless endangerment? Negligent homicide?

I'm not an Alabama lawyer, but there has to be some appropriate penalty for discharging a gun recklessly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #52)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:22 PM

54. DA is only going to bring charges if they think they can convict him. And DA's love convictions.

 

From everything released so far it does not look like they think they can get a conviction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #54)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 07:02 PM

60. But you already acknowledged that they haven't released their investigation

and we know from what the attorney said, that that investigation didn't include getting testimony from the teens who the men attempted to stop with their "warning shots."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Alchemist (Reply #33)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:59 PM

65. You are far more transparent than you think you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:55 PM

26. It should be pointed out that Bay Minette

is the same town where they decided to allow convicts to go to church instead of jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sudopod (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 10:31 AM

81. See - you can get away with murder, just plead "vigilante".

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:43 PM

56. Too many trigger happy rednecks with guns shooting innocent teenagers

I am so sorry for such a tragic and unnecessary loss to the family and freinds of Summer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 07:22 PM

61. I call bullshit. I live in the county where this happened.

Of course that's what the kid would tell his lawyer.
And that's all you're hearing.
What a teen in some seriously deep shit told his lawyer.

I have no love for our county DA.
She's a politician through-and-through, and a repug.
Her decision not to prosecute the shooters is highly unpopular.
If she could have found ANY reason to prosecute the shooters, believe me, she would have.
You can bet your ass she would have had this in front of a grand jury, post haste, if she had anything in law to hang it on.
That would have made her a LOT of points with the locals.

More about the deep serious shit these young men are in.
Burglary.
With weapons.
A rifle and a revolver.
And a knife.
Even if it was a Boy Scout folding knife, it's considered to be a deadly weapon.

And, in Alabama, they could be charged with anything from murder to wrongful death because they were armed when a member of their group was killed during the commitment of a felony.
Their bonds have been increased to $100,000.

Summer sounds like she was a good kid who went along with something her boyfriend and his cohorts decided to pull.
But she did lie to her parents about where she would be that night.
Staying with a girlfriend.
And she got into trouble.
And was shot and killed.

Very sad.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trof (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 07:37 PM

62. Even if this was not an intentional shooting, why did these adult men (some with

criminal histories) shot in the dark where they couldn't even see what they were shooting yet.
People get charged for unintentional behavior day and day out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trof (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:20 PM

69. Why was she killed? Being bad doesnt deserve being killed.

I am afraid this is were we are in America. Do something bad and get shot and killed, tooo bad. Bullies with guns rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #69)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:43 PM

76. Wrong place at the wrong time

no one is saying she deserves it. The question is who get punished for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #76)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 09:44 PM

78. Wrong place at the wrong time???

If you are on a target range and get shot, ok. If you get hit by cross fire in a police shoot-out, ok. You would be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But if someone points a gun at you and shoots and kills you, something is very, very wrong. She may have been a bad person, but she didnt deserve to have someone aim a gun and kill her.
We have sunk to the vigilante mentality. You are justified in killing a bad person. Zimmerman thought that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #78)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 10:20 AM

79. Except there is no evidence the shooter deliberately aimed and shot her in the back of head

apparently she was hiding in the bushes and was shot when the shooter fired a warning shot and accidentally hit her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #79)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 10:27 AM

80. What are the odds of firing a warning shot that hits and kills a person? Please.

I dont think anyone would "fire a warning shot" into bushes, esp if he thinks there might be someone in there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #80)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 11:01 AM

83. Lets see what the investigation, grand jury and possible trial come up with, shall we? nt

Last edited Sun Apr 29, 2012, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #83)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 06:57 PM

84. I would have it no other way. It just upsets me when so many people take the side of the shooter.

Zimmerman has collected over $200,000. Who are these people that are so quick to back-up killers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 10:45 AM

82. I Love Placing Sociopaths on Ignore

So I do not have to read their warped rationale that gets murders off the hook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread