Thursday, July 07, 2016

22 Months in Jail, Judge Rules Shooter Justified, all Charges Dropped

Stuart Prescott, 48, of Suwannee Florida shot and killed Tyler Snellgrove, 18, also of Suwannee.  The shooting occurred on 13 September, 2014.  Deputies interviewed witnesses and obtained a warrant to search Prescott's house. Prescott was arrested and placed in Jail on the 14th or 15th of September, 2014. He was charged with 1st degree murder. 

The only news at the time stated that Prescott come out onto the porch and had a confrontation with Snellgrove.  He went back inside, got a shotgun, came out and shot the younger man.  From
Sonja Reed says her grandson has known Prescott since he was a little boy.
She believes that Prescott felt her grandson was a threat competitively to him.
Prescott is currently in the Dixie County jail on one count of first degree murder.
As is often the case, the events appear to have been a bit more complicated.  Now, nearly two years later, Prescott has been released, and all charges have been dropped, by order of a judge.  How does a case like this go on for nearly two years, only to have a judge order the charges dropped? From
Just days before Snellgrove has robbed, beaten and threatened Prescott life.

Prescott claims he was fearful for his life and after confrontation he shot Snellgrove.

Under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law a judge ruled the shooting was justified and all charges were dropped.
The grandmother of the man who was killed, was given space on the news to speculate that her grandson was killed for romantic reasons.  Now we find that he had robbed and beaten Prescott only a few days previously.

Prescott will never get his two years of life in jail back.  It will be very difficult for him to recover any reputation.  In addition, the FBI UCR counts this as a murder, not a justified homicide.  The FBI UCR tracks arrests, not final court outcomes.  The UCR specifically instructs the police doing the reporting *not* to rely on court outcomes, but to use only the very restrictive FBI definition of justified homicide.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

You asked, so I will answer. The problem is the false construct called the Doctrine of Selective Incorporation. Because the RIGHT to a speedy trial by jury has not been "incorporated", no "case law" regarding "speed" has ever been developed. Absent that happening, the current structure allows things like this to happen, and the arrest and detention itself to be used as a punishment - especially in cases where the case law created by the eventual happening helps the self defense side of the fake gun rights "debate".

Incorporating the right to trial by jury is something that incorporating the Second Amendment by itself could not do. Sure, we made end roads regarding privilege and immunities versus the fraud that is due process drama, but with "guns" it is easy to divide the people. When it comes to a trial by jury, there is NO WAY to divide the people whatsoever. Where they can play "ban some guns" , they cannot succeed with "ban some trials" or even "delay some trials to function as punishment". The whole thing implodes upon itself - showing that the whole time the Constitutions protections of enumerated rights was meant to apply to ALL government levels, to government ITSELF across the board.

SO how does this continue? Well, just like so many other corrupt acts get a pass, there will be a "civil settlement" that amounts to taxpayers footing the bill to pay of this man, to "make him whole". And he will take that "deal" because he has nothing else, now. It will all be done in secret, with no admission of guilt, too. Watch and see.

There is no penalty there for those who did this to him, those who arrested him, who charged him, who held him - basically for those who kidnapped him and pretty much made him a political prisoner.

Here is the simplicity - this man was on HIS own property. That shows the aggressor almost 100 % of the time, as the media claimed "victim" here had a choice not to be there in the first place. But then, that goes back to property rights and the false construct called incorporation.

The only way forward is to shove that doctrine down the robed kings throats, to turn their own fabricated bovine excrement back upon them and make them own it. In order to fix the problem, first we must understand it, then we must admit it openly. We must remove the "discretion" that prosecutors now use, and we must also remove the title of nobility called qualified immunity. ALL people must be held to the Supreme Law, no matter who they are or what capacity they function in. All rights enumerated must be adhered to without fail, absolutely, and toss this "incorporation: business to the curb. You see, 9 robed kings don;'t get to decide what is "incorporated" into the Constitution. We never assigned them that authority. And we never assigned them the power to set aside, remove, or otherwise unilaterally amend the Constitution to suit government's purpose either.

This man was a political prisoner for almost 2 years, for no more than exercising his enumerated rights. In fact, that is the DEFINITION of being a political prisoner. Handing him taxpayers' money cannot be the solution. It is certainly not restitution. It is not even a start.


Anonymous said...

Napoleon Bonaparte was first to create a workable system around this, and though it only applied at the national level, there is no reason individual states could not adopt something similar. However, there are pitfalls.

Napoleon's idea was the creation of a national court, in which any citizen could sue any government official for impropriety, be it corruption, graft, abuse of authority, etc. In its day it worked well. When Napoleon was finally overthrown, the new government quickly abolished that court.

The problem with this idea is best described by a bad law with good intent that was created in Texas. It permitted prosecutors to bring charges against state and even federal officials. So it has been horrifically abused by corrupt partisan prosecutors against their political enemies. (It was used against both House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and governor Rick Perry, though the latter charges were dismissed on appeal.

So such a law must be carefully crafted, but in such a way that it only applies to bad public officials, not for petty or partisan reasons.