Man kills teen, shoots two others

[the_mango55]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/19/....ap/index.html

LEXINGTON, South Carolina (AP) -- A South Carolina man shot an unarmed teenager to death after a scuffle at a weekend party thrown by his children and then shot two teens involved in a retaliatory shooting at his home, authorities said Tuesday.

Francis Marion Reeves III, 62, is charged with murder in the Friday shooting death of 17-year-old Deshaun Rashad Clark and was released on $125,000 bond after a Tuesday court hearing.

The shooting is under investigation, but prosecutors and authorities described a chaotic scene at the small party hosted by Reeves' children at the family's lake house in Lexington County, just west of Columbia.

Reeves' children claimed that a cell phone was stolen. Someone accused Clark of taking it, and he scuffled with another person and was struck several times before leaving and threatening to return with friends, police said.

Reeves' son went to the family's other nearby home to get his father, who brought a loaded pistol and unloaded shotgun over to the lake house. The father was told that his daughter had been attacked at the party and watched as his son was attacked by three people.

After Clark returned with friends, Reeves shot him, prosecutors said. Partygoers scattered, and friends took the injured teen to a fire station. He died at a hospital.

"He literally bled to death," prosecutor Rick Hubbard said.

Reeves' attorney, Dick Harpootlian, said his client acted in self-defense, fearing that he and his children were in danger.

"This is a tragedy. Any time somebody dies, anytime somebody's killed, that's a tragedy, but one has a right to act in self-defense," Harpootlian said.

Reeves returned to his home afterward and was sitting on the front porch when one of the slain teen's friends drove by and shot at his home in retaliation, police said. Reeves fired back with a shotgun, police said, striking two teens who were in the car. They were not seriously injured.

One of the slain teen's friends has been charged with assault with intent to kill in the drive-by shooting. Breon Jacoby Mayers, 17, remained in jail Tuesday after his bail was set at $100,000.

When deputies arrested Reeves on Saturday, he appeared intoxicated, authorities said.

"He was traumatized and upset about what had happened and had been up all night long. And he had several drinks," Harpootlian said.

Reeves did not speak about the shooting during the hearing Tuesday but nodded to family members as he left the courtroom. About two dozen family members of the slain teen also attended.

Family members described Clark as a soft-spoken and sensitive teen who planned to play sports at Chapin High School this year.

Family members and some residents of the community have speculated that race was a factor in the shooting -- the dead teen is black, and Reeves and his children are white -- but authorities say that wasn't the case.

Clark's uncle, Corinthea Stack, 49, said he feared that Reeves' release could cause more violence in the town just 22 miles from the state's capital.

You think what he did was justified? Or is he a murderer?

[Joker85]

Justified in the 2nd one obviously. The first shooting not enough information. If he truly believed his son was being in danger of severe bodily harm being attacked by 3 other people, then I can see where it would be. But right now that's just his side of the story, and its he said she said. If it can be confirmed that his version really took place I would say justified in the first shooting also.

[Georgy Zhukov]

He was Justified in my opinion.

[boofhead]

He was justified. He was canny enough in the first instance to recognize the likelihood of the scumbags coming back with guns...which they did in the second, if I read it correctly.

Frig you Americans just stop with the gun-loving already! This happens a hundred thousand times a week all over the world, and a punch up is usually the result. No one dead. No kids with a father in jail.

[Rich86]

I agree - there is not enough information to be sure re. the first instance - however if people come into your home and attack your child, and you feel your child is in serious danger then I think there would be something wrong with you if you did not do something about it.

The second instance - yes he is in the right clearly.

[the_mango55]

I'm still torn between poll choice 1 and 2, it would all depend on the circumstances of the first shooting.

If the kids were armed, then he was justified, if not, then he probably took it too far. Although it was still done defending his home and family, so I would hope he wouldn't get more that 3-6 years either way.

[Rich86]

What if the kids were not armed, but 'big' (i.e. strong) - the son and the father in contrast were relatively weak. What if the kids were beating the son to a pulp and showing no signs of stopping?

[boofhead]

Guaranteed the kid went to the dad in semi-hysterics " dad, they've got guns and and they're coming back!" Dad arms up and prepares himself. His own daughter in danger? WTF is he meant to do?

The kids need a thrashing though for having people like that at their 'party' in the first place. Doesn't sound like a party to me. See what it can lead to? A lot of pain and misery over what was planned as an evening of fun.

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

What the ? Kids doing drivebys? Where is this?

[ReBeLLioN]

uh... what is exactly the difference between the last two poll answers? lol

On one hand, THOU SHALT NOT KILLITH THEE

But on the other hand, he would get raped in prison

And on the third hand (I have six ya know) there is a piece of pie

I'm going to go with the pie for the win on this one guys.

[the_mango55]

uh... what is exactly the difference between the last two poll answers? lol

poll answer number 2, he committed manslaughter at most and deserves some time in prison.

poll answer number 3, he committed premeditated murder and deserves life in prison.

On one hand, THOU SHALT NOT KILLITH THEE

But on the other hand, he would get raped in prison

And on the third hand (I have six ya know) there is a piece of pie

I'm going to go with the pie for the win on this one guys.

I have no idea what you just said.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Frig you Americans just stop with the gun-loving already! This happens a hundred thousand times a week all over the world, and a punch up is usually the result. No one dead. No kids with a father in jail.

The way I read this, it WAS a punchup and the kid named Clark left and was making threats that he would return. Said kid then returned, with friends, and got shot. I would have shot him too.

After Clark returned with friends, Reeves shot him, prosecutors said.

Here in CO that falls under the so called Make My Day law. He probably wouldnt have even been charged.


With the second shooting involving the drive by I dont think there is any question. If the two in the drive by were also the same two that Clark brought back with him the first time, then that is just more reason for him to believe his kids were in danger the first time around. After all the polic/ambulance did not take that first kid to the hospital, his friends did. Thats very convenient, since we dont know if they were armed the first time around, but we KNOW they were armed the second time around. I would place my money on them being armed the first time they returned.


And in all of this nobody has raised the question that hit me first. How much alcohol was at this party for 17 yr olds??

[Pallantides]

lock him up and throw away the key!

[Gelgoog]

yes when your friends go into someones home to do them serious harm, then you get shot and killed, then they retaliate with a drive by shooting...you what we call gang members and deserve to be shot. completely justified.

[morteduzionism]

yes when your friends go into someones home to do them serious harm, then you get shot and killed,

But that's not the facts of the story.

The victim was attending the party also. The victim was accused of theft. A scuffle broke out over the accusation. The son got the father and said the daughter was being attacked. The father returned with two guns. The father shot/killed an unarmed teenager. The teenagers friends took him to a fire station where he died. Then, it doesn't say for sure, some friends of the victim returned for retaliation...

Those are the facts.

then they retaliate with a drive by shooting...you what we call gang members and deserve to be shot. completely justified.

It doesn't sound gang related at all. It sounds like kids trying to get revenge for the murder of their friend. Sounds more like vgilantism.

[the_mango55]

The victim was attending the party also. The victim was accused of theft. A scuffle broke out over the accusation. The son got the father and said the daughter was being attacked. The father returned with two guns. The father shot/killed an unarmed teenager. The teenagers friends took him to a fire station where he died. Then, it doesn't say for sure, some friends of the victim returned for retaliation...

You left off the part where the victim made threats, left the party, and came back with friends.

Those are also facts.

[C.M.]

Not enough information to make a decision, but i'm leaning towards it was justified.

[Gauvin]

Seems if Clark's friends returned for a drive-by, they were a dangerous group. The son went to get his father, and his father brought guns? Why would he bring guns? Either it was because his son told him those guys were dangerous (which it seems he was right) or the father is a gun-toting maniac. I think it's the former, so I voted justified.

[Serious Spamurai]

Oh dear, what a terrible shame....

[Surgeon]

I'm wondering if the initial shooting could have been avoided if he fired into the air first or shouted warnings. On the other hand the kid came back with his friends to... do what, beat up the guy's son? Yeah, that can cause some trouble.