‘Stand Your Ground’ Showdown: Scott Spivey Wrongful Death Case Advances

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

New filings in a high-profile wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of Scott Ryan Spivey are providing fresh details — and raising more questions — about a fatal roadside shooting that continues to divide and confound observers nearly two years later.

On September 9, 2023, Spivey, a 33-year old insurance adjuster from Tabor City, North Carolina, was shot and killed by Charles Weldon Boyd and Kenneth Bradley Williams on Camp Swamp Road in Horry County, S.C. The two men admit they pulled the trigger — but claim they acted in self-defense. Prosecutors agreed – and declined to press charges. Now, a circuit court judge will decide whether Boyd and Williams are immune from civil prosecution, as well.

Before that, though, a flurry of pre-hearing motions must be addressed.

In an order (.pdf) filed on May 28, 2025, the S.C. Supreme Court appointed circuit court judge Eugene C. Griffith, Jr. to preside over the case – originally filed by Spivey’s sister, Jennifer Spivey Foley.

***

If the court finds Boyd and Williams acted in lawful self defense, such a decision could carry sweeping consequences — both criminal and civil. Under South Carolina’s ‘Protection of Persons and Property Act,’ a.k.a. its “Stand Your Ground” law, individuals who use deadly force and are found to have acted in self-defense are granted immunity not only from criminal prosecution, but also from civil liability.

Such a ruling would likely bring the civil case to an abrupt end, halting the Spivey family’s pursuit of justice through the courts. It would also become part of the public record, potentially influencing future legal strategies and shaping how similar cases are handled in South Carolina.

Meanwhile, there is an ongoing investigation into the law enforcement agency which responded to the shooting.

The mishandling of this case by the Horry County Police Department (HCPD) has already led to the resignation of chief deputy Brandon Strickland and the termination of officer Paul Damon Vescovi.

***

RELATED | UNSOLVED CAROLINAS: THE ROADSIDE SHOOTING OF SCOTT SPIVEY

***

This week, Boyd and Williams filed a motion (.pdf) asking the court to allow transcripts from the investigation to be admitted as pre-trial evidence for consideration in the immunity hearing. Attached to a memorandum in support of the motion were six exhibits (.pdf)- including transcripts of police interviews with the defendants and witnesses on the scene.

According to the attorneys, those interviews contain some previously unreported details that help to flesh out the series of events that transpired leading up to the roadside shooting.  As court filings seek to admit this new evidence, the story of what happened that day is beginning to take shape — and it’s more complex and incomprehensible than previously known.

While the new information helps to better define the situation, it also puts a fine point on the failures of the investigation. Less than half an hour after arriving on the scene, Vescovi revealed his conclusion to other first responders.

“Road rage turned self-defense 10-7,” Vescovi said.

(10-7 is a police code commonly used in reference to a fatality). 

In a matter of days that seemingly premature pronouncement became the official determination of HCPD as they closed the investigation. 

***

***

THE WITNESSES

As previously reported, 911 calls made by witnesses provide a general outline of the day. But, the witness statements included in the exhibits — statements the defense calls “present sense impressions” and “excited utterances” — provide important perspective for the events that occurred prior to those calls.

Spivey’s route began at Boardwalk Billy’s in North Myrtle Beach where he spent the afternoon watching Clemson football and consuming food and drink. He departed the pub at 5:06 p.m. EDT. 

The first documented event occured on Highway 9 roughly five miles into his drive toward home. Caller 1, the driver of a white Nissan who is identified in the court filings as Blaize Ward, and other witnesses noted that Spivey aimed his gun at her and other motorists near Charter Drive in Longs, SC – several miles before calls began coming in to 911.

At least three witnesses – along with Boyd and Williams – reported Spivey’s erratic driving for several miles along Highway 9. They say Spivey ran Boyd off the road near Aberdeen — a little more than eight miles into the drive. Boyd’s truck was attached to a trailer loaded with furniture. Witnesses noted he struggled to maintain control of the vehicle and its load when Spivey brake-checked him and forced him off the road. 

A couple traveling that same stretch of road at the same time described for police the dangerous cat-and-mouse driving that continued as traffic made its way north on Highway 9 toward Loris, S.C.

Mr. Wright: “Let me say this baby. Here’s what it constantly did. He’d get behind him, and then he’d pass them. And then that truck tried to speed up and go. He would pass, and this happened 5 times. He’d pass him, go around in front of him and just throw on brakes.”

Officer: “The black truck?”

Mrs. Wright: “The black truck.”

Mr. Wright: “The black truck. Okay. Then he’d speed up then the truck try to go again. He’d move over, the truck past him, and then he’d go by him, get behind him, and then he’d turn around and go past him again and throw on brakes.”

Officer: “Okay.”

Mr. Wright: “Then the one time, one time he just went like that.”

Mrs. Wright: “And ran him off into the median.”

Mr. Wright: “He was all the way down in the (inaudible)”

Mrs. Wright: “It’s a wonder if he din’t wreck.”

Mr. Wright: “Yeah, I mean he was down in the median. That trailer was bouncing.”

Perhaps the most contentious single moment – and the one portrayed differently by the parties to the lawsuit – involved the moment when Spivey pulled over and exited his truck on Camp Swamp Road. 

In previous filings, attorneys for the plaintiffs describe it this way: “When Spivey exited his vehicle, Boyd and Williams opened fire, emptying multiple rounds into Spivey and causing his death . . . Although Spivey fired his weapon after being mortally wounded by Boyd, neither Boyd nor Williams was struck by Scott.”

Who fired – and who fired first – is at the very heart of the controversy. 

Witnesses described for police what they observed from their own individual perspectives.  Caller 2, identified in the court filings as Frank McMurrough, described it this way:

“So, I’m about like, right where that car is. And this guy in the black just locks his brakes up, jumps out with a pistol. And I go, “Holy shit, pistol.” And then I saw him bring it up, right? And then as I’m going by, I saw this gentleman just holding, like he was just like drawn. And then it just went fucking crazy.”

Frank McMurrough’s statement to investigators

When the shooting began, Blaize Ward told investigators she could not see Boyd and Williams from her position on the road, but described the scene as she tried to escape to safety. 

“So, the guy in the black truck was obviously shooting and it’s just — it looks like dust, you know. Just bah, bah, bah. And it’s going everywhere. And I’m like, that’s where I started screaming. I was like oh my god he’s shooting. I was like, I don’t want him to kill me.”

Blaize Ward’s statement to investigators

Then there is Boyd’s account to police, which is interrupted repeatedly as police try to contain the scene. 

***

***

The human element of the case complicated matters further. As it turns out, Boyd wasn’t the only party acquainted with members of law enforcement arriving on the scene. More than one first responder recognized Spivey.

One officer’s comments were captured in the transcript. 

Person 4: “But you know what’s weird? I know that guy that’s dead. This is so out of character for him. He’s a church going guy. I think he’s — I think he — he had to have (inaudible) something. That doesn’t sound like him at all.”

It’s a detail that introduces both emotional weight and ambiguity to the case. 

With a narrative already colored by many facets and viewpoints, the added dimensions provided by the transcripts bring both clarity – and confusion. Perhaps the most important factors underlying the case – and Spivey’s death – are things we can never know because they are questions that only Spivey could answer. 

***

RELATED | SCOTT SPIVEY WRONGFUL DEATH CASE: DELAY SOUGHT BY DEFENDANT

***

THE MOTION IN LIMINE AND DISCOVERY MATTERS

Attorneys for the defendants said in their filings the transcripts should be admitted without the need for in-person testimony. They claim to have made a good-faith effort to resolve the matter informally with plaintiffs, but concluded “further discussion would be unproductive.”

The judge’s decision on the motion will determine the scope of evidence to be considered as he weighs the specific circumstances which led to Spivey’s death – and whether the admitted shooters are entitled to immunity under South Carolina law.

Attorneys for the defendants also filed two motions earlier this week. The first motion (.pdf) requests biological samples from Spivey’s autopsy so they can be independently tested. The second seeks a protective order (.pdf) that would limit the public release of materials obtained through discovery in the case. Citing Rule 26(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the defense argued that the plaintiff’s legal team — led by attorney Mark Tinsley — has engaged in a coordinated effort to try the case in the court of public opinion rather than before a jury.

In support of the motion, the defense submitted a detailed list of media leaks and private communications they claim were improperly disseminated. Among the examples provided were excerpts of Boyd’s deposition quoted in a Wall Street Journal article, dashcam footage released to local television news outlets and a series of text messages in which witnesses allegedly shared information and collaborated with the plaintiff’s legal team outside of formal legal channels.

The motion also invoked Rule 3.6 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit attorneys from making public statements that could materially prejudice a legal proceeding. The defendants are asking the court to restrict the use and distribution of discovery materials going forward.

The next chapter in the Spivey case is about to be written — not by detectives, but by lawyers, judges and transcripts. And in this case, what’s on the record might make all the difference.

Count on FITSNews to bring you the latest developments as this case unfolds.

***

THE MOTION…

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR…

Callie Lyons is a relentless investigative journalist, researcher, and author known for exposing hard truths with heart and precision. As a journalist for FITSNews, she dives into high-profile and murky cases—like that of Mica Francis Miller— with fearless resolve and a sharp eye for detail, whether it’s tracking white-collar crime, uncovering religious abuse, or examining the often-bizarre behavior of those who believe they’re above the law.

Callie made waves with her groundbreaking 2007 book Stain-Resistant, Nonstick, Waterproof and Lethal, the first to reveal the dangers of forever chemicals, a story that helped inspire the film Dark Waters and influenced global scientific dialogue. Her work has appeared in numerous documentaries, including Toxic Soup, National Geographic’s Parched: Toxic Waters, and more recently Citizen Sleuth, which examines the complexities of true crime podcasting.

Whether she’s navigating environmental disasters or the darker corners of society, Lyons operates with one guiding belief: “Truth never damages a cause that is just.”

***

WANNA SOUND OFF?

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.