My name is Danielle McQueen-Reed. I am writing regarding the death of my brother, Avery McQueen, who was shot and killed in Columbia, South Carolina, in Richland County on December 17, 2020. 

Our mother is still living and is Avery’s next of kin. Avery had no children and no spouse.

On February 20, 2025, the defendant in this case, Christopher Lovell, was granted immunity under South Carolina’s Stand Your Ground law. As a result, the case is now closed.

If the defendant had not received immunity, he would have had the opportunity to appeal a conviction. However, our family was never given an opportunity to appeal the judge’s ruling granting immunity. The state never presented that option to us, and when we inquired about it, we were essentially told that no such option existed.
This is deeply troubling to our family. The solicitor initially charged Christopher Lovell with murder and possession of a weapon, suggesting there was sufficient evidence to pursue a conviction. Yet when the time came to challenge the immunity ruling, the state suddenly appeared unwilling to push back. After waiting four and a half years for justice, we were left with a ruling that granted immunity to the man who killed our loved one, with little resistance from the state.

If Christopher Lovell had the financial means, he could have hired any defense attorney he chose to represent him. In contrast, our family had no ability to select counsel to pursue an appeal on our behalf.
We do not believe that all of the legal elements required under the Stand Your Ground doctrine were properly met in this case.

On April 21, 2025, I submitted a FOIA request to the Fifth Circuit Solicitor’s Office. 
On June 26, 2025, I received only a portion of the requested records.

The photographs provided showed limited areas of Avery’s body, including portions of his feet, lower legs, arms, knees, chest, and neck. However, we did not receive images showing the full extent of his body, including the bottoms of his feet, thighs, hands, elbows, underarms, full neck, full face, head, back, groin, or buttocks. The photographs appear to have been taken at the coroner’s office, and we did not receive any photographs from the actual crime scene.

This is concerning because experts testified that the gunshot wound was the only injury on Avery’s body, despite witness testimony claiming there had been a physical altercation between Avery and Christopher Lovell.
We raise the following issues in the hope that lawmakers, law enforcement agencies, and the healthcare community will examine whether policy changes are needed. These issues may not be unique to this case, but they highlight serious questions about investigative procedures and accountability.

Issue 1: Inconsistent Statements and Limited Interviews
Investigators did not appear to challenge or scrutinize every claim made by individuals present that night during their initial interviews at the scene or at the police station. Additionally, our family never received any interview recordings or statements from Christopher Lovell himself through the records we obtained. The only interviews we received were from individuals described as witnesses.

Issue 2: Lack of Charges Against Other Individuals
Two individuals present that night, Porche and Tito, were never charged with any offense despite inconsistencies in their statements.
Tito claimed he witnessed the entire shooting and stated that he was in the living room attempting to calm Christopher Lovell while Lovell held a gun and threatened Avery, stating he would shoot him if he moved. This description suggests the incident may not have occurred as quickly as portrayed and raises questions about whether there was truly an immediate threat.
Christopher Lovell claimed Tito was not in the room but was instead on the balcony. Porche stated she did not know where Tito was. Tito also stated he left the scene after the shooting and walked across the street to a neighbor’s home with Christopher.
Porche claimed the firearm belonged to her, yet no weapon was ever recovered in the case. Christopher Lovell was located four days later in Charleston, South Carolina.

Issue 3: 911 Call Handling
Two 911 calls were made by Porche. When questioned about why she hung up during the calls, she stated that the phone’s Bluetooth connection interfered. During the calls, it took time for her to provide her address and explain the nature of the emergency. She ultimately stated that someone had been shot.
The second call also ended before first responders arrived.
When first responders arrived, Avery was already deceased and Porche was seated in a chair. She agreed to allow investigators to test her hands for gunshot residue, but she had already washed blood from her hands prior to their arrival. Later, at the police station, she washed her hands again before a second gunshot residue test was conducted.
Additionally, although she claimed to have performed CPR on Avery, investigators noted there was no blood visible on her clothing.
This raises broader questions about public education on emergency response procedures, including proper 911 call protocols and appropriate actions when assisting a gunshot victim before first responders arrive.

Issue 4: Claims of a Birthday Gathering
Statements from Tito, Porche, and Christopher indicated that a birthday gathering for Christopher Lovell had taken place that evening. However, no individuals who allegedly attended the gathering provided statements or were interviewed to confirm that such an event occurred. No photographs or videos of the gathering were produced.
Porche also stated that she did not know any of the people who attended the gathering and that it was her first time meeting them.

Issue 5: Toxicology Considerations
A toxicology report was performed for Avery, and the judge referenced it as part of his reasoning. However, no toxicology reports were conducted for the other individuals involved, despite statements indicating that alcohol and marijuana were being used that evening.
These factors were not fully considered when assessing the reliability of witness statements.

Issue 6: Physical Size Comparison
The judge referenced Avery’s size compared to Christopher Lovell when explaining the ruling. However, incident reports listed Christopher Lovell as approximately 5'9" and 140 pounds. Avery was roughly the same height and appeared similarly thin in the available photographs.

Issue 7: CPR Claims
Porche claimed she administered CPR after Avery was shot in the chest near the heart. It remains unclear whether she was certified to perform CPR or whether CPR is medically appropriate in such circumstances. This raises an opportunity for national healthcare education regarding proper emergency response to gunshot wounds.

Issue 8: Relationship Claims
Porche claimed Christopher Lovell was her boyfriend, though no documentation was provided to confirm this claim. Avery was living with Porche and shared household expenses with her.

Issue 9: Firearm Handling
Porche stated she routinely placed her firearm on the kitchen counter, even when people she did not know were present in her home.

Issue 10: Nature of the Arguments
Witnesses described multiple verbal arguments occurring that evening but never clarified what the arguments were about.

Issue 11: Judicial Reasoning
In the ruling, the judge stated: “Regardless of these inconsistencies, it is clear that McQueen initiated an unprovoked attack on the Defendant.”
To our family, this statement appears contradictory. Inconsistencies do not equal clarity, and inconsistencies should not automatically justify immunity.

Judge Heath P Taylor justified his ruling based on the following case laws… State v. McCarty, 437 S.C. 355, 372, 878 S.E.2d 902, 911 (2022). In a non-jury
proceeding, "... the judge, as the finder of fact, may believe all, some or none of the testimony,
even when it is not contradicted."

Lollis v. Dutton, 421 S.C. 467, 483, 807 S.E.2d 723, 731 (Ct.

App. 2017). "The fact finder is imbued with broad discretion in determining credibility or
believability of witnesses." Small v. Pioneer Machinery, Inc., 329 S.C. 448, 465, 494 S.E.2d 835,
843 (Ct. App. 1997).

After hearing the testimony and observing the demeanor of the witnesses, the Court finds and concludes that the testimony of the Defendant which is largely corroborated by that of Scott to be credible. His demeanor was calm, and his testimony was believable. The Defendant
presented photos of an injury to his face and wrist. He stated that he had a genuine fear for his
life, and the credible testimony of Scott indicated that McQueen was aggressive, irate, and intent
on harming the Defendant.

The issue here is that the only statement that Porche corroborated with Christopher on was that Avery hit him first everything thing else was different. But the judge said Porche story largely corroborates Christopher’s story and that is not a FACT. If you go to The Angie & Avery Foundation Facebook page & read the incident reports, watch the interview at the police station you will notice what she said was something different from Christopher about a few things. She said Christopher and Avery was about the same size not that Avery was so much larger than Christopher. She said she came out of the shower & saw Avery & Christopher arguing but Christopher said that’s not true. He said he walked out of the shower and saw Avery & Porche arguing. They claimed this is what happened right before Avery threw the first punch. So which one is it and how can a judge believe both statements? The judge didn’t give much credibility if any to Tito’s testimony but Tito said he & Avery got into a verbal argument earlier that evening. Tito stated Avery is a different person under the influence of alcohol. So I guess the judge didn’t believe any of Tito’s statements or if he did which ones? As a matter of fact he never even referenced Tito in his fact & findings.

Porche & Christopher corroborated Titos’s claim that Avery was more irate under the influence of alcohol so why exclude Tito as credible? Tito said he tried to talk Christopher out of shooting Avery which meant there was no immediate threat. But the judge didn’t believe Tito. Since he didn’t believe Tito I guess he also didn’t believe that Tito & Avery got into an argument earlier that evening. Interesting part is that Avery didn’t get violent with Tito that night and the gun was sitting on the kitchen counter where Porche claimed she always left it.

Another interesting thing is that Tito said he never saw that gun before yet he slept on the couch. But the judge didn’t believe Tito? Porche claimed Avery & Christopher had a history of arguing. Why didn’t the judge give weight to Porche with the history statement since he deemed her credible? Does the argumentative history between two people matter especially if they both have a history of arguing & getting upset often?

When asked what they were arguing about Porche could not answer specifically what they were actually arguing about. She said it sounded like “ra ra”

From all of this confusion, how did the judge arrive at a clear conclusion that Avery was the aggressor?

The other issue here with the judge is his statement that Christopher provided photos of injury to his wrist and his face but Christopher only provided the photos after they arrested him 4 days later and the first medical professional Christopher saw, occurred during his incarceration 4 or more days after the shooting. This is what the judge gave credibility to.

The defense said Christopher had surgery on his wrist while on bond but when they arrived at the stand your ground hearing 4 years later, they failed to provide medical records proving the wrist surgery. 

Issue 12: Elements of Self-Defense
The court cited the four elements of self-defense required under South Carolina law. Our family questions whether those elements were fully satisfied given the circumstances, including conflicting witness accounts, intoxication, the presence of drugs and alcohol, prior arguments, the defendant fleeing the scene, and the absence of the weapon.

In this case we have strangers, alcohol, marijuana, a firearm, arguments, a history of conflict, conflicting statements, and a missing weapon — yet immunity was granted.

To our family, this case demonstrates serious potential gaps in how Stand Your Ground laws are applied. Without stronger safeguards, such laws risk creating situations where serious questions remain unanswered and justice appears out of reach.

We share these concerns in the hope that policymakers will examine these issues and consider reforms that strengthen accountability, investigative standards, and the application of self-defense laws.