Stephen Bryant, 44, was executed by a firing squad in Columbia, South Carolina, on Friday and pronounced dead at 6:05 p.m. He had been convicted of three killings in a rural area in 2004. Three prison employees volunteered to serve as shooters and fired from about 15 feet, according to officials; Bryant chose the firing squad over lethal injection or the electric chair. The execution was the third carried out by that method in South Carolina this year and part of a recent restart of capital sentences in the state.
Key Takeaways
- Stephen Bryant, 44, was pronounced dead at 6:05 p.m. after being shot by a three-person firing squad at a state prison.
- Bryant was convicted of three murders committed over five days in October 2004 in rural Sumter County, including the slaying of Willard “TJ” Tietjen.
- Three state employees volunteered as shooters, and the shots were reported to have occurred about 55 seconds after the procedure began.
- The state has executed seven people in the last 14 months; Bryant is the third person executed by firing squad in South Carolina this year.
- Since executions resumed in September 2024, South Carolina has used lethal injection four times and the firing squad three times.
- Gov. Henry McMaster formally denied clemency for Bryant; no South Carolina governor has granted clemency since 1976.
- Defense counsel raised mitigating claims including a genetic disorder and past sexual and physical abuse; those assertions originate with legal filings and advocacy statements.
Background
South Carolina halted executions for roughly 13 years because of difficulties obtaining lethal-injection drugs, then resumed capital punishment in September 2024. The restart has produced a mix of methods: lethal injection remains available where drugs can be obtained, while older or alternative methods such as the firing squad and electric chair are retained in statute as options. That legal landscape reflects broader nationwide pressure on states to maintain execution mechanisms amid pharmaceutical supplier refusals and litigation over methods.
Historically, the firing squad has been used across many countries for military discipline and state executions; in the U.S. it has receded for decades but remains legal in a small number of states as either a primary or backup option. Lawmakers and some corrections officials have argued it can be quicker and less prone to certain types of technical failures than problematic chemical protocols, while opponents describe it as violent and dehumanizing. The debate intensified after a series of highly publicized botched lethal injections in recent years, prompting some states to revisit statutory alternatives.
Main Event
Authorities say three prison staff members, each armed with live rounds, volunteered to form the firing squad for Bryant’s execution. The process followed the state’s established procedure: the inmate was secured in a chair, a white target with a red bull’s-eye was placed over the chest, a hood was put in place, and shooters fired from roughly 15 feet away. Observers reported that the shots occurred about 55 seconds after the hood was placed; a physician examined Bryant with a stethoscope and pronounced him dead after about a minute of checks.
Witnesses in the small gallery included three family members of the victims who held hands during the procedure. A media witness described a pool of wetness appearing on the chest at the shot site, and minor breathing movements were observed for a short time before the final cessation of motion. Bryant made no final statement and briefly glanced toward the gallery before the hood was drawn.
Prosecutors recount that Bryant admitted to killing Willard “TJ” Tietjen in October 2004 after stopping at the secluded Sumter County home claiming car trouble; Tietjen was shot multiple times. Authorities say Bryant also shot two other men in separate incidents during the same five-day period, killing them after giving them rides and shooting them when they stepped from the vehicle. During the ensuing manhunt, law enforcement temporarily stopped many vehicles on dirt roads east of Columbia as they searched the area.
Analysis & Implications
The use of a firing squad in a modern U.S. execution highlights how supply-chain and legal constraints on lethal-injection drugs have reshaped capital punishment practice. When pharmaceutical companies refuse to supply drugs for executions, states that retain alternative statutory methods can pivot, prompting renewed legal and ethical scrutiny. South Carolina’s mix of methods since the restart—both chemical and ballistic—illustrates this interchangeability driven by availability rather than a settled policy preference.
There are policy and legal implications for corrections training, witness procedures and risk management. The firing squad requires staff volunteers who are willing to fire lethal rounds, raising questions about psychological screening, indemnification and the long-term effect on corrections personnel. It also shifts the litigation focus from drug protocols to the precision and oversight of a ballistic method, including whether the shots reliably cause rapid loss of consciousness and death.
For victims’ families, officials and advocacy groups, the case underscores persistent division: some survivors view any carried-out sentence as closure, while legal advocates call attention to mitigating factors and systemic issues such as childhood abuse or cognitive impairment raised in defense filings. On a national level, the execution contributes to U.S. tallies—making Bryant the 43rd person put to death by court order in the country so far this year—affecting advocacy campaigns and potential federal oversight discussions.
Comparison & Data
| Metric | Count / Detail |
|---|---|
| Executions in South Carolina since Sept 2024 | 7 total — 4 by lethal injection, 3 by firing squad |
| South Carolina executions in past 14 months | 7 people executed since restart |
| U.S. executions so far this year | 43 court-ordered executions reported nationally |
These figures show the recent intensity of executions after a long pause in South Carolina and reflect national activity aggregated by monitoring organizations. The state’s retention of multiple authorized methods—lethal injection, firing squad and the electric chair as a statutory option—means method distribution depends on logistics, legal challenges and inmate choice where statutes allow it.
Reactions & Quotes
“His impairments left him unable to endure the tormenting memories of his childhood,”
Bo King, defense attorney
King, who represented Bryant in mitigation filings, characterized Bryant’s life history as marked by abuse and a genetic disorder he says affected brain function; those assertions appeared in legal and advocacy statements and were cited in clemency materials. The governor’s office issued a terse statement noting denial of clemency without releasing additional explanation.
“None has made South Carolina safer or more just,”
Bo King, defense attorney
That comment reflects King’s broader criticism of the state’s recent executions. Officials at the Department of Corrections did not provide immediate new public comment beyond confirming procedural details and the time of death; victims’ family members present were reported to be visibly affected and held hands in the witness room.
Unconfirmed
- Claims that Bryant’s neurological condition was definitively caused by his mother’s drinking are assertions from defense counsel and have not been independently verified in public medical records available to reporters.
- Descriptions of a pool of wetness appearing on the chest after the shots come from a media witness account and have not been corroborated by an independent medical release.
- Legal assertions that shooters in a prior firing-squad case ‘‘nearly missed’’ the heart and prolonged suffering are litigation claims pending full evidentiary review.
Bottom Line
Stephen Bryant’s execution by firing squad adds to a recent cluster of capital sentences carried out in South Carolina after a long hiatus. The state’s mix of methods—driven in part by drug availability and statutory options—means executions can proceed by very different procedures, each with its own legal and operational challenges. For policy makers and courts, the case raises practical questions about oversight, staff involvement and the evidentiary standards used to assess humane administration.
For the public and advocacy communities, the execution will likely sharpen debates over whether retained alternatives such as the firing squad should remain on the books or be phased out, and whether current safeguards sufficiently protect both constitutional rights and the integrity of corrections personnel. Observers should watch forthcoming legal filings, official post-execution reports and any legislative responses in state government.
Sources
- Associated Press — news organization reporting on the execution and case details
- South Carolina Department of Corrections — official corrections agency (procedures and confirmations)
- Death Penalty Information Center — nonprofit resource compiling U.S. execution statistics