Disclaimer: The following narrative contains detailed descriptions of an execution and may be distressing to some readers. Viewer discretion is advised.
A Solemn Day in South Carolina
On Friday, March 7, a rare and somber event unfolded in South Carolina that would rekindle debates about the death penalty and the methods used to carry it out. On that day, Brad Sigmon—a 67‑year‑old inmate on death row—was executed by a three‑man firing squad. Sigmon, who had been convicted for the brutal 2001 murders of his ex‑girlfriend’s parents, made a personal choice to face this method of execution instead of the more common lethal injection. He explained that he feared the uncertainty, delays, and prolonged suffering he associated with lethal injection and even with the electric chair. For him, a swift firing squad was a way to ensure his death would be immediate, sparing him the agony he equated with “being burned and cooked alive.”
For over twenty years, Jeffrey Collins—a seasoned reporter with the Associated Press—has witnessed numerous executions in South Carolina. Over his career, he has covered 11 executions using three different methods, and his latest account of Sigmon’s execution is both unflinching and deeply reflective. Collins’s detailed narrative not only describes the technicalities of the execution but also examines the emotional and ethical questions surrounding capital punishment in America.
The Choice of a Firing Squad
Brad Sigmon’s decision to be executed by firing squad was as much a personal choice as it was a statement about the method of capital punishment. While most death row inmates choose lethal injection—a method that has been the primary means of execution in the United States for decades—Sigmon opted for the firing squad. His decision was driven by a deep-seated fear that the drugs used in lethal injections might not work as quickly as intended, potentially prolonging his suffering. He expressed a visceral dread of a drawn‑out death, one that he compared to being “burned and cooked alive,” a fate he believed could also be possible with an electric chair.
South Carolina’s history with capital punishment is layered and complex. Though the state has used several different methods over the years, the three‑man firing squad had not been employed in over 15 years. Its return in Sigmon’s case served as a stark reminder of a bygone era in execution practices—a time when the physicality and immediacy of state‑sanctioned death were on full display. For Sigmon, the firing squad represented a method that was not only more predictable in its outcome but also, in his mind, more humane because it ended life quickly.
The Crime Behind the Conviction
Sigmon’s journey to death row began with a brutal crime that shook the community. In 2001, he committed the unthinkable: the savage murder of David and Gladys Larke, the parents of his ex‑girlfriend. Using a baseball bat as his weapon, Sigmon’s actions were characterized by their sheer brutality. The horrific nature of the murders led to a lengthy legal process and ultimately, a death sentence. For many, the severity of his crime was a key factor in the ongoing debates about the death penalty and its moral implications. Sigmon’s choice of execution method adds yet another layer to these debates, raising questions about what constitutes a “humane” death and whether any method of execution can truly be considered compassionate.
Inside the Execution Chamber
Veteran reporter Jeffrey Collins, with over 21 years of experience covering executions in South Carolina, was on the scene to document Sigmon’s final moments. His account offers a rare, vivid glimpse into an execution by firing squad—an event that has become nearly mythical in modern times. Collins’s detailed description of the setting, the inmate, and the procedure provides a window into a world few ever see firsthand.
Before the execution began, Sigmon was prepared for what was about to happen. He was securely fastened into a specially designed chair. Unlike many of his fellow inmates in other methods of execution, Sigmon was dressed in a stark black jumpsuit, complemented by black, crocodile‑like shoes. His body was restrained with a harness across his torso, additional straps over his head, and shackles binding his ankles. Most notably, a target was affixed over his heart—a detail meant to serve both as a grim marker and as a focus for the executioners once the curtain was drawn.
At approximately 6:08 pm, after all the formalities were completed and Sigmon’s final statement had been read, an employee pulled back a black shade that had concealed the three volunteer shooters from the prison system. In that moment, the atmosphere in the execution chamber shifted dramatically. Collins later wrote that the tension was almost palpable—a mix of solemn duty, raw emotion, and the inevitability of what was to come.
The Moment of Death
Without any dramatic countdown or forewarning, the three‑man firing squad discharged their weapons. The sharp, staccato sound of rifle fire echoed through the chamber, piercing the heavy silence that had enveloped everyone present. In that instant, the white target with its red bullseye—firmly positioned over Sigmon’s heart—appeared to vanish as the bullets struck with deadly precision.
Collins described how Sigmon’s body reacted immediately. His chest convulsed in rapid, involuntary spasms, and a jagged red mark—about the size of a small fist—formed where the bullets hit. In Collins’s reflective essay for the AP, he captured the surreal nature of the moment: “In those moments, it’s impossible to predict what you’re going to see. I had never before witnessed someone being shot so close and in such a direct manner.” The stark brutality of the firing squad’s action left little room for ambiguity: death had come swiftly and without mercy.
Within moments of the discharge, a doctor entered the scene. After a brief, somber examination lasting just over a minute, Sigmon was declared dead. The entire process, from the final statement to the sound of the rifles, unfolded with a precision that underscored both the efficiency and the violence of the chosen method.
Reflections on Capital Punishment
For those who have followed the evolution of capital punishment in the United States, the execution of Brad Sigmon by firing squad offers a potent reminder of the many complexities involved. On one hand, there is a clear argument for the speed and finality of the firing squad method—a method that leaves little room for error or prolonged suffering. Sigmon himself chose this method because he believed it was more predictable and less torturous than the alternatives. On the other hand, the very image of a firing squad—the visual of live bullets, the target on an inmate’s chest, and the almost ritualistic nature of the execution—forces society to confront the raw reality of state‑sanctioned death.
For Jeffrey Collins, whose career has spanned multiple methods of execution, the firing squad’s immediacy and brutality provided a jarring contrast to the more clinical and, at times, seemingly sanitized process of lethal injection. Collins noted that the firing squad was “far more tense and immediate” than any other method he had witnessed. The experience, as he recounted, left his heart pounding and his mind grappling with the moral and ethical implications of such an execution.
Comparing Execution Methods
The debate over which execution method is the most humane has raged for decades. In recent years, lethal injection has become the dominant form of capital punishment in the United States. However, it is not without its controversies. Critics of lethal injection argue that the drugs can malfunction, that there have been instances of prolonged suffering, and that the process itself lacks transparency. Sigmon’s explicit rejection of lethal injection was rooted in these concerns. He feared that a lethal injection might not work as intended, potentially dragging out his final moments in agony.
The firing squad, by contrast, offers an alternative that is swift and unmistakable. There is a certain grim finality in knowing that death comes in an instant, without the potential for technical glitches or the prolonged discomfort sometimes associated with drug‑induced executions. Yet, for many opponents of the death penalty, the firing squad is emblematic of a past era—one marked by overt violence and a level of brutality that feels out of place in modern society.
This dichotomy is central to the ongoing debate about the death penalty. On one side, there are those who argue that a rapid, certain death is preferable to the uncertainty and potential suffering of other methods. On the other side, critics contend that any method that involves such raw violence is inherently inhumane. Sigmon’s choice, therefore, forces us to ask difficult questions: What does it mean to have a “humane” death? And can the state ever truly claim the moral high ground when it resorts to such methods?
The Emotional Toll on Witnesses
Witnessing an execution is an experience that leaves an indelible mark on everyone present, from the inmate to the executioners, the medical staff, and even the journalists who document it. Jeffrey Collins, having attended numerous executions over the past two decades, has developed a deep, personal understanding of the emotional weight of these events. His account of Sigmon’s execution is not just a dry recitation of facts—it is a window into the human cost of capital punishment.
Collins described the atmosphere in the execution chamber as charged with an almost unbearable tension. As the final moments approached, he felt his heart begin to pound—a reaction that underscored the gravity of the situation. The swift, unrelenting nature of the firing squad’s discharge, the visceral imagery of the target on Sigmon’s chest disappearing under a barrage of bullets, and the near‑silent aftermath all combined to create an experience that was as deeply disturbing as it was efficient.
For Collins, each execution becomes another chapter in an ongoing internal dialogue about the role of the death penalty in modern society. His detailed narrative forces readers to confront the stark reality of state‑sanctioned violence, urging us to consider whether the quest for justice can ever justify such irrevocable finality.
The Broader Legal and Ethical Debate
The reintroduction of the firing squad in South Carolina has significant legal and ethical ramifications. Legally, the state maintains the right to use this method under certain circumstances, but its use in Sigmon’s case has drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates and legal scholars alike. The raw brutality of a firing squad, with its undeniable visual impact and instantaneous result, raises important questions about the limits of state power and the ethics of capital punishment.
Supporters of the firing squad argue that its predictability and speed make it a preferable alternative to methods that might prolong suffering. Sigmon’s choice, driven by a desire for a swift end, is often cited as evidence that some inmates view this method as more merciful than lethal injection. Critics, however, contend that the very nature of a firing squad is at odds with modern notions of human dignity and the need for a more civilized approach to punishment.
The ethical considerations are further complicated by the fact that executions are not carried out in isolation—they are part of a broader judicial system that is meant to uphold justice while also reflecting society’s moral values. For many, the spectacle of a firing squad is a reminder of an era when retribution was public and personal, a time when the boundaries between justice and brutality were dangerously blurred.
Public Reaction and Media Coverage
The execution of Brad Sigmon by firing squad was a media event that captured national attention. News outlets, commentators, and social media users quickly began to dissect every element of the procedure—from the choice of method to the details of the inmate’s appearance and the chilling final moments. The fact that this was the first use of a firing squad in South Carolina in 15 years only heightened public interest, sparking a vigorous debate over the merits and demerits of such a method.
Images and video footage of the execution, particularly the moment when the target on Sigmon’s chest disappeared under the barrage of rifle fire, have provoked strong emotional responses. Many viewers found the visual portrayal of the event to be shocking and deeply unsettling. For some, it served as a stark indictment of the death penalty itself; for others, it was seen as a necessary measure to ensure that justice was served swiftly and without unnecessary delay.
The media coverage has been extensive, with veteran reporters like Jeffrey Collins providing detailed, on‑the‑scene accounts that leave little to the imagination. His narrative, with its unvarnished description of the physical and emotional realities of the execution, forces viewers to confront the stark realities of a system that still employs capital punishment.
The Impact on Society and the Future of the Death Penalty
At its core, the execution of Brad Sigmon is not just about one man’s fate—it is a focal point for the broader debate about the death penalty in America. The choice to use a firing squad has reignited discussions among legal scholars, human rights advocates, and policymakers about what constitutes a humane execution. Sigmon’s decision to opt for this method, driven by his own fears of prolonged pain, highlights the deep complexities and personal dimensions inherent in capital punishment.
For those opposed to the death penalty on moral or ethical grounds, the firing squad represents the very embodiment of state‑sanctioned violence—an outdated and barbaric practice that has no place in modern society. For others, however, the method’s rapidity and the certainty of its outcome provide a counterargument to the perceived cruelty of lethal injections that sometimes go awry.
This polarizing issue continues to challenge our collective ideas of justice, retribution, and human dignity. As the legal battles and public debates continue, the case of Brad Sigmon serves as a powerful reminder of the enduring complexity of capital punishment—a system that, despite decades of evolution, still forces us to ask uncomfortable questions about the nature of justice and the value of human life.
Reflections from a Seasoned Witness
Jeffrey Collins’s account of Sigmon’s execution is a testament to the weighty responsibility carried by those who document these final moments. Having witnessed numerous executions over the course of his career, Collins’s words resonate with both professional detachment and personal introspection. His detailed observations—from the precise way Sigmon was restrained and prepared, to the rapid, violent moment when the rifles were fired—capture the brutal reality of the firing squad method.
In his reflective writings, Collins notes that the firing squad is “faster and more violent” than lethal injection—a comparison that is both a technical observation and a moral commentary. For him, the immediacy of the firing squad’s effect forces a confrontation with the raw mechanics of death—a reminder that, no matter how civilized our society may become, the power of the state to end a life remains a profound and unsettling reality.
Legal and Ethical Considerations Moving Forward
The implications of this execution extend far beyond South Carolina. Legal experts and human rights advocates are now closely examining the re‑introduction of the firing squad and its potential impact on the future of capital punishment in the United States. Some argue that the method’s visual brutality undermines any claims to a humane or ethical justice system. Others point out that for inmates like Sigmon, who fear the uncertainties of drug‑based executions, a firing squad might offer a quicker, more predictable end.
This debate is likely to shape future legal challenges and policy discussions regarding the death penalty. As states grapple with the complexities of administering capital punishment in a manner that meets evolving standards of human rights and dignity, cases like Sigmon’s will continue to serve as a point of reference and contention.
The Human Element in State‑Sanctioned Death
While legal debates and ethical arguments swirl around the issue, it is crucial to remember that executions are not abstract legal processes—they are deeply human events. Every execution, regardless of the method used, carries with it a heavy burden of sorrow, regret, and the irrevocable loss of life. For the families of victims, for the families of the condemned, and for the society that must grapple with the moral implications of taking a life, these events leave lasting marks that are not easily erased.
Brad Sigmon’s execution, conducted by a firing squad that had not been seen in over a decade, forces us to confront the uncomfortable truth that the machinery of the state, when it turns to the business of ending lives, is as raw and final as it is cold and methodical. The details of that day—the methodical setup, the precise yet violent discharge of the rifles, and the near‑immediate aftermath—serve as a powerful reminder of the permanent nature of state‑sanctioned death.
Conclusion: A Catalyst for Ongoing Debate
In the end, the execution of Brad Sigmon by a three‑man firing squad is much more than an isolated incident. It is a moment that encapsulates the multifaceted debates about the death penalty in America: debates about methods, about human dignity, about the role of the state in administering justice, and about the inescapable human cost of retribution.
Jeffrey Collins’s detailed account provides an unvarnished look at the day’s events—a day marked by solemnity, tension, and the brutal finality of the firing squad. His narrative invites us to consider not only the technical aspects of the execution but also the broader moral and ethical questions that it raises. How do we define a “humane” death in a system that is designed to exact irreversible punishment? Can any method of execution truly escape the stain of violence? And what does it mean for a society to place its faith in a system that must, by its very nature, be as final as it is fallible?
For many, these questions remain deeply unsettling. Yet, as we continue to debate and discuss the future of capital punishment, incidents like Brad Sigmon’s execution compel us to confront these issues head‑on. They remind us that the debates over justice and retribution are not merely academic—they have real, lasting impacts on the lives of those involved and on the conscience of our society.
As discussions about the death penalty evolve, it is my hope that we move toward a system that is more transparent, more humane, and ultimately, more reflective of the values we hold dear. The stark images of the firing squad and the unforgettable account of that fateful day in South Carolina will undoubtedly continue to fuel these debates for years to come. And while there may be no easy answers, the ongoing conversation about capital punishment is a vital part of our collective quest for justice, accountability, and humanity.
This reimagined account of Brad Sigmon’s execution—detailing his choice of the firing squad, the grim setup in the execution chamber, and the vivid, unflinching witness account by Jeffrey Collins—offers an in‑depth exploration of a rare and controversial moment in the modern practice of capital punishment. It invites us to reflect on the ethical and legal dilemmas that underlie state‑sanctioned death, and to question whether any method of execution can ever truly meet our standards of human dignity and compassion.
