A shooting outside an LGBTQ+ nightclub in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina has led to a rare and historic legal move, with prosecutors applying a local “hate intimidation” charge for the first time since the ordinance was created, according to WMBF News.
The shooting incident happened on April 1 outside Pulse Ultra Club, a venue known within the local LGBTQ+ community. Authorities say 37-year-old Timothy James Truett is accused of firing shots outside the building in what quickly escalated into a serious criminal investigation.
Although no one was physically injured, the aftermath was still significant. Gunfire damaged property belonging to the club’s owner, including a vehicle that had its rear window and windshield shattered. Parts of the building were also struck, adding to the shock experienced by those connected to the venue.
RELATED: Former LGBTQ+ Haven Quest Club Burns as Investigation Begins
Understanding the “hate intimidation” charge
What sets this case apart is not only the alleged shooting itself, but the legal classification now attached to it.
Truett has been charged under Myrtle Beach’s “hate intimidation” ordinance, a law introduced in 2024. This is the first known time it has been applied in an active case.
Gunfire outside a Myrtle Beach LGBTQ nightclub on the morning of April 1 led to the city’s first hate intimidation charge since a new ordinance was adopted in 2024. pic.twitter.com/BGQzF9yXiy
— WPDE ABC15 (@wpdeabc15) April 6, 2026
The charge is designed as a bias-related enhancement, meaning it can be added when prosecutors believe a crime may have been motivated by prejudice. It specifically covers incidents linked to protected characteristics such as sexual orientation and gender identity.
South Carolina is one of only a few states in the U.S. without a full statewide hate crime statute. Because of that, cities like Myrtle Beach have created their own local measures to address alleged bias-driven offenses when they occur within their jurisdictions.
If the charge is upheld in court, the penalties are relatively limited compared to the other allegations in the case. The maximum punishment for hate intimidation alone is a $500 fine and up to 30 days in jail. However, it is being filed alongside more serious accusations.
In the first-ever ‘hate intimidation charge’ in Myrtle Beach, Timothy Truett Junior was detained after police responded to a shots fired call near Pulse nightclub.https://t.co/fY47oOg2AV pic.twitter.com/Uxhwyp5fYD
— WPDE ABC15 (@wpdeabc15) April 4, 2026
RELATED: University Cuts Ties With Anti-LGBTQ Professor Following Rape Allegation
Additional criminal charges
Beyond the hate intimidation allegation, Truett is also facing several felony-level charges connected to the shooting. These include accusations involving:
- Possession of a weapon during a violent crime
- Firing a weapon into an occupied structure
- Property damage
He is currently being held in custody at the J. Reuben Long Detention Center, with bail set at $312,174.
Motive still under investigation
Authorities have not publicly stated what led to the shooting, and court documents do not provide a clear explanation for why the hate intimidation enhancement was applied in this specific case.
At this stage, investigators have not confirmed whether the incident was targeted or whether it was linked to bias against the LGBTQ+ community. That uncertainty has left room for concern, particularly among local residents and those connected to the nightclub.
Community impact and concerns
Even without injuries, the shooting has had a strong emotional impact on the community surrounding Pulse Ultra Club. The presence of gunfire at a known LGBTQ+ venue has heightened concerns about safety in spaces often considered sanctuaries.
Club owner Ken Phillips acknowledged that uncertainty remains around the motive for the shooting but said the incident has still left lasting concern about what happened and why.
A case being closely watched
As the case moves forward, legal observers are paying close attention to how Myrtle Beach’s hate intimidation ordinance is applied. Because this is the first time it has been used, the outcome may help shape how similar cases are handled in the future.
For now, the case stands at the intersection of criminal law and community protection, with unanswered questions still surrounding intent, motive, and how bias-related crimes are defined and prosecuted at the local level.