Jason Dickey...

[Owen]

Cut and Paste from my blog

In 2004, a security guard in Columbia, SC shot and killed a man that was in the process of attacking him with a deadly weapon. Last week he was convicted of manslaughter.

Jason Dickey is a Service Disabled Veteran of the first Gulf War. He aspired to a career a law enforcement, but his disability excluded that possibility.

The following emails were written by Robert Butler, who observed the trial in person. Mr. Butler is the V.P. & Legislative Director for GrassRoots South Carolina, a local gun rights organization.

First,

Friends,
today's report in The State newspaper on the Jason Dickey trial is filled with inaccuracies - all to discredit Jason.

TESTIMONY in the trial from the two residents that initially invited the man who was shot by Dickey into their apartment proved that the residents asked Jason to evict the drunk because the drunk was "out of control", "wild", and looking to "kick butt".
The paper reported that "water balloons" - note the plural - were thrown into the apartment, which caused the drunk to get angry.

Testimony was that there was only one water balloon thrown, and that it was a daily occurrence as part of a running joke with friends from the 6th floor.

The paper reported that the drunk was lost and knocking on doors on the same floor as the girls who had invited him to the apartment in search of the girls. Testimony was that the drunk left the girl's apartment seeking to beat up the guy on the sixth floor for throwing a water balloon. Testimony was that the drunk was knocking on the doors of residents on DIFFERENT floors than the one where the girls lived because the drunk was looking for a fight.

I have to leave for the trial now. I will report back when I can.

Just remember, The State newspaper lies.

Second

You would not believe what is going on at this trial. It is an example of persecution, not legitimate prosecution. The defendant has been out on bail for two years. But, once the trial started, the prosecutor objected to allowing the defendant to continue on bail.
The judge then declared that the defendant had to be kept in custody for the duration of the trial. This means that the defendant now has to stay in jail at night and lockup during lunch, be led into the courtroom in handcuffs, and is not allowed to shower, shave, or have clean underwear.

I have sat through every moment of the trial. You would think that the prosecution witnesses were actually the defense witnesses. Here is what the PROSECUTION witnesses have established by their testimony so far:

1) The deceased and his friend were highly intoxicated, and under age.

2) The deceased and his friend were invited into an apartment building by two girls they had just met for the first time at a Jimmy Buffet concert tailgating party.

3) The friend was involved with one of the two girls in a bedroom.

4) The deceased became angry over a running practical joke between male friends of the girls on the 6th floor of the apartment and the girls on the 4th floor and decided he was going to beat up the guys on the 6th floor.

5) When the deceased left the girl's apartment to beat up the guys on the 6th floor, the girl not still in the bedroom went to a male friend's apartment on the 5th floor to ask him to get rid of the deceased and his friend because she did not want them at the apartment any longer because they were out of control.

6) The male friend on the 5th floor told her to tell the apartment security officer to get rid of the deceased and his friend. The two of them went together to security.

7) The security officer, the girl who lived in the apartment, and the male friend went looking for the deceased to ask him to leave since he was somewhere in the building looking for people to beat up.

8) They found the deceased back in the girl's apartment on the 4th floor. Security asked the guy to leave.

9) The deceased became very belligerent, hostile, vulgar, and profane.
Security remained calm and did not respond in any way other than to stand there. The deceased then slammed the door in the face of security while staying in the girl's apartment.

10) Security called the police.

11) Security then knocked on the door again. When the door opened, security informed them that he had called the police and security once again asked the deceased to leave.

12) The deceased once again went into a vulgar, hostile, belligerent tirade directed at the security officer. The security officer remained calm and did not respond in any way other than to stand there.

13) The friend of the deceased had now finished business in the bedroom and became aware of the brewing trouble and told the deceased they needed to leave.

14) The deceased and the friend decided to leave the apartment.

15) The deceased put a vodka bottle in his pants before leaving.

16) The deceased and his friend took the elevator to the lobby17) Security took the stairs to the lobby

18) They all arrived in the lobby at about the same time.

19) They all exited the building through the front doors.

20) The deceased and his friend turned right and started walking away.


21) Security just stood on the matt in front of the apartment and under the awning of the apartment entrance and said nothing. [Think curtilage of the security guard's home since the security guard lives at the apartment building.]

22) The deceased and his friend noticed security and started screaming obscenities at the security guard.

23) The security guard just stood there and did not say anything back.

24) The deceased and his friend decided they were not content with simply calling the security guard vulgar obscene names, now they were going to beat up the security guard.

25) The deceased and his friend started back towards the security guard at a pace greater than a walk but less than a full run, and all the while screaming obscenities and the deceased declaring they were going to fight.

26) When the deceased and the friend got close to the security guard, the security guard pulled out a handgun.

27) The friend stopped his attack.

28) The deceased continued his attack.

29) The deceased made a motion with his hand that could have been an attempt to grab a bottle from under his shirt.

30) The security guard shot the deceased three times in rapid succession, which stopped the attack.

31) A vodka bottle was found at the scene.

32) The security guard is a poor disabled Gulf war veteran trying to go to school to better himself.

33) The security guard identified himself immediately upon arrival of the police and told the police that he shot the guy, he had a concealed weapon permit (he was required by law to so identify and inform the police officer of such), he had no choice other than to fire because he was being attacked and the guy had a bottle.

The above information is what has been established by the PROSECUTION witnesses so far.

The security guard is claiming self defense. The persecutor - and I use the term knowingly - is claiming 1st degree murder

I have been told that the family of the deceased is well connected politically, but I have no personal knowledge of that

Just thought you might be interested in hearing what was going on

So, can anyone here see how this case should have ever come to trial in the first place. What element of self defense has not been satisfied

Once the defense witnesses start testifying, things should get even better for the security guard.

Hopefully, you will now see why GrassRoots started a legal defense fund to help the security guard pay for proper legal representation.

The persecutor wants to put the security guard in prison for the rest of his natural life. I think the persecutor should be fired.

Next, some questions from other members of the list, with Rob's answers. (I haven't named the questioners. I have permission from Rob to use his posts. I don't have permission from the other folks. If I quoted you, and you want to be named, let me know.)

> Was there any attempt to describe the entrance?

It was described in great detail many times.

>I would think that if
> the door were "strong" the prosecution would try to make the case that
>Security should have remained behind the door for protection, no matter
>his legal right to be outside. I could see the prosecutor arguing that
>by following the belligerents outside Security was seeking a fight.

That is exactly what they did.


> I would expect the defense to counter with Security's right to be on
> the curtilage, need to verify the threat was gone, or need to greet
> and direct the police that he called.

That was exactly what they did.

>Or they could note the door was
> insufficient protection against any attack.

That was not the case, so it was not argued to be the case.

> There was a quote from the prosecutor that was basically, "yeah, he
had a
> CWP but he wasn't supposed to have it on him as a security guard."

The issue was whether the Employer, Cornell Arms, had ever told Jason Dickey that he was not allowed to be armed while on the job. The manager said she told Jason Dickey that the position was not to be an armed position because she had seen Jason in a Barton's Security uniform with a gun on his side. On cross examination, the manager was asked to show where in the three type written pages of terms of employment where it stated that no firearms were allowed. There was nothing in writing, but she stated that she had told Jason this verbally. Unfortunately, no one bothered to read the list of things covered in the terms of employment so that people would be able to see the importance of those things covered by the terms and then compare the importance of a no firearms provision to those terms that were covered.
The defense brought up a witness that had the same job as Jason at Cornell Arms and he stated he was never told he could not possess a firearm while on duty, and there was never anything put in writing either.

The defense brought in the manager of Barton Security who testified that all weapons used by Barton Security personal are owned by Barton Security and kept on site, the weapons are not allowed to go home with the employees. Thus, the Cornell Arms manager could never have seen Jason with the gun on his side as she testified that she had.

Jason Dickey stated that the Cornell Arms manager never told him that he was not allowed to be armed, and there was nothing in writing either.

Then, on the last day of trial, the prosecution called what turned out to be the last witness. This witness stated that Jason Dickey trained him on the job, and that both Jason Dickey and the manager told him he could not possess a firearm.

On cross examination, the witness stated he was told both verbally and in writing that he was not allowed to possess a firearm. He was then confronted with the three type written pages of terms of employment from Cornell Arms and asked to show where there was anything in writing stating that a person could not possess a firearm. There was nothing there. So, he then stated that he had signed a different form that stated he could not possess a firearm.
Swerling then tried to introduce an investigative report from SLED that quoted that last witness as saying he did not know Jason Dickey and had only seen him on occasion. Such information would have damaged the credibility of the witness because it would have shown that he told two incompatible stories. The SLED report was not allowed in. It appeared that the report was not allowed in because the defense failed to call the SLED agent who wrote the report as a witness to testify about the report. The jury never got to hear about the contents of the SLED report.

Swerling then asked that the Cornell Arms manager be recalled and told to bring the form allegedly signed by the last witness. Swerling stated that justice demanded that Jason have the opportunity to show that such a document never existed. It was clear to all that Swerling was calling the witness a liar. Unfortunately, the jury did not get to see this part. And then, the judge recessed with the attorneys.

When they came back, I did not hear exactly what was said. The guy next to me stated that the judge denied Swerling's request to recall the Cornell Arms manager. Regardless of the exact procedural nature, Swerling did not get his request to recall the manager granted. Thus, the testimony that there was a signed form prohibiting firearms possession went unchallenged.

Regardless, this issue should have been an employment issue or CWP permit, not part of the self defense issue.

What Rob is saying here is that regardless of whether or not it was company policy for Dickey to have a gun, that policy is not law, Mr. Dickey is not on trial over whether he broke the policy or not. Mr. Dike's trial is about the justifiable use of deadly force. He isn't being tried for possession, because he didn't break a law by being in possession. He is on trial for First Degree Murder. How he came to have the gun is irrelevant. The only relevant point is "Would a reasonable man be in fear of grievous bodily harm or death if being attacked by a large angry man wielding a bottle?"


> He followed the deceased outside of the building which means, "he was
> looking for the confrontation." When I first read the accounts of the
> shooting, it sounded like he went way out into the parking lot but
when I
> read your bullet points from the trial it was more like he was
> observing from the front door of the apartment building. Which is the case?
EVERY witness who was able to see where Jason was standing testified that Jason never left the welcome matt in front of the front door of Cornell Arms and which was under the overhang of the entrance.

More:

Jason Dickey was convicted of manslaughter today. Reports from multiple people who attended the trial will be forthcoming soon. None of us could fathom how Jason could be convicted of anything because there was nothing that Jason Dickey did wrong. The worst any of us thought could happen would be a hung jury requiring a new trial.
I will be checking into buying a transcript of the trial and publishing it on the GrassRoots web site for all to see. This decision is not supported by the evidence or common sense, and everyone needs to see it.

This just goes to show why you should never trust people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
Once you read the trial transcript, you will see that anyone who uses a firearm in self defense could be convicted and sent to prison.

It is quite obvious that we must change the laws of self defense from common law to statutory law, and make sure the law is written to protect the law abiding people and not the predators.

Listen Folks:

This is bad. A man defended himself, in a situation that was clearly justifiable under the criteria we have all been trained under. Please, if you live in SC, join GrassRoots. GrassRoots SC If you're not a joiner, donate!

We've just lost the right to self-defense with a gun in SC. Be afraid. Be Very Afraid!

 

[JohnBT]

25) The deceased and his friend started back towards the security guard at a pace greater than a walk but less than a full run, and all the while screaming obscenities and the deceased declaring they were going to fight.

26) When the deceased and the friend got close to the security guard, the security guard pulled out a handgun.

27) The friend stopped his attack.

28) The deceased continued his attack.

29) The deceased made a motion with his hand that could have been an attempt to grab a bottle from under his shirt.

30) The security guard shot the deceased three times in rapid succession, which stopped the attack.
___________________________________________________________

I hate to be the one to say this, but there isn't enough information to know how close the "deceased" got to the guard, or precisely what kind of "motion" the "deceased" made, or precisely anything - like why it took 3 shots and not 2 or 4 to stop the "deceased's" attack.

(I've never seen a deceased person attack anybody for that matter. Sorry, I couldn't help myself, but feel I deserve a little slack for reading the post all the way through.)

John

 

[Cromlech]

I am absolutely incensed that the poor, slightly tipsy, deceased victim was denied his human right to savagely attack that security guard, especially as he was killed in the process. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Owen]

All witnesses (there were several) agree that that the deceased and his friend were 10 to 15 feet away and moving at a fast walk towards Mr. Dickey, screaming "I'm going to beat your ass" and "Let's do it!".

Because there was more than one person there was a disparity of force. Mr. Dickey has a bum leg due to nerve damage, and is morbidly obese and can't easily flee, even though fleeing is not required in SC.

When the two men turned and began to close the distance, one of the witnesses started to flee, because she was sure something bad was going to happen.

So the attacker had the means, a vodka bottle. At 6'2", 210 pounds, 24 years of age, and accompanied by another man ( I dont know anything about him other than he testified) he was a threat, and was screaming his intent to do Jason grievous bodily harm at the top of his lungs.

Mr. Dickey probably made a mistake by stepping outside to see the buggers off, but at the critical moment it was too late. hindsight is 20/20. At the instant of the shooting any reasonable person would have been in fear for their life or great physical harm.

 

[Jeff White]

Did Dickey hire his own attorney or did he have a public defender? You get what you pay for is a very true axiom when you talk about attorneys and competence.....

Jeff

 

[Owen]

He had his own attorney, but some of the attorney's lapses are questionable. There was a report from the investigators that would have negated the testimony of one of the prosecutions strongest witnesses. (The witness claimed he had been trained by Dickey. The day after the shooting, the witness told the investigators he had no idea who Dickey was.) His attorney did not call a single expert witness.

A liquor bottle is most definately a deadly weapon. A full bottle weighs over 2 pounds and is hard. How many times would you have to get hit in the head to suffer a brin injury? Second, even without the bottle, Jason as totally physically outclassed by either one of these two guys. Just as if Mike Tyson were to attack you barehanded, you would be justified in shooting him, an older, out of shape, half crippled man would be justified in shooting a younger fit man that was attacking him. In this case, there were two younger fit men attcking him, which in South Carolina would also meet the disparity of force problem. This job was unarmed security. He didn't have bat belt, just a cellphone in one pocket, and a pistol ( a Kel-tec IIRC) in the other.

 

[Owen]

Oh, I forgot to mention. Jason lived in the building he was guarding.

 

[Owen]

It's not the witnesses that the judge didn't allow, it was evidence that showed the witnesses may have been lying, which his own lawyer failed to submit. When there is evidence that can cause a reasonable doubt, then that evidence should be admitted. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? Beyond a reasonable doubt, remember?

He was carrying on his CWP. It was not an armed position, but the building was not posted, nor was it aparent that carrying was against policy, so his possession should not have been an issue.

As security in an apartment building, he was essentially a doorman. I think few people would expect excellent physical conditioning from a doorman.

When I carry, I don't have three to four levels of weaponry on me. I don't even carry a spare magazine. Do you? For real?

He wasn't the attacker. He stepped outside to make sure the real criminals were leaving the multibuilding complex, and to greet the police, which he had already called. He was threatened with imminent death or grave bodily harm, he responded. Even if he had fled, what is the likely hood of a man in his late 30s or early forties outrunning a 24 year old? Do you really want to turn your back on someone that you believe to have a bludgeon?

He has a right to carry, why are you questioning it? I also think you are confusing fighting fair with fighting for your life.

This is also the first CWP shooting in SC. It's an important case.

 

[1911Tuner]

Just

Quote:

>Yeah, I hate to say it, but I think this prosecution and conviction are warranted.<
************

Have to respectfully disagree. Sorry.

Let's see...The man was both in a place that he not only had a right to be...was also his home and his place of employment. Part of his job description was providing security for the residents of the property, including expelling persons who are a threat to the peace and security of said property.

The decedent had not only breached the peace and threatened to do physical harm to several residents, but was actively seeking to carry out his threats...and he had at least one confederate who had proven that he was willing to aid and abet the decedent in his self-proclaimed mission, to wit:
"Kick somebody's ass."

Moreover, we know that at least one of the pair was large, young, and...going by his height/weight ratio...apparently in pretty good physical condition.

We have a partially disabled, overweight defendant, who was...as previously stated...in a place that he had not only a right to be...but was also charged with keeping the peace and providing a safe refuge for all who resided within the boundaries of the property.

That the defendant came suddenly under close, imminent attack by the pair, one of which appeared to be armed with a bludgeon which would potentially become an edged weapon upon deployment as a bludgeon...while he was doing nothing except watching to see that the miscreants were leaving the property as per his right and as his duty dictated.

Having every apparent reason to believe that at least one of the pair intended to carry out the attack, and not knowing if the other one would continue to stand down had the first one been successful and gotten him down...He fired.

Have I got it?

So...Exactly what would you have reasonably expected him to do in such a tight situation? A situation that could easily result in his death or spending the rest of his life as a paraplegic or quadriplegic, with no funds available for any sort of physical therapy. To be beaten down like an animal...helpless and likely without anyone to put a stop to it in time to be of any real value...
What Would you have had him do? Wait until he was beaten nearly to the point of unconsciousness before responding? Wait until the guy cracked his skull with the bottle? Broken bones? Lost eyesight?

Yeah...Maybe he should have had pepper spray or a baton...and maybe neither would have done any good. Ever been hit in the head with a liquor bottle? Ever sprayed a big drunk and heard him laugh as he nearly ripped your arm out of its socket? Hit a drunk with a baton and the response was
pure rage? Yeah...Maybe he should have had all those things. But he didn't.
All he had was a job in exchange for a place to live...legs that wouldn't work well enough to get him out of harm's way...and a pistol....in a "Stand your Ground" state.

Wish I'd been on the jury. I'd have hung it till hell froze over before I'd have voted to convict.

Just my 2% of a buck...

 

[Owen]

Thanks Tuner, I was starting to feel a little lonely in this discussion...

 

[ceetee]

IIRC, they came and got him from his own apartment, correct? If so, he wasn't actually on duty, nor was he acting as an unarmed security guard. He was a resident, that was helping out fellow residents with a problem. They had called the police. He went out to greet the police, and explain the situation.

The suspects returned, intent to commit a forcible felony. He used deadly force to prevent the commission of this forcible felony. Unless tons and tons of daming evidence was presented against this man, I also would've voted "not guilty" until the cows came home...

 

[ksnecktieman]

Thanx tuner,,, we disagree on a lot of things,,, I think we are on the same page here.
This MAN, he is only a MAN, has a ccw permit, he also has a job that as we are told does not require or restrict ccw. He does his best to do his job, as he sees it, and he is attacked... AT THAT moment, he goes from an unarmed security guard to a MAN in fear of his life. ( I challenge each and every one of you now,,,, would you expect what he reached for to be a bottle,,, or a weapon?),,, yes, a bottle is a weapon, but because he has a pint under his shirt does not mean he does not have a pistol there too:O

Tactical errors? Maybe, he could have held the door open behind him. Maybe he could have gone to bed when the bad guy said "Sorry Sir, We are leaving."

I see this man doing a fair job that he was hired for. The perpetrator left the building. The bad guy chose to return, and challenge security,,,, At that point I think he failed his Darwin test. And the result was justified.

 

[ksnecktieman]

I agree with tuner,,,, and it hurts,,, this man did his best as an unarmed security man,,, note the word MAN,,, When the bad guys returned with physical violence as their intent,,,, I am sorry,,, the guard was no longer required to be a guard, but he was still a MAN. His life was challenged, and the challenger got the "Darwin Award" ... I see that as good, he got what he earned

 

[Stretchman]

Don't know aboiut the laws of the state he was in, but in Florida, where I held a license for 5 years, you are not allowed to carry any type of concealed weapon or firearm on your person while on duty on an unarmed post. According to the law, if a post is armed, then the post orders must specify it.

The reason that he was probably convicted was more than likely on that point alone. Unarmed guards are unarmed for that express reason. There is also a difference between a proprietary officer, who is working directly for a company on provate property, and a licensed officer who works for an agency. While working for an agency, you must have a license and an NCIC check, etc, that goes with it, for the most part. In FLorida, if you are going to carry a weapon whi9le on duty in any situation, you must have appropriate licensing to carry a weapon openly while on duty, and in uniform, as a security officer. In order to carry concealed, you must have a different type of license, and have performed an internship with an agency that secializes in investigation.

In laymans terms, that means that while in uniform, open carry only, and only under the appropriate license.

So if the guy was wearing a security officer's uniform, and displaying a badge, then he should not have been carrying concealed, using a civilian permit. The rules are different for civilians than they are for licensed officers, who have a much greater responsibility, and a duty to demonstrate higher standdards and proficiency with a firearm, above the requirements for concealed carry.

Course, the laws in whatever state that was may be different. But normally, they are at least similar.

Stretch

 

[ksnecktieman]

Sorry stretch,,, I think you bombed,,, he did not produce his weapon in the performance of his duties. He did a great job of performing his duties unarmed as a security guard. The bad guys were leaving.... the bad guys decided to return and confront authority.... AT THAT POINT, THIS IS A NEW CONFLICT,,, they challenged a man at the door, (they knew him as the security guard, and expected him to be unarmed.)... and expected him to yield.... I do think there was a major mistake here,,,,, two attackers,,,, and there was only ONE bad guy killed?

The big mistake was that he missed one.....

















0

 

[ksnecktieman]

He was not a licensed oifficer, he was a disAbled vet trying to supplement his income. He did not shoot this idiot trying to chase him off. He did a fine job of defusing a potentially violent situation. ONE idiot, that really and truly thinks he is bullet proof returns to challenge this ,,,, get his desert cammies on him, and send him.....

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Rubs Eyes

That's a lot of detail to wade through.

If I have understood all of what I read, this is a good shoot.

Overturn on appeal.

 

[Stretchman]

Was he in a uniform, with a badge? In Florida, if you are uniformed, then you cannot carry concealed. Open carry requires a license, regardless of whether you are proprietary or work for an agency.

I am not saying he wasn't justified. What I am saying is that he is more than likely going down because the regulations weren't followed. I have seen that happen on more than one occasion. You don't follow the rules, someone ends up hurt or dead, and the show is over.

An interesting sidenote. I followed officer involved shootings in 2003, making sure that I checked officers licensing status every time a shoot made the news, be it guard shoots perp, or visa versa. Know what? Most of the time, it comes down to either no license at all, or a serious lack of adequate training on the part of the officer and his trainers. Life or death out there. You choose.

My trainers were retired federal armorers. I took advanced training from a graduate of the FBI natl academy. I took every available opportunity to train, bought books, videos, etc, and kept a proper mindset. Some of the guys I worked with couldn't qualify with their primary weapon after carrying it for 10 years. In private conversation, they told me stories of how someone would pencil whip their training for them, then the gun went into the holster. I had a supervisor one night bring me his revolver. The cylinder had rusted so badly that it wouldn't turn. Freed it up with some WD-40, and gave him some fresh ammo. This guy was my backup out there. Horror stories abound in private security.

I worked a post wher an incident similar to this occured. Perp was a known felon, shoplifter, drug addict, burglar. Coldest night of the year, he broke into a van in the parking lot and was hotwiring it. Probably didn't care if he went to jail, because he was freezing to death. 2 Officers responded, one carrying a .22 rifle, other a .357 magnum loaded with .357 magnum rds. Only .38s authorized. Long story short, there was a struggle perp was killed, shooter convicted, company abandoned him when it was discovered that unauthorized ammo was being used.

Again, I am not saying that the guy was wrong. He definitely fired in self defense. He defended himself, maybe others as well. But the thing is, he didn't do it right. That's what got him screwed. Do yourself a favor. Don't make that same mistake. FOLLOW THE RULES, GET THE TRAINING.

Sorry, was that too loud? Be safe out there.

Stretch

 

[ksnecktieman]

An officer with a .22 rifle?

 

[1911Tuner]

Shoot

He was on home turf. He had been called out by the residents because he was known to them as their security provider. The sheep had summoned the sheepdog because that's what they've been programmed to do, and that was his job.

Let's try it from another perspective...

You're at home, and hear a growing disturbance close to your property. You go out to investigate, and see that it's a loud altercation between two young, able-bodied men and your neighbor. One of them happens to notice that you're watching, and starts hurling insults and threats at you. You ignore it and stand there. The pair break off with your neighbor and cross the line onto your property...one carrying a large, unidentifiable object that you assume is a weapon.

They're approaching fast, and you're not exactly the man you once were.
You level your pistol and warn them to cease and desist..advise them that if they don't leave your property. They continue to advance, rapidly closing the distance. You retreat, and stop at your door to check on their progress.
They're much closer now...within the lethal 21-foot limit...as close as you can determine without actually breaking out the tape measure.

You again level your pistol, and one falters a little...appearing to comply. The other ignores your armed response and continues to advance, weapon at the ready.

Sounds like it's time to stop the threat. If he/they beat you down, get past you, and into the house...your family is at their mercy. Can you afford to gamble that two obviously agitated and combative men...who are also likely under the influence of something...will be merciful to the women and children inside? Or would it be fairly reasonable to assume that they'll behave like Attila's Hordes, and go into a frenzy after overrunning the hapless village defenders?

The guy was guarding the sheep...on his home turf. He wasn't cruising around with a gun hoping that someone would attack him so he could shoot. That he wasn't actually "On the Clock" shouldn't even enter into the argument. He was also partly disabled, and not up to the task of meeting the challenge with his bare hands, nor was he swift and agile enough to run...which isn't what a good sheepdog does anyway...and he defended himself and the poor sheep who bleated for him to come and save them. That was what he was hired to do. He did his duty. Good shoot, say I.

 

[jethro75]

"And as to the vodka bottle... The use of it as a weapon is suspect too. I read witness testimony the same as you. It said "a furtive movement that MAY have been a bottle..." Like I said, less force was called for in this instance than a bullet. "

This is why you should never go anywhere or be alone. You should always have someone with you, so when a situation like this happens you can place the person between you and the threat and so you can be shore the person moving at you in a huridly manner while apparently reaching for something just scatching their ba**s or pulling out lets say the bottle as in this case. When they smash the person that you placed in front of you in the head with the bottle you now know what their intensions were and have justification because of the jagged battle neck in their hand.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

was

he in uniform? and what motivated him to "stand guard" outside the door as opposed to inside? the reason i ask is early on an old man always told me to "leave em a crack to crawl into" he bekieved in not pushing things too far if possible. you might need to beat someone but leaving them a way to leave with some pride and dignity allows things to end . he also said that in a case where you can't leave em any pride or dignity you probably should kill em cause they would be dangerous.
its a fine line and can easily be obscured with ego and emotion from either side

 

[romma]

hmmm? I think the dead guy should have kept walking once he left... Is he not accountable for his actions? Turning around after leaving and coming back to apparently attack makes him accountable in my book...

 

[insidious_calm]

Justifiable..

shooting IMO. All of this speculation and evidence is wonderful, but clearly this could NEVER have been first degree murder based solely on the facts of the case. The defendant never had time to "calmly reflect on what he was about to do". It should not have been charged as such. The prosecutor should be sanctioned for his political motivations.

IANAL, and I cannot speak for SC law, but here in Kansas a standard jury instruction in all self defense cases is that the jury must "place themselves in the mind of the defender at the moment deadly force was used". Did the DEFENDER believe that he was in iminent danger of death or serious bodily injury at the moment lethal force was used. If the answer to that question is yes the only remaining question is was that belief reasonable under the circumstances? Yes both times IMO.

What were the jury instructions? You stated no duty to retreat. Is there a specific "stand your ground law" like here in Kansas that would have required a jury instruction that a lack of retreat could not be used against the defendant? Did they have any specific instructions at all as it relates to self defense? Improper jury instructions should be grounds for a new trial.


I.C.

 

[1911Tuner]

Responsible

romma wrote:

>Turning around after leaving and coming back to apparently attack makes him accountable in my book...<
***************

I have to agree. He's at least co-responsible for his own death...put into motion by his actions before the shooter even became involved.

A little personal experience may put it into perspective:

I have a 90-pound female Black Lab who is goofy over meeting new people about 99% of the time. The other 1% of the people who approach her are met with a mouthful of pointy teeth and the unmistakable warning that she does not like them. I had one such guy have that effect on her several years ago when he came to install vinyl siding with a work crew. She loved everybody except him, and if she could have gotten to him, I really don't think that I could have pulled her off in time. She makes instant judgments like that, and...once her mind is set...there's really no way to change it. Not ever.

I advised him that the dog didn't like him, and that she never would. I advised him to keep his distance. An hour later, I hear my dog going into attack mode, and when I glanced out the window to see what was up...there he was...with his hand up to the fence, and the dog almost ripping her teeth out on the chain links in her attempt to get to him.

I went out and reminded him that she would take that hand off in quick time...and that she probably could get over the 6-foot fence if she really felt the need.

His response was that he'd never met a dog that he couldn't win over. I told him that he just had. He walked away. I walked back into the house.

That afternoon, there he was...same ol' same. This time one tooth found its mark, and he needed a few stitches to close the wound on the back of his hand. We went to court. When the right honorable judge heard him admit out of his own mouth that I had warned him twice to stay away from the dog, he dismissed the case with the admonition that...in the future...when a man tells you that his dog will bite...it might be wise to heed that warning.