Henry the Eighth
Member
Another persecutor looking to pad his resume. Good shoot, this guy should not have been convicted.
Jason Dickey...
- Thread starter Owen
- Start date
- Status
Thefabulousfink
Member
IANAL, But it sounds like Mr. Dickey has a strong case for an appeal......
with a different lawyer of course. Because evidence was thrown out on procedural grounds, he shouldn't have too much trouble getting a judge to revisit the case with the evidence included.
with a different lawyer of course. Because evidence was thrown out on procedural grounds, he shouldn't have too much trouble getting a judge to revisit the case with the evidence included.
carebear
Member
The prosecutor probably wasn't even going for 1st Degree, I'd bet a day's pay he deliberately over-charged in order to draw a compromise LIO verdict from the jury.
Human behavior is pretty predictable, most folks seek "fairness" and a middle-ground. They assume because he was indicted he did something wrong, the denial of exculpatory evidence contributed to that tendency so they picked the middle homicide charge between a walk and 1st Degree.
Prosecutors play that card far too often. If you've got the evidence for a particular offense, charge it, not the whole book.
Human behavior is pretty predictable, most folks seek "fairness" and a middle-ground. They assume because he was indicted he did something wrong, the denial of exculpatory evidence contributed to that tendency so they picked the middle homicide charge between a walk and 1st Degree.
Prosecutors play that card far too often. If you've got the evidence for a particular offense, charge it, not the whole book.
javacodeman
Member
theblackbra
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4
Dickey was wrong
Longtime lurker...first time poster...
I lived in that building for about two years. Dickey was the security guard for most of that time, if not all. On various occasions, Dickey would go out of his way to confront any resident he deemed "trouble". He repeatedly went above and beyond the call of duty to be a complete you-know-what. At best, he was not a stable person from all I gathered.
Calling him a security guard is giving him far too much credit. He was a doorman. He was not disabled moreso than any random out-of-shape person. This should be obvious by the fact that he TOOK THE STAIRS down to meet the two terrible evildoers and, by God, MET THEM AT THE SAME TIME. You're telling me a disabled person is that fast down the stairs, but lacks the groundspeed to run and go 3 feet back into a building that is locked to those without a key (building locked at 5 or 6 every night).
Medula seems like he was onto something. Fatally shooting someone is the last option, not to mention shooting that someone repeatedly in "kill zones". I guess, even though he had a permit to carry this weapon, he wasn't a good enough shot to merely wound this vodka-bottle wielding mastermind of kung fu. But that's beside the point. He never should have been out there. All this was his own doing for being, for lack of a better word, unstable. The cops know where to come. They'll be patient as you unlock the main doors and let them in to hear your story. No need to throw more kindling into an already burning fire. That is irresponsible, and he learned a tough lesson. We don't behave as he did in the real world. This isn't some spaghetti western, and Dickey was no Clint Eastwood protecting the noble townsfolk.
On that horrible night in several lives, I was pondering going out for a pack of smokes. Something told me not to, so I paced about the apartment, debating if I should do some schoolwork, watch TV, etc. That's when I heard the gunshots, looked down onto the street, saw a scattering of at least a few people (at most a half dozen). Assuming someone had just been robbed and shot, I went downstairs to make sure everything was fine and to satisfy my curiousity as to what went on. When I arrived downstairs (I took the elevator, opting not to hoof it on the stairs...I suppose I'm disabled now), the chaos met my face as I turned a corner. I failed to see anything except the bloody aftermath. I joined a fellow resident outside and beared witness to the police work, the evidence collection, and, finally, watched as the building's janitor hosed off the "terrible drunk's" life-giving fluids with a healthy combo of bleach and water. As the blood ran down the street into a gutter, the Jimmy Buffet concern let out. A parade of tacky-shirted middle-agers strolled through the still-wet and partially bloody sidewalk, not aware of anything that had just transpired.
The last part is merely to set the mood post-Dickey shooting. You see, this wasn't a home intrusion or a mugging. There was no sleeping wife or young child to protect from this raging "criminal" (there weren't two attacking him, after all since one stopped after Dickey plucked his gun from his person). The door was a few feet away, and the glass was thick enough to provide cover in case the deceased continued to be rowdy.
It all just doesn't add up, ya know? There were plenty of moments to evade this outcome. A true self defense case has no exits. It's either kill or be killed. This was kill or, wound (since it was clear that the deceased only possesed a glass bottle as a weapon, and, most likely, the deceased would have retreated if a shot was fired in his direction), or return inside, or not go out in the first place.
My name was submitted to the police at the scene, but, after I made a statement or two, I wasn't needed anymore.
Longtime lurker...first time poster...
I lived in that building for about two years. Dickey was the security guard for most of that time, if not all. On various occasions, Dickey would go out of his way to confront any resident he deemed "trouble". He repeatedly went above and beyond the call of duty to be a complete you-know-what. At best, he was not a stable person from all I gathered.
Calling him a security guard is giving him far too much credit. He was a doorman. He was not disabled moreso than any random out-of-shape person. This should be obvious by the fact that he TOOK THE STAIRS down to meet the two terrible evildoers and, by God, MET THEM AT THE SAME TIME. You're telling me a disabled person is that fast down the stairs, but lacks the groundspeed to run and go 3 feet back into a building that is locked to those without a key (building locked at 5 or 6 every night).
Medula seems like he was onto something. Fatally shooting someone is the last option, not to mention shooting that someone repeatedly in "kill zones". I guess, even though he had a permit to carry this weapon, he wasn't a good enough shot to merely wound this vodka-bottle wielding mastermind of kung fu. But that's beside the point. He never should have been out there. All this was his own doing for being, for lack of a better word, unstable. The cops know where to come. They'll be patient as you unlock the main doors and let them in to hear your story. No need to throw more kindling into an already burning fire. That is irresponsible, and he learned a tough lesson. We don't behave as he did in the real world. This isn't some spaghetti western, and Dickey was no Clint Eastwood protecting the noble townsfolk.
On that horrible night in several lives, I was pondering going out for a pack of smokes. Something told me not to, so I paced about the apartment, debating if I should do some schoolwork, watch TV, etc. That's when I heard the gunshots, looked down onto the street, saw a scattering of at least a few people (at most a half dozen). Assuming someone had just been robbed and shot, I went downstairs to make sure everything was fine and to satisfy my curiousity as to what went on. When I arrived downstairs (I took the elevator, opting not to hoof it on the stairs...I suppose I'm disabled now), the chaos met my face as I turned a corner. I failed to see anything except the bloody aftermath. I joined a fellow resident outside and beared witness to the police work, the evidence collection, and, finally, watched as the building's janitor hosed off the "terrible drunk's" life-giving fluids with a healthy combo of bleach and water. As the blood ran down the street into a gutter, the Jimmy Buffet concern let out. A parade of tacky-shirted middle-agers strolled through the still-wet and partially bloody sidewalk, not aware of anything that had just transpired.
The last part is merely to set the mood post-Dickey shooting. You see, this wasn't a home intrusion or a mugging. There was no sleeping wife or young child to protect from this raging "criminal" (there weren't two attacking him, after all since one stopped after Dickey plucked his gun from his person). The door was a few feet away, and the glass was thick enough to provide cover in case the deceased continued to be rowdy.
It all just doesn't add up, ya know? There were plenty of moments to evade this outcome. A true self defense case has no exits. It's either kill or be killed. This was kill or, wound (since it was clear that the deceased only possesed a glass bottle as a weapon, and, most likely, the deceased would have retreated if a shot was fired in his direction), or return inside, or not go out in the first place.
My name was submitted to the police at the scene, but, after I made a statement or two, I wasn't needed anymore.
Flyboy
Member
Without detracting from your other points (as I don't know the accused, or you, for that matter), you are entirely wrong on this point.
When the decision is made to shoot, it is because the shooter feels as though he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Under those circumstances, he is shooting to stop the action, to end the situation. The most effective places to shoot somebody to achieve a rapid stop usually result in his death. If shooting is justified, then the shooter is justified--legally and morally--in shooting in ways that would effect death. "Shooting to wound" is not only unnecessary, it can also be seen as a tacit admission that the shooter didn't think lethal force was justified; if lethal not justified, then shooting is not justified, period.
Further, from a tactical standpoint, the center of mass is the easiest target to hit. Under the best of circumstances (clean, well-lighted range, with no distractions), a man-sized target isn't terribly challenging. In a lethal force situation, the shooter is A) scared for his life, B) trying to work as rapidly as he can, C) almost certainly dealing with a moving target, D) dealing with an aggressive, attacking target, and did I mention E) terrified for fear of losing his life. That is not the time to be attempting "trick shots" of putting a round in an arm, or a leg, or any other difficult-to-hit target; it's the same reason that head shots (which are, as a rule, instant stoppers) are generally a poor choice. It's a difficult target to hit--particularly under extreme stress--it won't stop the threat, and, if the shooter misses (as is likely), it's a danger to others (actually, even if he hits, an arm or leg won't likely stop a bullet, so it's still a danger to others).
I'm not commenting on the defendant, and I'm not saying you're wrong about his character, but I am saying that your complaint that he didn't shoot to wound is incorrect, and inconsistent with both law and tactics.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
Theblackbra,
Are you suggesting that he should have turned his back on someone about to beat him with a bottle, so he could fumble with a key? Are you implying that a glass bottle is incapable of causing serious injury or death? Are you suggesting that being beaten by to drunk 20-somethings, armed or not, is not risking serious injury or death?
Do you know what distance police are allowed to shoot someone armed with a melee weapon at?
Granted, he made a mistake by stepping outside, but without your incredible 20/20 hindsight, that mistake was not obvious until he was charged
Are you suggesting that he should have turned his back on someone about to beat him with a bottle, so he could fumble with a key? Are you implying that a glass bottle is incapable of causing serious injury or death? Are you suggesting that being beaten by to drunk 20-somethings, armed or not, is not risking serious injury or death?
Do you know what distance police are allowed to shoot someone armed with a melee weapon at?
Granted, he made a mistake by stepping outside, but without your incredible 20/20 hindsight, that mistake was not obvious until he was charged
theblackbra
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4
flyboy,
you have to take the shooter into account for his thoughts/actions. his character comes into play. i've been stating that the shooter wasn't in "immediate danger". there were plenty of other options. he's not waking up in the middle of the night, entering his living room to find someone pointing a gun at him with nowhere to turn and nothing to do but kill or be killed. and since when is "shooting to wound" worse than "shooting to kill"? even if you're in the great danger of being 15 feet away from a drunk with a vodka bottle, there's no justifiable reason to kill. so, yeah, i suppose you're right. he wasn't in a lethal amount of danger so, yes, shooting to wound would have been much more appropriate. Rather, better yet, not shooting at all, eh?
the rest of your point is rather moot. he wasn't in a lethal force situation, so there's no reason to go for lethal shots. so i guess he wouldn't have been justified with less than lethal shots just as much as he isn't with his lethal moves. but i'd rather deal with giving someone a flesh wound under the same circumstances and dealing with that in court rather than to unjustifiably murder someone and take the hit that comes with that. different strokes for different folks i suppose.
and owen,
yes. i am suggesting that. he had plenty of time to run. the guys were a good bit away from dickey as they started to return. he instead wanted to be a cowboy and pulled out his gun AS A FIRST RESORT. he never attempted to do anything else. if he turned and AVOIDED CERTAIN CONFLICT, there would have never been any beating of his face in with a vodka bottle. so your point is moot. if there's an up-close and personal attack occurring without warning or pretense, there's more of a case for a self defense killing. wasn't the case here, obviously. i think you're missing the point. self defense only works when you DON'T actively put yourself into harms way. he made the choice to continue. he escalated the situation by following these clearly upset and angry/drunk men outside, and, instead of turning WHEN HE HAD PLENTY OF TIME (as he was not as crippled in the legs as some of you have come to believe...trust me, I've seen the guy walk, and he can descend the stairs quickly obviously), he pulled out his gun. there's nothing self-defensive about that.
also, police get into a ton of hot water when they fatally shoot anyone armed with anything less than a firearm. i've heard countless stories of law enforcement officers choosing to use less than lethal force (taser, pepper sprays, etc.) to take down folks that have "melee weapons" like knives, baseball bats, etc., all being at a safe distance. if dickey had no such options available, it doesn't excuse him to just blow away someone, once again, WHEN HE HAD PLENTY OF TIME to avoid the situation altogether.
hindsight isn't needed in this situation. we all know the laws more or less. you can't go around shooting people (even though i'm more than in favor of the 2nd ammendment, killing in self defense, etc.). there was a line and he crossed it. tough for him, but he's going to deal with his actions. there's no need defending something that is clearly an error in judgement on his part. he took a life when he didn't need to. he's going to pay for it. simple as that.
you have to take the shooter into account for his thoughts/actions. his character comes into play. i've been stating that the shooter wasn't in "immediate danger". there were plenty of other options. he's not waking up in the middle of the night, entering his living room to find someone pointing a gun at him with nowhere to turn and nothing to do but kill or be killed. and since when is "shooting to wound" worse than "shooting to kill"? even if you're in the great danger of being 15 feet away from a drunk with a vodka bottle, there's no justifiable reason to kill. so, yeah, i suppose you're right. he wasn't in a lethal amount of danger so, yes, shooting to wound would have been much more appropriate. Rather, better yet, not shooting at all, eh?
the rest of your point is rather moot. he wasn't in a lethal force situation, so there's no reason to go for lethal shots. so i guess he wouldn't have been justified with less than lethal shots just as much as he isn't with his lethal moves. but i'd rather deal with giving someone a flesh wound under the same circumstances and dealing with that in court rather than to unjustifiably murder someone and take the hit that comes with that. different strokes for different folks i suppose.
and owen,
yes. i am suggesting that. he had plenty of time to run. the guys were a good bit away from dickey as they started to return. he instead wanted to be a cowboy and pulled out his gun AS A FIRST RESORT. he never attempted to do anything else. if he turned and AVOIDED CERTAIN CONFLICT, there would have never been any beating of his face in with a vodka bottle. so your point is moot. if there's an up-close and personal attack occurring without warning or pretense, there's more of a case for a self defense killing. wasn't the case here, obviously. i think you're missing the point. self defense only works when you DON'T actively put yourself into harms way. he made the choice to continue. he escalated the situation by following these clearly upset and angry/drunk men outside, and, instead of turning WHEN HE HAD PLENTY OF TIME (as he was not as crippled in the legs as some of you have come to believe...trust me, I've seen the guy walk, and he can descend the stairs quickly obviously), he pulled out his gun. there's nothing self-defensive about that.
also, police get into a ton of hot water when they fatally shoot anyone armed with anything less than a firearm. i've heard countless stories of law enforcement officers choosing to use less than lethal force (taser, pepper sprays, etc.) to take down folks that have "melee weapons" like knives, baseball bats, etc., all being at a safe distance. if dickey had no such options available, it doesn't excuse him to just blow away someone, once again, WHEN HE HAD PLENTY OF TIME to avoid the situation altogether.
hindsight isn't needed in this situation. we all know the laws more or less. you can't go around shooting people (even though i'm more than in favor of the 2nd ammendment, killing in self defense, etc.). there was a line and he crossed it. tough for him, but he's going to deal with his actions. there's no need defending something that is clearly an error in judgement on his part. he took a life when he didn't need to. he's going to pay for it. simple as that.
theblackbra
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4
perhaps i should have complained about dickey to the apartment staff/management in an attempt to get him replaced...or warned... or something before all this happened.
instead of shooting all the residents of the building with the "stink eye", he blew this guy away with a real gun. such a hero.
no wonder you pro-gun guys make so many enemies. and, also no wonder these enemies are usually very bright, thoughtful, etc.
don't mistake me as an enemy though. i'm all for responsible people being able to be armed as i believe it would "level the playing field" and prevent more deaths than it would cause (as most people that would bother to carry would be skilled in accurate shooting, etc.) i simply know who this guy was, rather, how he interacted with strangers and those he feared/felt the need to intimidate.
instead of shooting all the residents of the building with the "stink eye", he blew this guy away with a real gun. such a hero.
no wonder you pro-gun guys make so many enemies. and, also no wonder these enemies are usually very bright, thoughtful, etc.
don't mistake me as an enemy though. i'm all for responsible people being able to be armed as i believe it would "level the playing field" and prevent more deaths than it would cause (as most people that would bother to carry would be skilled in accurate shooting, etc.) i simply know who this guy was, rather, how he interacted with strangers and those he feared/felt the need to intimidate.
scbair
Member
theblackbra said:
"no wonder you pro-gun guys make so many enemies. and, also no wonder these enemies are usually very bright, thoughtful, etc."
Odd, I am unaware of any meeting this description
"no wonder you pro-gun guys make so many enemies. and, also no wonder these enemies are usually very bright, thoughtful, etc."
Odd, I am unaware of any meeting this description
Regardless of whether the shooter was in immediate danger of grievous bodily harm:
I could easily kill another human being with a bottle. I don't really see how that doesn't = deadly weapon. I've seen a beer bottle to the head. It ain't like the movies. Sometimes the bottle doesn't break, your skull does.
If I'm the bad guy, and I assault somebody with my fists, and that person has a gun, but attempts to use less than lethal force against me, I will probably kill them.
The use of force pyramid should be reserved for law enforcement. They have more training, armor, backup, gear, and support.
Where does a security guard fit into this? Depends on the rules of that state, and I don't know them.
I wasn't in court. I didn't see the transcript. And I don't know the details. But at face value, it sounds like a bad verdict and an incompetent attorney.
I could easily kill another human being with a bottle. I don't really see how that doesn't = deadly weapon. I've seen a beer bottle to the head. It ain't like the movies. Sometimes the bottle doesn't break, your skull does.
And thank goodness most states don't, because those rules are totally asinine for civilians. I teach CCW, some of my students are 80 year old arthritic women, so should they be required to go "hands on"?
If I'm the bad guy, and I assault somebody with my fists, and that person has a gun, but attempts to use less than lethal force against me, I will probably kill them.
The use of force pyramid should be reserved for law enforcement. They have more training, armor, backup, gear, and support.
And that illustrates why often law enforcement is the absolute worst instructors for civilian self defense. It is a totally different set of rules and tactics.
Where does a security guard fit into this? Depends on the rules of that state, and I don't know them.
I wasn't in court. I didn't see the transcript. And I don't know the details. But at face value, it sounds like a bad verdict and an incompetent attorney.
Come down off the cross Jesus we need the wood. People are speculating from the information given. If you have inside information then fine. Sounds to me like some overzealous wannabe got into a confrontation. The judge/jury said he was in the wrong, but from what we were presented it sounds like he protected himself. You can go sit in your ivory tower with your high minded philosophs...I'll stay grounded in reality.
Hey, theblackbra, welcome to THR...
Be mighty careful what you wish for. You may be held to that standard when it happens to you.
Let me break this down for you. I teach this stuff for a living.
Once you carry a gun, I'm assuming you don't, and if you do then your instructor failed to convey this to you, you probably don't have 20 pound bat belt of accessories and tools. Also cops get a lot more training on the use of those tools.
CCW holders don't go through POST.
Plus when they're by themselves dealing with a non-compliant suspect they will use OC or tasers, but when it is a bona fide violent actor then you will notice the less than lethal stuff usually gets used only when there is a 2nd officer there with a lethal weapon in case plan A don't work.
CCW holders don't usually have backup. At all.
I do role playing in my classes. I'm 6'5", weigh 310 pounds. I have one scenario where I play a bad guy in the process of kidnapping a screaming woman in a parking lot. The student enters the room, approximately twenty five feet from where I'm pulling the struggling woman. As soon as the student gets involved, I charge, pull a rubber knife out of my coat, and attack.
Usually I gut them like a fish before they even get the gun close to ready. I've got bruises all over my torso from the number of students who slammed the muzzle of the dummy gun into me as they rock it out of the holster. This is usually while my rubber knife traverses them from belly button to armpit.
Often, you don't have time.
Usually that scenario shuts up everyone who wants to carry chamber empty, shoot the bad guy in the leg, have their first round as snake shot, or other stupid crap like that.
It is possible that his actions led to the shooting. It is possible that he could have just went back inside. Armed people need to use their brains to avoid confrontation whenever possible.
Could he have avoided this? Possibly. I wasn't there. I wasn't at the trial.
However, once he picked a course of action, even if it was the wrong course of action, you're committed. Once he was outside, and the bad guy approached him, verbally admitted that he was about to commit assault, and made a furtive movement, then at that point it doesn't matter if you put yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time, 'cause you're there now.
Now this guy may be a jerk, he may be a strange ranger. I don't know. Never met him.
But two belligerent, drunken young men, verbally commit to "kicking your ass" and approach you at a high rate of speed, then it is on.
Luckily I live in a state where the use of force rules are 1. Ability 2. Opportunity. 3. Imminent threat.
Be mighty careful what you wish for. You may be held to that standard when it happens to you.
Let me break this down for you. I teach this stuff for a living.
See my post above. Different set of rules and circumstances.
Once you carry a gun, I'm assuming you don't, and if you do then your instructor failed to convey this to you, you probably don't have 20 pound bat belt of accessories and tools. Also cops get a lot more training on the use of those tools.
CCW holders don't go through POST.
Plus when they're by themselves dealing with a non-compliant suspect they will use OC or tasers, but when it is a bona fide violent actor then you will notice the less than lethal stuff usually gets used only when there is a 2nd officer there with a lethal weapon in case plan A don't work.
CCW holders don't usually have backup. At all.
I do role playing in my classes. I'm 6'5", weigh 310 pounds. I have one scenario where I play a bad guy in the process of kidnapping a screaming woman in a parking lot. The student enters the room, approximately twenty five feet from where I'm pulling the struggling woman. As soon as the student gets involved, I charge, pull a rubber knife out of my coat, and attack.
Usually I gut them like a fish before they even get the gun close to ready. I've got bruises all over my torso from the number of students who slammed the muzzle of the dummy gun into me as they rock it out of the holster. This is usually while my rubber knife traverses them from belly button to armpit.
Often, you don't have time.
Usually that scenario shuts up everyone who wants to carry chamber empty, shoot the bad guy in the leg, have their first round as snake shot, or other stupid crap like that.
It is possible that his actions led to the shooting. It is possible that he could have just went back inside. Armed people need to use their brains to avoid confrontation whenever possible.
Could he have avoided this? Possibly. I wasn't there. I wasn't at the trial.
However, once he picked a course of action, even if it was the wrong course of action, you're committed. Once he was outside, and the bad guy approached him, verbally admitted that he was about to commit assault, and made a furtive movement, then at that point it doesn't matter if you put yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time, 'cause you're there now.
Now this guy may be a jerk, he may be a strange ranger. I don't know. Never met him.
But two belligerent, drunken young men, verbally commit to "kicking your ass" and approach you at a high rate of speed, then it is on.
Luckily I live in a state where the use of force rules are 1. Ability 2. Opportunity. 3. Imminent threat.
theblackbra
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4
Correia,
You could kill someone with a pillow but that doesn't make it a deadly weapon.
AND ONCE AGAIN, TURN, ENTER BUILDING, SITUATION DONE! IT WAS NOT SELF DEFENSE. It was shooting the guy because Dickey didn't want to go back inside.
Dickey is not an 80 year old arthritic woman. Have a little sense. The guy wasn't disabled and he outweighed the deceased by a good 50 pounds. He wasn't morbidly obese, he was just overweight and probably had a decent amount of muscle (just judging from his physical appearance since I saw him pretty much every day).
Also, I won't respond to the aspect that Dickey had to shoot this guy, or that he's some feeble old man or lady again. He wasn't a victim here. No one laid a finger on him. And no one would have, had he not instigated the encounter. He chose to go outside and face down these two fellas when it wasn't a necessity. He chose to pull a gun instead of run. He's paying the price for it, and hopefully others will learn a lesson here. That if you can easily get away from a situation, do so. Don't pretend to be Dirty Harry if you don't have to.
Dickey was also not a security guard. He was a doorman. Call him security if you want, but that's a vast overstatement of his duties. Such contradictory statements from you guys. At one point, he's this fully capable security guard, and at other times, he's some helpless veteran with a bum leg. Make up your mind. He was neither! He was just some confrontational dude that went too far when he didn't have to. Maybe it's because none of you have any idea who this guy is?
Mumwaldee,
I'm on no cross, nor do I have a tower of ivory. Put two and two together, that's all. Snap out of it. You know you can't just shoot and kill someone out on a public street if other alternatives existed. And I'm talking other realistic alternatives, not "I could probably out run this guy" or "I'll just try to fight him off with my fists". The door was a few feet away when he was outside (a place he shouldn't have been if he felt these guys were violent- but, once again, he was a tough guy wanna be enforcement agent, so of course he was going to follow the two guys to make sure he "won" their little showdown) even when the deceased was moving at a fast walking speed. I don't see how defending incorrect and totally irresponsible actions is being "grounded in reality". But then again, perhaps that is your reality.
Also, what's the mindless speculation and crackpot theory? I'm talking facts. The door and the mat where Dickey was standing is literally a few feet apart. Two steps and you're inside.
Correia (#2),
What am I wishing for? I wouldn't have exited the building in the first place. After the guys left the building, I would just sit at my desk/post behind the locked doors and wait for the police to arrive. No tenant was being threatened at that point. And by the slight chance that I somehow want to watch these two guys walk away, not from the floor to ceiling glass doors inside the lobby, but outside on the building's mat, as soon as I saw these two guys turn and begin to return, I would eagerly re-enter the building with a couple steps, once again, behind those thick glass doors, waiting for the police to arrive.
But then again, I wouldn't have had a gun in the first place. Doormen don't need guns.
And if I did elect to carry a weapon, it would be a nice retractable baton or some sort of non-lethal device. As a doorman, I would feel that it wouldn't be my duty to end someone's life over spilled milk. But, see my above statements- wouldn't have put myself in that situation as I am semi-responsible and accountable for my actions. No need for a 20 pound belt of tools.
And, once again, Dickey wasn't helping some screaming woman in some parking lot.
Also, you're teaching complete idiots. If I had a gun and was attempting to help said screaming woman, I'd walk with my gun drawn, aimed, much like Dickey did, at the bulk of the man's body. And, since you're 310 pounds, I seriously doubt you would A)move fast enough to prevent me from honestly defending myself against your knife and B)you're massive frame would guarantee that I land my first shot in a place that would inable you to come any closer.
But that situation isn't anything like Dickey's. So moot point.
Also, you don't need to be at the trial to know if he could have avoided it. Read the account. Plenty of options before he decided to fire.
He did pick the wrong course of action. That's the damning thing right there. You can't just take the situation to this undesirable point by raising the stakes and expect to get off clean with a "self defense" stance when you shouldn't have been in that situation to begin with. That's why it wouldn't fly.
High rate of speed = "Not running but faster than walking"? Better watch out for joggers in that case. Better yet, angry joggers with a sharpened pencil! And, yeah, it probably would be "on" if you didn't have a very nearby exit that only you could use, and wouldn't be able to be used by two belligerant, drunken young men.
I'm also happy for you (I guess) that you can take someone's life when it isn't necessary to ensure the safety of your own.
I've also done all the talking I'm going to do. No use in trying to put some common sense into this farce.
If you're given permission to have some power (a handgun on your person), you should have the decency as a man and as a human being foremost to know when to use said power. It all comes down to responsibility. You take the action, be responsible for the aftermath. Someone died when it wasn't necessary, no matter if he was a "belligerant, drunken young (remember what that was like?) man".
Just don't compare this situation to anything remotely noble or heroic, or just.
I'll pray for you all.
Happy shooting.
You could kill someone with a pillow but that doesn't make it a deadly weapon.
AND ONCE AGAIN, TURN, ENTER BUILDING, SITUATION DONE! IT WAS NOT SELF DEFENSE. It was shooting the guy because Dickey didn't want to go back inside.
Dickey is not an 80 year old arthritic woman. Have a little sense. The guy wasn't disabled and he outweighed the deceased by a good 50 pounds. He wasn't morbidly obese, he was just overweight and probably had a decent amount of muscle (just judging from his physical appearance since I saw him pretty much every day).
Also, I won't respond to the aspect that Dickey had to shoot this guy, or that he's some feeble old man or lady again. He wasn't a victim here. No one laid a finger on him. And no one would have, had he not instigated the encounter. He chose to go outside and face down these two fellas when it wasn't a necessity. He chose to pull a gun instead of run. He's paying the price for it, and hopefully others will learn a lesson here. That if you can easily get away from a situation, do so. Don't pretend to be Dirty Harry if you don't have to.
Dickey was also not a security guard. He was a doorman. Call him security if you want, but that's a vast overstatement of his duties. Such contradictory statements from you guys. At one point, he's this fully capable security guard, and at other times, he's some helpless veteran with a bum leg. Make up your mind. He was neither! He was just some confrontational dude that went too far when he didn't have to. Maybe it's because none of you have any idea who this guy is?
Mumwaldee,
I'm on no cross, nor do I have a tower of ivory. Put two and two together, that's all. Snap out of it. You know you can't just shoot and kill someone out on a public street if other alternatives existed. And I'm talking other realistic alternatives, not "I could probably out run this guy" or "I'll just try to fight him off with my fists". The door was a few feet away when he was outside (a place he shouldn't have been if he felt these guys were violent- but, once again, he was a tough guy wanna be enforcement agent, so of course he was going to follow the two guys to make sure he "won" their little showdown) even when the deceased was moving at a fast walking speed. I don't see how defending incorrect and totally irresponsible actions is being "grounded in reality". But then again, perhaps that is your reality.
Also, what's the mindless speculation and crackpot theory? I'm talking facts. The door and the mat where Dickey was standing is literally a few feet apart. Two steps and you're inside.
Correia (#2),
What am I wishing for? I wouldn't have exited the building in the first place. After the guys left the building, I would just sit at my desk/post behind the locked doors and wait for the police to arrive. No tenant was being threatened at that point. And by the slight chance that I somehow want to watch these two guys walk away, not from the floor to ceiling glass doors inside the lobby, but outside on the building's mat, as soon as I saw these two guys turn and begin to return, I would eagerly re-enter the building with a couple steps, once again, behind those thick glass doors, waiting for the police to arrive.
But then again, I wouldn't have had a gun in the first place. Doormen don't need guns.
And if I did elect to carry a weapon, it would be a nice retractable baton or some sort of non-lethal device. As a doorman, I would feel that it wouldn't be my duty to end someone's life over spilled milk. But, see my above statements- wouldn't have put myself in that situation as I am semi-responsible and accountable for my actions. No need for a 20 pound belt of tools.
And, once again, Dickey wasn't helping some screaming woman in some parking lot.
Also, you're teaching complete idiots. If I had a gun and was attempting to help said screaming woman, I'd walk with my gun drawn, aimed, much like Dickey did, at the bulk of the man's body. And, since you're 310 pounds, I seriously doubt you would A)move fast enough to prevent me from honestly defending myself against your knife and B)you're massive frame would guarantee that I land my first shot in a place that would inable you to come any closer.
But that situation isn't anything like Dickey's. So moot point.
Also, you don't need to be at the trial to know if he could have avoided it. Read the account. Plenty of options before he decided to fire.
He did pick the wrong course of action. That's the damning thing right there. You can't just take the situation to this undesirable point by raising the stakes and expect to get off clean with a "self defense" stance when you shouldn't have been in that situation to begin with. That's why it wouldn't fly.
High rate of speed = "Not running but faster than walking"? Better watch out for joggers in that case. Better yet, angry joggers with a sharpened pencil! And, yeah, it probably would be "on" if you didn't have a very nearby exit that only you could use, and wouldn't be able to be used by two belligerant, drunken young men.
I'm also happy for you (I guess) that you can take someone's life when it isn't necessary to ensure the safety of your own.
I've also done all the talking I'm going to do. No use in trying to put some common sense into this farce.
If you're given permission to have some power (a handgun on your person), you should have the decency as a man and as a human being foremost to know when to use said power. It all comes down to responsibility. You take the action, be responsible for the aftermath. Someone died when it wasn't necessary, no matter if he was a "belligerant, drunken young (remember what that was like?) man".
Just don't compare this situation to anything remotely noble or heroic, or just.
I'll pray for you all.
Happy shooting.
Of course, goes without saying. Your number one job is to avoid trouble.
Like I've said repeatedly, I don't know this guy, don't know anything about him. And he very well may be a total loon.
No offense, but none of us know you either, so I'm going to take all of this information with a grain of salt.
But my comments were mostly about self defense in general. Not this particular case.
Legally speaking, in most states, in order to shoot somebody, you need to have an assailant who is threatening you with grievous/serious bodily harm. A Reasonable man standard is applied, wherein to be justified, a reasonable man would assume that your assailant had 1. The ability to cause you harm. 2. The opportunity to cause you harm, and 3. It is an immediate threat of harm. (called Jeopardy in some states).
A bottle is ability. Regardless of what you may think about it, and I can have twenty expert witnesses testify that it is in fact ability.
Opportunity. This is where the distance thing comes in.
I don't know what your background is, but trust me on this one. You've got no clue. The industry/legal standard was researched by Sgt. Dennis Tueller of the SLC PD. He studied hundreds of cases of knife v. gun, and then tested literally hundreds of subjects through what became known as the Tueller drill.
One man with a gun, in a holster, facing a target. Man #2 at his back with a knife. At signal, man with knife takes off running. Man #1 draws gun, fires shot into target. Then take a tape measure, and measure off the distance from man with gun to man with knife. The average was 21 feet before a good shot was fired.
And that was the average. Fat, skinny, tall, or fat. Factor in slower holsters, or the fact they are behind the curve, and that distance lengthens out.
Don't take my word for it. Do a little research. This has been proven hundreds of times. This is a standard in criminal law proceedings. Cops shoot people with knives within 21 feet all of the time.
And on this note:
Nope. Handguns are not death rays and they're not phasers. They are actually inherently underpowered and hard to aim without a lot of practice/training. All handguns suck. And the laws of physics do not cease just because you put a bullet into someone's vitals. A large mammal in motion tends to stay in motion.
We shoot deer through their heart and lungs with rifles that have 10X the power of a handgun, but it is pretty normal to have that 150 pound deer take off and run a hundred meters before it expires. Why is it so shocking that a 300 pound human would keep fighting.
Even if you totally pulp the heart, your brain can still have about 30 seconds of oxygen in it. And trust me on this one, 30 seconds is an eternity when somebody is trying to kill you.
I actually have people bring up your points during the lecture portion of class all of the time. They're the ones I stick into specific scenarios. It is always fun to watch.
3. Immediate Threat or Jeopardy. This is the part that you're stuck on. Could the shooter have moved, gotten away, walked through a door. Possibly. I don't know. Wasn't there. Apparently the jury thought he failed this part of the test.
My point is that the 1st two are met, and if you read my post, that is what I said. A person coming at you, threatening you with violence and a weapon has ability and opportunity.
Every scenario is different, and will be judged on it's facts. And this test will be applied every time. Fail one of the three, and you go to jail.
Nope. They're actually pretty normal. I'm probably the most active CCW instructor in my state, and they are usually relatively normal people from every walk of life.
You might be surprised, I spend most of the class telling people when not to shoot. We're not all blood thirsty killers. Shooting people sucks.
Good. Your brain is the weapon. Everything else is just a tool.
However I would really encourage you to get some training with that baton.
And it is a Less-Than Lethal device, not non-lethal, legally speaking. Anything that can incapacitate a human being can kill them. OC spray can kill asthmatics or someone with other conditions. Plus it is pretty hit or miss in effectiveness. I know guys that spray it on their tacos. You build up a resistance to it over time, so many multiple arrestees, or people that have served time, have been exposed a lot.
Hand tasers suck beyond all comprehension. Imagine getting pinched with a red hot pair of pliers, but the second that is over, then it is over, and you are not incapacitated.
The new wire barb launching tasers work better, but they ain't magic. I've seen individuals take the charge, piece of cake. Other people ride the lightning once and they're done. Once again, you'll notice, when most cops engage an actual dangerous person with a taser, they have backup with a real gun, because if it doesn't work, you might not have time to get to your real gun.
As for batons, those are the most misunderstood of all compliance tools.
If you strike an individual in the head with that ASP hard enough to render them unconscious, you just hit them in the head hard enough to kill them. Cops are trained to strike for the limbs, or use it them as a pain compliance tool. Batons rely on speed strikes to disable an opponent, and it isn't as easy as it looks in the movies.
If you've got a strong, determined opponent, hitting him is no guarantee of stopping him. If you strike them repeatedly in the head, guess what, you just used lethal force, just like using a gun.
You don't need a weapon at all to be a threat of serious bodily harm in the eyes of the law. A fist, or boot to the head is serious bodily harm.
Look, theblackbra, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this stuff is complicated. There's a reason the lawyers that practice this stuff start at about $250 an hour.
wjustinen
Member
Emotion aside
even under Canadian law it looks like a clean shoot. The reasons have been clearly explained above. :banghead:
even under Canadian law it looks like a clean shoot. The reasons have been clearly explained above. :banghead:
araiford
Member
Now I know the type of people that were on the jury.
araiford
Member
Dickey's life up until the time of the shooting are irrelevant.
The only thing that matters was what happened during the event in question.
He was in place where he had a lawful right to be, therefore he had no duty to retreat. He was engaged by two large, intoxicated, aggressive males (one of which was stupid enough to continue the attack), who communicated they threat to do bodily harm. They had the ability to carry out that threat. There was disparity of force. Being rightfully armed, he stopped the threat against his person and his life.
Thanks for playin'.
The only thing that matters was what happened during the event in question.
He was in place where he had a lawful right to be, therefore he had no duty to retreat. He was engaged by two large, intoxicated, aggressive males (one of which was stupid enough to continue the attack), who communicated they threat to do bodily harm. They had the ability to carry out that threat. There was disparity of force. Being rightfully armed, he stopped the threat against his person and his life.
Thanks for playin'.
ccw
If Jason had a concealed weapons permit he had been checked out and attended training to carry.
theblackbra, were you an eyewitness to this shooting?
If so it seems you would have been called as an eyewitness.
Are the things you accuse Jason of personal.
Did you ever take the time to check out Jason's disability.
Many people have problems that are not always readily apparent.
I sincerely hope that you never have to face a situation like the one Jason did. He may not be a rocket scientist but as a doorman (security guard)he at least tried to do a job for which he was poorly compensated to say the least.
A split second decision may cost him his freedom but at least he is alive and able to fight another day. The deceased returned to a place he was not wanted he took a bottle to a gun fight and lost.
More than anything else to win a fight you need to know your enemy and maintain the upper hand.
If Jason had a concealed weapons permit he had been checked out and attended training to carry.
theblackbra, were you an eyewitness to this shooting?
If so it seems you would have been called as an eyewitness.
Are the things you accuse Jason of personal.
Did you ever take the time to check out Jason's disability.
Many people have problems that are not always readily apparent.
I sincerely hope that you never have to face a situation like the one Jason did. He may not be a rocket scientist but as a doorman (security guard)he at least tried to do a job for which he was poorly compensated to say the least.
A split second decision may cost him his freedom but at least he is alive and able to fight another day. The deceased returned to a place he was not wanted he took a bottle to a gun fight and lost.
More than anything else to win a fight you need to know your enemy and maintain the upper hand.
romma
Member
Yup, the deceased obviously had some level of bodily harm intended for Dickey.
If someone was coming after me with a bottle, I would at the very least be prepared to shoot.
The price is great either way, but would rather live than risk having my head caved in.
I would try to retreat if it was feasible though.
BHPshooter
Member
I'm disgusted with the level of ignorance some of the participants of this thread have achieved.
Apparently people are supposed to get in way too deep before they are justified in using a gun. After all, diving in WAY over your head is about the only way for shooting to be the "only way out," which would logically follow that there is no situation where shooting would ever be required or justified, because the situation should have been defused at least a dozen different ways by then. How wonderfully Utopian. Every shooting then becomes the shooter's fault.
I'll be sure to remember, if I'm ever in a dire situation that I can oh-so-simply avoid by wisely turning my back on 2 attackers who have expressed a desire to crack my skull with a bottle, or by seasoning them into submission, or by using any of the other handy-dandy items on my Utility Belt, I will be sure to do so.
If only we really could resolve the issue by "just giving the attacker what he wants." Such a dignified way out. What if he wants to kill you? Funny how the "experts" never comment on that one... I guess it just doesn't make a good sound bit when they tell you it's your duty to society to lay down and die.
I love it when people have something explained to them repeatedly, and it still goes in one ear and out the other. If somebody is within 21 feet, they are going to EAT YOUR LUNCH, and it doesn't matter if they've got empty hands, your girlfriend's Venus razor, a pocketknife, or a claw hammer.
I'll tell you what -- when you're in that situation, I'll let you handle it your way. But let me make this clear: I have NO DUTY to be beaten, maimed, or stabbed before I can shoot in defense of my bodily integrity. I have NO DUTY to unjustly endure the pain they are going to cause me, to lose income from the time lost at work, or to pay expensive hospital bills. I have NO DUTY to give my family the opportunity to attend another funeral.
But of course! After all, nobody that's reasonable or responsible needs a gun. I'm just a gun dealer half the time and a pawnbroker the other half. I don't need a gun.
It's a pleasure (of sorts) to finally meet one of the kind of jurors who decided that a family had a DUTY to jump out of a second story window before they could shoot the crackhead that was in their house trying to kill them. After all, even a second story window is an exit. Hell, going over the side of a skyscraper is an exit, too. And it would be morally superior to commit suicide rather than shoot somebody that wishes me harm, in any case.
I'm glad so many people served justice by locking this man up for the heinous act of standing on his patio, saying nothing, and waiting for the cops. How do you call that escalation? Honestly, how?
I guess standing your ground is a felony charge, on top of it all. Maybe he could have gone inside. Maybe he could have run. BUT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.
Um, because it's his God-given right? :banghead: How does his job have anything to do with his personal decision to carry a firearm for his defense? Hint: It doesn't.
Here's what matters in this case: A man was doing his job to expel 2 drunks, called the police, and then went to wait for them. While doing so, these drunks decided to cast insults at the man. He did nothing. Then they both announce their intentions to club him and start toward him at a respectable pace. How is this man anywhere but in the right? The drunk that was stupid enough to continue towards a man who has presented a gun paid the price. It sounds to me like the drunk was guilty of Grand Theft Oxygen, and nobody forced THEM to escalate the situation repeatedly; they did it of their own accord.
I would have hung that jury until the cows came home.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Wes
Apparently people are supposed to get in way too deep before they are justified in using a gun. After all, diving in WAY over your head is about the only way for shooting to be the "only way out," which would logically follow that there is no situation where shooting would ever be required or justified, because the situation should have been defused at least a dozen different ways by then. How wonderfully Utopian. Every shooting then becomes the shooter's fault.
I'll be sure to remember, if I'm ever in a dire situation that I can oh-so-simply avoid by wisely turning my back on 2 attackers who have expressed a desire to crack my skull with a bottle, or by seasoning them into submission, or by using any of the other handy-dandy items on my Utility Belt, I will be sure to do so.
If only we really could resolve the issue by "just giving the attacker what he wants." Such a dignified way out. What if he wants to kill you? Funny how the "experts" never comment on that one... I guess it just doesn't make a good sound bit when they tell you it's your duty to society to lay down and die.
I love it when people have something explained to them repeatedly, and it still goes in one ear and out the other. If somebody is within 21 feet, they are going to EAT YOUR LUNCH, and it doesn't matter if they've got empty hands, your girlfriend's Venus razor, a pocketknife, or a claw hammer.
I'll tell you what -- when you're in that situation, I'll let you handle it your way. But let me make this clear: I have NO DUTY to be beaten, maimed, or stabbed before I can shoot in defense of my bodily integrity. I have NO DUTY to unjustly endure the pain they are going to cause me, to lose income from the time lost at work, or to pay expensive hospital bills. I have NO DUTY to give my family the opportunity to attend another funeral.
But of course! After all, nobody that's reasonable or responsible needs a gun. I'm just a gun dealer half the time and a pawnbroker the other half. I don't need a gun.
It's a pleasure (of sorts) to finally meet one of the kind of jurors who decided that a family had a DUTY to jump out of a second story window before they could shoot the crackhead that was in their house trying to kill them. After all, even a second story window is an exit. Hell, going over the side of a skyscraper is an exit, too. And it would be morally superior to commit suicide rather than shoot somebody that wishes me harm, in any case.
I'm glad so many people served justice by locking this man up for the heinous act of standing on his patio, saying nothing, and waiting for the cops. How do you call that escalation? Honestly, how?
I guess standing your ground is a felony charge, on top of it all. Maybe he could have gone inside. Maybe he could have run. BUT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.
Um, because it's his God-given right?
:banghead: How does his job have anything to do with his personal decision to carry a firearm for his defense? Hint: It doesn't. Here's what matters in this case: A man was doing his job to expel 2 drunks, called the police, and then went to wait for them. While doing so, these drunks decided to cast insults at the man. He did nothing. Then they both announce their intentions to club him and start toward him at a respectable pace. How is this man anywhere but in the right? The drunk that was stupid enough to continue towards a man who has presented a gun paid the price. It sounds to me like the drunk was guilty of Grand Theft Oxygen, and nobody forced THEM to escalate the situation repeatedly; they did it of their own accord.
I would have hung that jury until the cows came home.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Wes
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
