Updates on case of SC man who shot Deputy

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SKeefe

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
44
Location
Florence, SC
Below is the link to the original thread on this case. The thread got pretty lengthy and got heated at the end when apparent family members from both sides began posting (and it looks like they truly were family members because some of the stuff they suggested was mentioned in court only recently became available to the public).

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=96982&page=1

The summary of the story is that Grover Rye had problems with someone repeatedly breaking into a shed on his property and shooting cats and stealing tools. He had called police about it numerous times. It happened again in August of 2004 and he called police, then came across three armed men on his property, one of whom he shot and killed. This man was Robert Odom, who was an off-duty deputy.

As mentioned in the original thread, Rye was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 30 years in jail, which is effectively a life sentence for him since he is approx. 60 years old.

Since the original thread has been closed, a mistake by the Attorney General's office allowed Rye to be released on bond while the court hears his request for an appeal. He was granted the appeal and will be given a new court case sometime in the future.

The court documents are here:

http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=26379
 
Interesting document. The neighbors, apparently made a habit of breaking into this guy’s country property, stealing tools, and shooting the cats that were in the property/house. At least one of these occasions an offduty Cop with an AR15 joined in.

The Cops sure did not help things by ignoring the guys calls about burglaries, vandalism and animal deaths. “According to Appellant, he phoned the police on several separate occasions after discovering that trespassers had been on his property, but he was told that the police “did not need to respond to cat-killing reports.”” Boy, there was a powder keg that only needed a match to blow.

Big mistake of the home owner, on previous occasions, he was so mad that he told the Cops he would shoot the vandals/burglars/cat killers if he found them.

Now I got to ask, what is an off duty Cop doing, trespassing, shooting up someone’s barn, residence, possibly entering a house and killing someone’s pets? What sort of people is that Police Department employing?

I also find it interesting that the Court admitted the testimony of the neighbor trespassers/ probably serial thieves and vandals. Those trespassers sure made the home owner sound like a mad dog killer.
 
"the Court admitted the testimony of the neighbor trespassers/ probably serial thieves and vandals."

From the earlier thread, I thought Mitchell saw the entire exchange. The court document says he heard 4 shots because he was hiding behind the barn.

John
 
What I find interesting is that Mitchell admits that this was a regular occurrence for them, to go break into the buildings and shoot the guy's cats.

I'm not a cat fan, but I can imagine how pissed I'd be if my dogs were being killed out on my own property for sport, and I had called the police and been told not to call 911 again if only my pets were being killed.

jw
 
Concolences to the officer's family.

That said, I'm no cat fan for sure, but you won't catch me trespassing on someone's property, and shooting their property, their buildings, and their pets. That would be asking for a whole bunch of trouble that I don't want. There are plenty of places to shoot, and if I go onto someone else's property to do it, then I make sure to ask permission first. That isn't to say that such actions deserve the death penalty without due process.

I do wonder what would happen to me if I were caught by someone doing such things, and what the police would have to say about it. Let's see, I'm trespassing, shooting (destroying) property and buildings, steeling tools, and killing cats. I wonder what the police would say.

When I was a kid I had begged my father to take me shooting a low power BB gun (BB's didn't fly more than 20 yards). Finally one day he took me out somewhere to shoot it. We set up a soda pop can and started plinking. We were getting ready to leave when a gentleman pulled up and told us that it was private property, and that we had to leave (it wasn't posted, so we didn't know). I learned a lesson from that in that it is my responsibility to know who has the rights to the property I am on. I don't go hunting somewhere just because I see a big buck in the area. I find out who owns the land and ask.

Unfortunately, when the property owner turned to the authorities, it sounds like they pretty much told him to "stuff it". Yeah, that is a powder keg waiting to happen. Making a man feel as if there is nowhere to turn can be a dangerous thing.

That said, it sounds like a "he said/she said". Somebody's lying, just don't know who. Maybe Mitchel will think twice before he goes of on another binge of trespassing, vandalism, thieving, and killing of other people's pets. Hopefully He'll take at least that one lesson from it.
 
It seems that if someone comes on your property and starts shooting, you can shoot back. In this case, it seems the police should be on trial.
 
Yep - there is definitely something wrong with that situation.
I mostly only tolerate cats but the fact remains that they were the guy's pets and an off duty cop was killing them for sport. That sounds like something you would expect from a serial killer in the making instead of a cop.
And the fact that no one could be bothered to show up and do anything about it when he called the police for help... what the hell?

What was the guy supposed to do?
He called the police for help and they ignored him.
Another thing I find strange - this guy is minding his own business just trying to live his life (cats and all).
These other A-holes show up and repeatedly shoot his place up and kill his pets. A confrontation arises and one of the a-holes gets killed. Then, our "justice" system being what it is, they take the word of one of the surviving a-holes over the guy who repeatedly tried to get the "justice" system to work like it should have in the first place and ultimately wound up in a gunfight over it. The crime scene people also apparently screwed up big time if they missed 3 empty casings that would have verified the guy's story.

...one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Guess not.
 
The nerve of that awful man who interfered with the good citizens while they killed his cats. What is this world coming to when guys can't have some fun by going onto other people's property and killing their pets.
 
after reading the original thread..
wow I am shocked they found him guilty.
I beleive this is a travesty of justice.
I'm sickened by the police's press statements.
And what was with the police not finding all the shell casings??

As someone said in the origiinal thread "Can we say railroaded?"
 
This is pretty messed up anyway you look at it. The homeowner told police he was going to do it, and then did it. That's an open and shut case for murder 1(premeditation and all that). The cop just Darwined himself("Hey let's go shoot that crazy ARMED old guy's cats."), and his BIL was lucky not to join him. The police ignoring the homeowners calls didn't help it either, they saw this coming and did nothing. I'm not saying they did anything criminal, but they definitely get major bad Karma for this.

Pretty sad/stupid all around, IMO. I feel worse for the homeowner, but that's just me.
 
Last edited:
I read this and left, then cmae back - I have to post. I realize this is THR so my comments might get pulled - so be it.
First of all I have no sympathy for the off duty guy - we all have choices to make in life and he chose to destroy someone elses property and kill their pets. Wrong choice. My pets are like family to me and I would protect them with my life too. If somone came onto my property, armed, was shooting and killing my pets and I was there, they too would be dead. I would have no hesitation or regrets what-so-ever in killing them. None. That's my choice.
 
mugsie said:

I read this and left, then cmae back - I have to post. I realize this is THR so my comments might get pulled - so be it.
First of all I have no sympathy for the off duty guy - we all have choices to make in life and he chose to destroy someone elses property and kill their pets. Wrong choice. My pets are like family to me and I would protect them with my life too. If somone came onto my property, armed, was shooting and killing my pets and I was there, they too would be dead. I would have no hesitation or regrets what-so-ever in killing them. None. That's my choice.
Click to expand...

At least in Michigan, that would constitute murder. You have the right to defend yourself, to stop a crime, but not to kill.

I see this thread going south in a hurry, and I suggest that if it is to be discussed, it must be kept THR. It is not currently very THR.

Doc2005
 
Last edited:
By a calculated act like the "officer" engaged in, he became the classic BG, an armed felon.In the end I'll bet the landowner gets off.He may have made a judgement mistake, but in the end ,the "officer" brought the end on himself. I'll also bet that some of the statements to law enforcement will be thrown out due to the fact the landowner was in fact calling to complain to the very people that were doing the criminal acts.BIIIIIIIIIIIG lawsuit time when this is over.That's why the prosecutor will go after the landowner full bore...to get a settlement and avoid the big payday.
 
originally posted by Mannix
This is pretty messed up anyway you look at it. The homeowner told police he was going to do it, and then did it. That's an open and shut case for murder 1(premeditation and all that).
........
The police ignoring the homeowners calls didn't help it either, they saw this coming and did nothing.
Click to expand...
The fact that the homeowner supposedly told cops he was going to shoot the trespassers is worrisome to me as well.

The only way I could be able to understand him saying that is if, as shown by the court documents, the officers said pretty much "quit calling us, we don't need to come out there just because someone is breaking in and killing your cats," and the landowner responded with a smart-ass reply of "fine I will just take care of it myself and kill them when I catch them."
 
Hi Crank,

He may have made a judgement mistake, but in the end ,the "officer" brought the end on himself.
Click to expand...

Depends on how the investigating officer writes it up.

I'll also bet that some of the statements to law enforcement will be thrown out due to the fact the landowner was in fact calling to complain to the very people that were doing the criminal acts.
Click to expand...

Cool, can you match 160 acres of Indiana farmland? I'll even throw in the entire value of my trust fund.

In the end I'll bet the landowner gets off.
Click to expand...

You have far more faith in the system than I do.

Selena
 
That's like any of us saying we would tap a BG threatening our safety.Means nothing. We can't know what the future brings.More troubling is that the very people the landowner called for help were doing the deeds.Now the prosecutor expects the statements from law enforcement to be believed by a judge???
 
There will likely be some federal interest in this prosecution due to some possible conflicts of interest on the prosecutors side. I would also guess that there will be some help offered to the landowner by interested groups.I'd bet is just a saying...I know how the system works as a former leo.Not much depends on the investigating officers writeup, It all sits on the prosecutor's shoulders.Believe it or not, some prosecutors will stand up for right over the brotherhood. Bad is bad.
 
So one of three armed trespassers, who have broken in on previous occasions, is shot by the homeowner. The trespassers have rifles, and have broken in before - it's a reasonable belief that they'll break in again, and since they have rifles, they're obviously a threat. I'd shoot in that situation.

The fact that one of the bad guys is also a cop during the day should have zero bearing on the justification of what the homeowner did. However, it does have bearing on the fact that the homeowner's calls for help were only calls to the friends of those who were breaking in.

What's that called when government employees are considered a higher class of people, whose crimes aren't crimes?
 
This is a good example of the differences in state laws regarding use of deadly force. In Texas, use of deadly force is legal to protect your property. If this event happened at night, the laws allowing use of deadly force are even more lenient. I don't know about the rest of you, but if anyone came on my property at night and was firing an AR-15 I would assume my life was in danger and act accordingly.
 
I'll take your word for it, time will tell.
Click to expand...

I've seen prosecutors do it. And I've seen special prosecutors do it, when appointed due to potential conflicts of interest involving other prosecutors.

I've seen your posts throughout the forum, and I share your skepticism on a lot of issues. But I tend to temper that skepticism with my own personal glimpses into the system, and the number of people who really want to get the right guy ,for the right thing, every time.

If you want to see a justice trainwreck, google for Fred Zane. The further you dig into that, the more icy your spine will become.
 
originally posted by the naked prophet

The fact that one of the bad guys is also a cop during the day should have zero bearing on the justification of what the homeowner did. However, it does have bearing on the fact that the homeowner's calls for help were only calls to the friends of those who were breaking in.
Click to expand...
Other people have mentioned this as well.

I don't think that either the homeowner nor the police who had previously been called to the scene because of trespassing/burglary/shooting cats knew who had been breaking in. The identities of the trespassers were only discovered after the shooting took place. So, it is not as if the police being called to the scene were thinking "hmm since it is one of our own that is doing the crime here, we just won't do anything about it."

However, whether or not the fact that it was a deputy who was shot had any effect on the level of investigation done, or any other biases, is another question entirely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X
  • Locked
Re: SC Officer shot 4 times in the back and killed - investigation continuing
Replies
9
Views
1K
Warhawk83
W
S
  • Locked
SC Officer shot 4 times in the back and killed - investigation continuing
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
189
Views
14K
Preacherman
P
T
  • Locked
Man arrested after pointing gun at deputy
Replies
3
Views
811
C.R.Sam
C
M
  • Locked
Distraught Man Dies in Exchange of Gunfire with Sheriff's Deputies
Replies
2
Views
667
Cactus
C
S
  • Locked
Dillon County (SC) deputy shoots man throwing baseballs
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
NineseveN
N
Back
Top