Owen
Moderator Emeritus
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!
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!