Henry the Eighth
Member
Another persecutor looking to pad his resume. Good shoot, this guy should not have been convicted.
I heard about this when it first happened and just found out the verdict at the gun show here in Charleston over the weekend. I gave all of the cash I had on hand (only $33, I was just looking) to support his defense. I encourage everyone to give as this case will decide precedent in SC.
java
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.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.
A bottle would not ordinarily be a "deadly object" in my state, nor would two on one.
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"?Many states have rules of escallation. Were I to threaten you with a bottle, you would be justified in responding with a baseball bat. Fists on fists, and deadly weapons with deadly weapons.
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.Were I to have OC'd someone, only to have him continue his assault, then STILL continue to fight as I beat the crap out of him with my ASP, I would feel justified in using deadly force. Of course a taser would be as good or better than chemical irritants and batons.
no wonder you pro-gun guys make so many enemies. and, also no wonder these enemies are usually very bright, thoughtful, etc.
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.
See my post above. Different set of rules and circumstances.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.
all being at a safe distance
WHEN HE HAD PLENTY OF TIME to avoid the situation altogether
Of course, goes without saying. Your number one job is to avoid trouble.That if you can easily get away from a situation, do so.
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.
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.I seriously doubt you would A)move fast enough to prevent me from honestly defending myself against your knife
B)you're massive frame would guarantee that I land my first shot in a place that would inable you to come any closer
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.Also, you're teaching complete idiots.
Good. Your brain is the weapon. Everything else is just a tool.And if I did elect to carry a weapon, it would be a nice retractable baton or some sort of non-lethal device.
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.You could kill someone with a pillow but that doesn't make it a deadly weapon.
Yup, the deceased obviously had some level of bodily harm intended for Dickey.The deceased returned to a place he was not wanted he took a bottle to a gun fight and lost.
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?
But then again, I wouldn't have had a gun in the first place. Doormen don't need guns.
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.
I fail to see how, as you state, an "unarmed" position then warrants carrying a firearm. If he was not allowed to carry chemical irritants, a baton, or taser, why did he feel it appropriate to carry a firearm?
no wonder you pro-gun guys make so many enemies. and, also no wonder these enemies are usually very bright, thoughtful, etc.