SC Officer shot 4 times in the back and killed - investigation continuing
- Thread starter Sportcat
- Start date
- Status
In an oft-cited pair of articles by NYPD veteran George Demetriou:
http://www.modernwarrior.org/nypd4/the_diallo_shooting.htm
[BLOCKQUOTE]
During this four to five second period forty-one rounds were fired (McMellon - 16,
Carroll -16, Murphy - 4, Boss - 5) with nineteen hitting Mr. Diallo. Of those nineteen, three hit the upper torso with one being almost immediately fatal. 15 rounds entered from left to right, three from front to back and one (a lower leg wound) from rear to front. Sixteen of the nineteen rounds passed through the body with only three lodging. This was mostly due to the fully jacketed ammo, which was replaced soon after the incident. The bullet wounds were labeled "A" through "S" by the medical examiner and wounds "A" and "S" turned out to be the most controversial during the following media frenzy and the trial.
.....
While 41 shots sounds excessive, in actuality it is not. There were four officers firing, only 19 rounds struck Diallo, and only one was fatal. Most of the rounds struck Diallo’s arms and legs. Remember the actual shooting only took four seconds. While this will not offer any comfort to the Diallo family, we hope it will paint a more truthful picture than the one the media portrays. These officers are not assassins. They are good cops that were attempting to question a person who fit the description of a man who preys on innocent victims. These cops were going to conduct a routine, short investigation and Mr. Diallo would have been on his way. It was Amadou Diallo who set the stage for tragedy.
[/BLOCKQUOTE]
(emphasis added)
nico
Member
Everything I've heard about the Dialo case makes me give the officers the benefit of the doubt. The only thing that worries me is that out of 41 shots fired, only 19 hit the target. At that distance, I'd want them to be trained well enough for at least 40 hits to the torso. I think if anything, those officers needed to spend more time at the range.
LawDog and Crewchief,
If we allow ourselves to become too biased by our own personal beliefs, we lose objectivity in the case.
Try to keep in mind that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is not to say that the shooter is completely innocent of all crimes, but merely not guilty of murder.
The evidence in the case is as follows:
1.) Odam, and party, were trespassing.
2.) They were heavily armed.
3.) They did cause the destruction of Rye's property.
4.) Their willful destruction of Rye's property resulted in Rye feeling threatened.
5.) There was a confrontation between Rye and Odam.
6.) Rye claims to have shot Odam in self-defense.
If Odam and his party dropped their weapons and surrendered peacefully to Rye, then he would have no cause to shoot them, and doing so would be murder. If however, Odam retained possession of his weapon and tried to flee, it could be construed that he may have re-engaged Rye. In this event, self-defense would be a possibility. If Rye ordered Odam not to move and to surrender his weapon, but he refused, the shooting may also be justifiable.
If I were to catch an armed intruder on my property, and he refused to lay down his arms and either be detained or leave peacably, I think that I would neutralize the threat. And four rounds is nothing. We are all pretty well versed in stitching and double-tapping here. The point is to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible, not to use the least number of cartridges.
If we allow ourselves to become too biased by our own personal beliefs, we lose objectivity in the case.
Try to keep in mind that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is not to say that the shooter is completely innocent of all crimes, but merely not guilty of murder.
The evidence in the case is as follows:
1.) Odam, and party, were trespassing.
2.) They were heavily armed.
3.) They did cause the destruction of Rye's property.
4.) Their willful destruction of Rye's property resulted in Rye feeling threatened.
5.) There was a confrontation between Rye and Odam.
6.) Rye claims to have shot Odam in self-defense.
If Odam and his party dropped their weapons and surrendered peacefully to Rye, then he would have no cause to shoot them, and doing so would be murder. If however, Odam retained possession of his weapon and tried to flee, it could be construed that he may have re-engaged Rye. In this event, self-defense would be a possibility. If Rye ordered Odam not to move and to surrender his weapon, but he refused, the shooting may also be justifiable.
If I were to catch an armed intruder on my property, and he refused to lay down his arms and either be detained or leave peacably, I think that I would neutralize the threat. And four rounds is nothing. We are all pretty well versed in stitching and double-tapping here. The point is to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible, not to use the least number of cartridges.
This isn't about violating civil rights. This is about smearing the name of a man dead in his grave.
You see, dead people don't have civil rights anymore. What they should have is the right not to be spoken ill of in their death by a pack of strangers.
You knew the deceased? Speak up.
You didn't know the deceased? Show some respect for a man who can't defend himself.
At the very least, have some common decency to show some respect for the mother who had to bury her child by keeping your speculations about the thuggish character of her dead son to yourselves until the facts are in front of you.
LawDog
Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
We didn't know him. And we're not trying to smear his name. We're trying to figure out what he was doing that got him killed.
And why does he deserve our respect? He was breaking the law.
crewchief
Member
Grey54956,
My thoughts exactly. As I said before it is Rye who has to live with his decision to fire for the rest of his life. Justifiable or not taking someones life is a big burdon to carry for the rest of your life.
LawDog,
You talk about dead men not having civil rights and not knowing him personally gives no right to assume anything about his character. I ask you this then, why is it when the common violent criminal gets nutrelized by police or homeowner/citizen resulting in death no one respects them by not making assumptions. Instead people call him a gangbanger, thug, pimp or whatever and he had it coming to him. I have seen it countless times on this board and no one seems to mind. Now since the deceased in this case is a police officer we should respect him even though based on the facts he was involved in illegal activity just like your common criminal. Sorry but I am not buying it. Odam being a police officer makes him no different then anybody else, and it has even been repeated thousands of times on THR that police officers are citizens just like you and me. Personally if I trespassed on someones property and was armed (which I never would, at least not intentionaly) and did not disarm in a peacful matter I would expect to get gunned down too and I don't care what people say because I had it coming to me, just like Odam. So give the man respects if you want, but me personally I am going to take it as it is. He was a regular joe that made the bad decision to do criminal activity on someones property and paid the price and thats all.
My thoughts exactly. As I said before it is Rye who has to live with his decision to fire for the rest of his life. Justifiable or not taking someones life is a big burdon to carry for the rest of your life.
LawDog,
You talk about dead men not having civil rights and not knowing him personally gives no right to assume anything about his character. I ask you this then, why is it when the common violent criminal gets nutrelized by police or homeowner/citizen resulting in death no one respects them by not making assumptions. Instead people call him a gangbanger, thug, pimp or whatever and he had it coming to him. I have seen it countless times on this board and no one seems to mind. Now since the deceased in this case is a police officer we should respect him even though based on the facts he was involved in illegal activity just like your common criminal. Sorry but I am not buying it. Odam being a police officer makes him no different then anybody else, and it has even been repeated thousands of times on THR that police officers are citizens just like you and me. Personally if I trespassed on someones property and was armed (which I never would, at least not intentionaly) and did not disarm in a peacful matter I would expect to get gunned down too and I don't care what people say because I had it coming to me, just like Odam. So give the man respects if you want, but me personally I am going to take it as it is. He was a regular joe that made the bad decision to do criminal activity on someones property and paid the price and thats all.
Horsesense
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 565
Calm down guys, your going to get this thread closed and I wont get an email notification when the verdict comes out.
Law Dog, we are all on the same side in that we want to see justice served. I love cops and am in no way saying that because he was a cop, he is guilty. However I proposed a possible scenario, on page three, because I love farmers also and I understand that Cops are human and are capable of making wrong decisions, just like regular people… I understand that, and agree with, cop and solders should be given the benefit of the doubt because they are the good guys but, like others, I don’t accept that the man is guilty of "cold blooded murder" simply because the deceased was a cop.
Law Dog, we are all on the same side in that we want to see justice served. I love cops and am in no way saying that because he was a cop, he is guilty. However I proposed a possible scenario, on page three, because I love farmers also and I understand that Cops are human and are capable of making wrong decisions, just like regular people… I understand that, and agree with, cop and solders should be given the benefit of the doubt because they are the good guys but, like others, I don’t accept that the man is guilty of "cold blooded murder" simply because the deceased was a cop.
iiibdsiil
Member
I just read this whole thing, and didn't see anywhere that Odam was in uniform, therefore, him being a cop means diddly squat. The whole him being a cop thing is in no help to Odam, and I see it being a good thing for Rye. I am pretty sure everyone knows you do not go onto someone elses property, locked and loaded, and expect nothing to arise of that. Besides that, he killed the mans cat. And he probably tampered with the shed. Being a civilian probably would help the prosecution here, because "it was some dumb 22 year old, just messing around." Instead, it was a person that is paid to uphold the law, stop others from doing it, and protect people. This same person is out there killing cats and breaking into peoples sheds, after he was trespassing? Yeah, let's tell everyone the guy was a cop, real smart. I would be trying to keep that on the down low.
You come on my property (okay, I live in an apartment, so hypothetical here), with an AK, and I have reason to believe you killed my cat and tampered with my shed, you better believe I am putting that gun to you. Any movement you make other than butt kissing and getting on your knees with you hands on top of your head, I would see as an imediate threat. Any jerky movements, anything too fast, and I would be shooting too.
I think he hit him in the arm first, back twice, then the neck. Sounds to me like he was making a sudden movement, so Rye shot, hit the arm, Odam goes to flee or grab his gun or grab cover, or something, and gets shot in the back twice, and as he is going down, gets shot in the neck.
I am sick of the "he was a cop" excuse. He was a cop, your right, which makes it worse that he was doing all these things.
Having a cat, if you shot and killed mine, I would probably shoot you too. Sometimes that cat is all I have, and it has been with me for 9 years. That is the same as trying to take a family member away, to me. I don't consider the cat a pet, I consider it family. I would have to weigh my chances of going to jail over it, because from what I have heard, it might not be worth it. But, then again, if you intentionally discharged a round at my cat, what makes me think you won't stop there?
You come on my property (okay, I live in an apartment, so hypothetical here), with an AK, and I have reason to believe you killed my cat and tampered with my shed, you better believe I am putting that gun to you. Any movement you make other than butt kissing and getting on your knees with you hands on top of your head, I would see as an imediate threat. Any jerky movements, anything too fast, and I would be shooting too.
I think he hit him in the arm first, back twice, then the neck. Sounds to me like he was making a sudden movement, so Rye shot, hit the arm, Odam goes to flee or grab his gun or grab cover, or something, and gets shot in the back twice, and as he is going down, gets shot in the neck.
I am sick of the "he was a cop" excuse. He was a cop, your right, which makes it worse that he was doing all these things.
Having a cat, if you shot and killed mine, I would probably shoot you too. Sometimes that cat is all I have, and it has been with me for 9 years. That is the same as trying to take a family member away, to me. I don't consider the cat a pet, I consider it family. I would have to weigh my chances of going to jail over it, because from what I have heard, it might not be worth it. But, then again, if you intentionally discharged a round at my cat, what makes me think you won't stop there?
Muzzleflash
member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2004
- Messages
- 318
I am looking forward to Lawdog's thoughtful response.
Also, from Martin Fackler, at http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/2/28/60241
[BLOCKQUOTE]
Analysis: Media Still Haven't Told the Truth About Diallo Case
Martin L. Fackler, M.D.
February 28, 2000
...
3. The majority of the bullet paths traveled from left-to-right; nine of them also ran somewhat from back-to-front. It would have been impossible for these shots to have been made while Mr. Diallo was on his back: Such bullet path angles would have required those bullets to have come up through the floor.
...
The early shots entered his left side. These shots would have been unlikely to cause Mr. Diallo to give any perceptible sign that he had been hit. It should be noted that bullets penetrating a human body in most locations most often cause no immediate outward reaction in the person hit.
This comes as a surprise to most laymen since the entertainment media almost always shows such persons being knocked backward and the immediate appearance of blood at the supposed entrance wound. It must be emphasized that such reactions do not happen in real life.
In fact, the inability of policemen to be able to tell if their shots have hit is often a source of confusion and consternation for them during gunfights. To have a reasonable chance of surviving gunfights, police must be trained to continue firing until they are sure the threat has ended.
Near the end of the firing, while Mr. Diallo was still standing, with his left side facing the police, one of the left-to-right and somewhat back-to-front shots cut his spinal cord near the junction between his abdomen and chest. That shot caused an immediate cessation of muscle strength in both legs: he would collapse since his legs could no longer hold him upright.
...
Most surely, by any rational standard, a just verdict was delivered in the Diallo trial by a competent and conscientious jury.
[/BLOCKQUOTE]
(emphasis added)
B
BeLikeTrey
Guest
good point MAD MAN
This is a good and relavent correlation. Thanks!
This is a good and relavent correlation. Thanks!
cxm
Member
The Law
This discussion has gone on a while, with lots of folks giving their opinion... so perhaps a look at the actual law would be useful at this point.
There has been a good bit of discussion on the validity of the victim’s right to defend himself under South Carolina law whilst on his own property.
These have been edited to eliminate items that are not appertaining.
Of particular note is the Part B1. in which the circumstances in which retreat is not required on one’s own property are noted. Para A3 is also going to be on interest in this case.
This material may shed some different light on the situation at hand. For convenience I have divided the cites into two parts.
/r
Chuck
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART A
State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 377 S.E.2d 328 (1989) sets forth the elements of self-defense in South Carolina. These are:
1. you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
2. you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;
3. if you believe you are in such danger, you must use deadly force only if a reasonable or prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in such danger, or, if you actually were in such danger, the circumstances were such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save yourself from serious bodily harm or losing your own life;
4. you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance.
PART B
Duty to Retreat
As a general matter, before using deadly force, even in self-defense, you have a duty to retreat.
As a general matter, before using deadly force, even for self-defense, there are situations in which you have no duty to retreat. These include:
1. in addition to in your home, there is no duty to retreat within your home’s curtilage. State v. Jackson
Defense of Property:
“…in the protection of one’s dwelling, only such force must be used as is necessary, or apparently necessary, to a reasonably prudent man. Any greater expenditure cannot be justifiable and is therefore punishable. State v. Hibler, 79 S.C. 170, 60 S.E. 438 (1907).
“[t]he weight of modern authority limits deadly force in a defense of a dwelling to situations in which the householder reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony or only when deadly force would be authorized by the law of self-defense.†McAninch and Fairey.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the actual law throws a different light on this issue.
1. The victim had no duty to retreat
2. The issue of self defense becomes clearer.
This discussion has gone on a while, with lots of folks giving their opinion... so perhaps a look at the actual law would be useful at this point.
There has been a good bit of discussion on the validity of the victim’s right to defend himself under South Carolina law whilst on his own property.
These have been edited to eliminate items that are not appertaining.
Of particular note is the Part B1. in which the circumstances in which retreat is not required on one’s own property are noted. Para A3 is also going to be on interest in this case.
This material may shed some different light on the situation at hand. For convenience I have divided the cites into two parts.
/r
Chuck
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART A
State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 377 S.E.2d 328 (1989) sets forth the elements of self-defense in South Carolina. These are:
1. you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
2. you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;
3. if you believe you are in such danger, you must use deadly force only if a reasonable or prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in such danger, or, if you actually were in such danger, the circumstances were such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save yourself from serious bodily harm or losing your own life;
4. you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance.
PART B
Duty to Retreat
As a general matter, before using deadly force, even in self-defense, you have a duty to retreat.
As a general matter, before using deadly force, even for self-defense, there are situations in which you have no duty to retreat. These include:
1. in addition to in your home, there is no duty to retreat within your home’s curtilage. State v. Jackson
Defense of Property:
“…in the protection of one’s dwelling, only such force must be used as is necessary, or apparently necessary, to a reasonably prudent man. Any greater expenditure cannot be justifiable and is therefore punishable. State v. Hibler, 79 S.C. 170, 60 S.E. 438 (1907).
“[t]he weight of modern authority limits deadly force in a defense of a dwelling to situations in which the householder reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony or only when deadly force would be authorized by the law of self-defense.†McAninch and Fairey.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the actual law throws a different light on this issue.
1. The victim had no duty to retreat
2. The issue of self defense becomes clearer.
Last edited:
For anybody that's interested (and has the time to go through it), the South Carolina Code of Laws is available at http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/statmast.htm
SKeefe
Member
Anyone heard anything lately on this topic (last post was October 2004)? I haven't seen anything in the news about it, but from what I know/thought, the trial began last week.
O.F.Fascist
Member
sendec said:
Sounds fair to me. I certainly care more about my pets than criminals who would come onto my land and kill them.
Tell that to the prosecutor and the sheriff's department in question.
ROFL didnt realize this was an old thread.
Cousin Mike
Member
Chris Rhines said:
Sorry to hear about the death of an officer. I want to say that first. Having said that, I would have to say agree with Chris, and quite a few others. Only 2 people know what happened, and one isn't talking. On a side note, it does seem to me like there's that X-factor involved in this story. It seems like something is missing. Regardless, you have to wonder what a person might feel in certain situations, and you also have to wonder why a rational person would shoot at someone. The articles you guys posted didnt say anything about Mr. Rye being a criminal, so I'm assuming he was, in fact, a rational human being.
i.e. Young officer and a buddy go plinking on someone elses land... Landowner asks young officer and his friend to leave, young officer rudely declines for whatever reason.. Maybe the situation is fueled by alcohol or some other aggravating circumstance. I would have to assume that Rye did not know that Odam was LE, otherwise I'm sure he would have made a different decision. I mean, seriously. Who would shoot a man he knows to be a LEO in an act of cold blooded murder, with a witness present?! A person that inclined to murder someone would almost certainly try to remain anonymous, more than likely by trying to attack the witnesses. This was not the case here.
I consider myself a rational person. If someone with a rifle insulted me on my land, and/or refused to leave, I would almost certainly shoot them, especially if I believed the threatening person to be intoxicated. There's just too much nobody knows, but IMHO this seems like a scenario that could likely lead to such a terrible and permanent misunderstanding.
Damn... feel silly posting on this old thread...
SKeefe
Member
Well, it is old in the sense that my post above was the first in over a year, but it is still a current thread because of the fact that this case has not decided by a court of law yet.Cousin Mike said:
thereisnospoon
Member
Waiting on the Verdict...
Anyone know when this thing is going to trial? I would just like to know, cause I am curious as all get out.
On a side note, and not to belittle this situation in any way...
This thread kinda puts a new light on the little carbine as a man stopper, eh??? Who would have thought that a "wimpy" .30 cal carbine would penetrate an arm and then travel through the body and pierce the heart?
Anyone know when this thing is going to trial? I would just like to know, cause I am curious as all get out.
On a side note, and not to belittle this situation in any way...
This thread kinda puts a new light on the little carbine as a man stopper, eh??? Who would have thought that a "wimpy" .30 cal carbine would penetrate an arm and then travel through the body and pierce the heart?
SKeefe
Member
In my above post that brought this thread back to life, I mentioned that I was relatively certain that the trial began last week, although I haven't seen any news reports on it.thereisnospoon said:
aaronrkelly
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,087
Just for the record I do work in law enforcement....but I do consider myself to be unbiased.
At the young age of 25 all of my peers that work in law enforcement are the same age with 3 of them being younger. I did not know the dead guy (I will not say officer because he wasnt, he was a guy....no uniform, not on duty - no officer status). I do not know if he was cocky, I do not know his character.
I printed this out and showed it to a few of my peers and they instantly huffed up pointing out how dare the land owner come out armed toward the officer.......***?? That leads me to believe a couple things....
1 - I need older friends that have less of a superiority complex
2 - In my area young cops around the dead mans age exhibit cocky behavior
I also feel the sheriffs dept has stepped far outside whats expected of them in deciding this guys guilt in the media - completely rediculous. I dont know how this guy could get a decent trial...
I hope the truth is found but I will always have my doubts as to what really happened.
At the young age of 25 all of my peers that work in law enforcement are the same age with 3 of them being younger. I did not know the dead guy (I will not say officer because he wasnt, he was a guy....no uniform, not on duty - no officer status). I do not know if he was cocky, I do not know his character.
I printed this out and showed it to a few of my peers and they instantly huffed up pointing out how dare the land owner come out armed toward the officer.......***?? That leads me to believe a couple things....
1 - I need older friends that have less of a superiority complex
2 - In my area young cops around the dead mans age exhibit cocky behavior
I also feel the sheriffs dept has stepped far outside whats expected of them in deciding this guys guilt in the media - completely rediculous. I dont know how this guy could get a decent trial...
I hope the truth is found but I will always have my doubts as to what really happened.
Going on the facts I haves seen so far, I would not convict this guy of murder or any other crime if I were on the jury. I have seen no evidence that he committed murder or manslaughter for that matter. He confronted armed trespassers on his property that he could reasonably assume had willfully destroyed his property already. The trespassers argued with him and he ended up shooting them.
I think the Sherrif could get himself into trouble since he is giving the shooter's lawyer grounds for arguing the investagation was tainted.
One fact I want to know: They said they were target shooting. What were they shooting at and in what direction? Were they shooting at more of the land owner's property? Were they shooting in a safe direction or shooting in such a way as to shoot toward the land owner such that he would feel even more threatened? Just curious.
I think the Sherrif could get himself into trouble since he is giving the shooter's lawyer grounds for arguing the investagation was tainted.
One fact I want to know: They said they were target shooting. What were they shooting at and in what direction? Were they shooting at more of the land owner's property? Were they shooting in a safe direction or shooting in such a way as to shoot toward the land owner such that he would feel even more threatened? Just curious.
Last edited:
SKeefe
Member
That is an interesting subject, because according to news reports (I'm assuming their "facts" came from investigators), Odam's gun had "not been fired."MechAg94 said:
Had not been fired during the confrontation or had not been fired at all that day?
I can just empathise with the land owner. If I had shown up to find that someone had tried to break into my shed and shot my pet, I think I would definitely confront them. What happens at that point depends on their response.
I don't believe the guy intended to kill him or thought he did anything wrong.
I can just empathise with the land owner. If I had shown up to find that someone had tried to break into my shed and shot my pet, I think I would definitely confront them. What happens at that point depends on their response.
I don't believe the guy intended to kill him or thought he did anything wrong.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
