No, he didn’t loose any status for words about the man’s dog. Freedom of speech and all that with no apparent threat. South Carolina does the same as my state and extends the Castle Doctrine to a person’s car. I have had my nose broken by getting hit in the face. I couldn’t see anything clearly until after wiping my eyes several times. What could a determined attacker do to him while he couldn’t see? Doesn’t matter what kind of shape the young man is in, he is not the attacker. He is sitting in an eclosed space. He is not as able to move as the man standing outside his car window and hitting him. Many a person has been killed with fists. Look up the FBI stats. Most states that have a stand your ground law enforce that law no matter what they prefer. Otherwise, no one could understand the law at all. Castle doctrine, stand your ground laws, and FBI stats say he is innocent, no matter if he said the dog was ugly.
No, the younger man is not innocent! Words are not just words, they have started wars. I’m an old man, and I hear the disrespect that young people have for older people all the time, and all those old people ignore it … but I know they hear it. It doesn’t surprise me that someone broke. And unfortunately, it cost him his life. I don’t know what your age is Doug, but I’m not sure I want to be around you with a gun in your possession, because it sounds like you’re not one who would do whatever necessary to avoid a conflict.
I get ticked off watching altercations during a football game, and inevitably the penalty never goes to the instigator. In a household, we’d call that bad parenting.
I have a CCW permit, have had for 10 years. I’m covered by USCCA. That doesn’t give me a license to be an idiot. All this story says is, an old man is dead, because a smart ass young man couldn’t keep his mouth shut.
Yet you believe the old man should beat the guy up because he said something about the dog. Have you ever heard that thing about sticks and stones. I’m 69 and well on my way to 70 and I can flip a bird with the best of them. Doesn’t mean I’m going to try to bust his head open, because he just might have a gun!
The old man as you call him is dead because he had a temper that did him no good and apparently a small brain to go with it.
Atty, DeWitt,
The short version was very misleading. The YCSO report states flatly the young man was or could be expected to be in fear for his life. Can we armchair quarterback a situation where we were not present? I contend only at the expense of the victim’s rights. The victim being the young man who was attacked. Do I wish that the ending was completely different than what resulted? Absolutely. However, the young man did what he did, in a moment of fear, I think. In the thread the victim has been called a “loud mouthed bully” among other things. Totally unjustified with the information available. Even in your short synopsis.
Secondly, your statement that hearing damage from discharging a firearm should be a consideration not to shoot is ludicrous, In the very brief moments of a life or death confrontation, I don’t think hearing damage could or should be a consideration. If it were I think one could very well end up dead.
I have had an experience with a neighbor involved shooting that at first blush was totally unjustified. My thoughts were how crazy “friend” (name withheld), what were you thinking? The state attorney’s office didn’t even consider charges. They had the whole story. When I heard the “whole” story, I thanked my friend for protecting a school bus full of children. He put himself in harm’s way to protect kids he didn’t even know from a perceived crazy man. Not a word of that information was in the news. My friend was painted as the “crazy man’“ in spite of multiple witnesses to the contrary.
My conclusion is we do not have sufficient information to judge. But the authorities did.
TOTALLY AGREE William 1276
It seems to me that the man in the car would not be able to just drive away from the confrontation since the other man was inside the drivers window punching the driver. At that point he could not turn the steering wheel. He would have been focused on defending himself, stopping the attack which does not translate into driving. That is why we carry a handgun. We do not know the other circumstances. Perhaps the dog was complemented and the attacker was nuts. The drivers use of his weapon does not make him trigger happy. Also, what training is needed? I have never trained but my thoughts are that if I ever had to use my weapon in my car, I not going to be using my sights.
Fair point, but could he have driven away before the other man got inside his car?