Another Case Of C & C Gone Wrong?
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 90

Thread: Another Case Of C & C Gone Wrong?

  1. Another Case Of C & C Gone Wrong?

    In Myrtle Beach the other day two men get in an argument at a fast food drive thru. Some idiot gets out of his car and walks over to the car behind him and punches the guy in the face. Well, this guy pulls his weapon and shoots him twice killing him. The guy that does the shooting is 30 years old, a veteran and college grad with a once promising future. The idiot that did the punching and died was on vacation with his wife and 3 young children.

    Now here's the argument the defense will be using. The shooter attained his C & C after being beating into a coma by 6 men a few years back. After what the dr's called a miraculous recovery, the shooter never wanted to find himself in that situation again, therefore sought a C & C to defend himself. Well, after being slammed in the face he had visions of himself being harmed close to death from before, and reacted with deadly force. While these days, an individual getting out of his car and punching another in the face risks the ultimate in tragedy. Obviously, I doubt he considered this prior to opening the car door and acting stupidly. However, the shooter's life hangs in the balance once again, albeit in a different form. And of course, the anti-carry people are having a field day pointing their fingers.
    Last edited by Montana250; 08-07-2009 at 09:28 AM. Reason: sp

  2.   
  3. #2
    Isn't this exactly why people carry? Without knowing the particulars, it seems to me that this was a righteous act. If someone yanks your car door open and punches you in the head, this would seem to be an extreme act of violence that you should be able to defend yourself against. Now, granted, there might be extenuating circumstances. In my case, for example, I'm 6 feet 2, 275 lbs, and have a legitimate black belt. So, I figure if I get punched and shoot my attacker, I have much more at risk than someone of lesser physical stature and self-defense capabilities. Imagine that I yank your car door open to punch you...in that case, you're justified in shooting me because I'm capable of seriously hurting, if not killing you, with one punch. I'd assume the defense would be saying: "Look at the size of this guy, and he's a black belt, to boot". Just my 2 cents.

    JJFlash

  4. #3
    Dang, I was just down there when this happened and missed hearing about it. There are several ways to read this story but after doing some research it sounds that Mr. Miller (the shooter) shouldn't even have been carrying a gun. I'll let others research that and form their own opinion. Mr. Vigeant definitely should not have gotten out of his car and gone back to confront Miller. Vigeant threw the first punch according to Miller but this is one that will definitely cause some problems for the jury. I hope I don't get drawn for it. The flashback to his beating may be a defense for Miller but according to some he started that altercation also.

  5. #4
    A good lawyer that knows how to disqualify jurors during the selection process will get a not guilty verdict for his 30 year old client. No matter who started the argument via a verbal exchange matters little when an indvidual who had a chance to leave the scene did not do so. Instead, the assailant walks back to the occupied car and punches the occupant in the face. Yes the shooter will no doubt be sued, but a criminal conviction may be another matter.

  6. #5
    Arizona law extends castle doctrine to your occupied vehicle.

    As much as I hate to say it, BOTH parties are fools in this case. I mean, in what drive-thru on the planet is such an altercation ever warranted, neccesary or wise. In my LEO days, I've seen it more than once. The guy behind honks, or flips off the driver ahead, and then lurches his bumper close to the rear bumper of the lead car. Like "you're taking too long" or "hurry up" or whatever. The lead driver takes offense and swells with macho bravado... and for what? Both fools are in the same line for the same crappy 'food'... they're both idiots. CC or no CC.

    I'm curious if the drive-thru had cameras/video rolling to show what really happened.
    "There is no consitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." (7th Cir. 1982, Bowers v. DeVito)Stay safe, and stay trained.www.sazsatt.com

  7. #6
    Bail set for suspect in Myrtle Beach McDonald's killing - Local - The Sun News

    Several stories linked here.

    Part of it was on tape but it appears not enough to tell.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Oregon's hot box
    Posts
    94
    According to South Carolina law, Section 16-11-420:

    SECTION 16-11-420. Intent and findings of General Assembly.

    (A) It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business.

    (B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.

    (C) The General Assembly finds that Section 20, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed.

    (D) The General Assembly finds that persons residing in or visiting this State have a right to expect to remain unmolested and safe within their homes, businesses, and vehicles.

    (E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack.
    Looks like he should be safe from criminal prosecution. A civil suit is almost certain however.....

    This will also be a blow for the right to carry

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,678
    What has not been touched upon in this thread is whether the shooter shot the guy while he was being punched or after he was done and walking away. While it was indeed poor judgment on his part to go up to the guy's car and punch him, if he shot him after the attack, then it's murder. Shooting to prevent such an attack or while the attack is going on is justifiable under the law, but not after it's over. Does anyone have any information on that part of it?
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  10. #9
    AZSATT is right on the money. Both are/were fools. My sample situation was just that basically, someone yanks open your car door and jacks you in the head; I believe this, on the face of it, to be a serious self-defense situation. In this case, however, I thoroughly agree with AZSATT. And ANY person carrying concealed should a) not be starting or participating in these kind of pissing matches and/or b) should walk away, if possible.

    JJFlash

  11. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    What has not been touched upon in this thread is whether the shooter shot the guy while he was being punched or after he was done and walking away. While it was indeed poor judgment on his part to go up to the guy's car and punch him, if he shot him after the attack, then it's murder. Shooting to prevent such an attack or while the attack is going on is justifiable under the law, but not after it's over. Does anyone have any information on that part of it?
    According to what I can find the only one saying that the other fellow threw a punch was Miller who immediately took off out of there. Witnesses said they heard thme arguing and then a gunshot but noone saw any punches. In a case of "no retreat" such as this you cannot be a fault for starting the action which it appears that Miller may have been the agressor. Given that he was already out on bail for harassment it does not look good for him.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast