Victim of shooting takes gun and shoots and kills gunowner.

Grand jury to decide charges in deadly shooting case. Written by Tim AdkinsThe Ashland City Times 11:03 AM, Jun. 28, 2011| A Cheatham County grand jury will decide if charges will be filed against an Ashland City resident who shot and killed a man last week in the Owen Place Shopping Center. Assistant district attorney Bob Wilson said the case will be presented to the grand jury in August............
Shannon Scott Paul, 40, and Ryan Neal Dickens, 34, were traveling on Highway 12 when they pulled their trucks into the parking lot. Police Chief Coulon said Paul pulled up next to Dickens, and the two men started arguing. Dickens then allegedly punched Paul.................
Paul, who had a valid gun permit, then shot Dickens in the jaw and leg, according to Coulon. The chief said Dickens took the gun away from Paul, who then made his way into Don Pancho Mexican Restaurant. Coulon said Dickens followed Paul into the restaurant, and the two men went into the dining area and bar before heading back outside in front of the restaurant. Dickens allegedly shot Paul twice in the chest. http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110629/ASHLANDCITY01/110628021/Grand-jury-decide-charges-deadly-shooting-case
Sounds like a (concealed weapons?) gun owner shot a guy, had his gun taken away from him, and then was shot & killed with his own gun by the guy he’d just shot, twice.
Sometimes even having and using a firearm for self defense can get you killed.

Yeah, they are law abiding alright....right up until they aren't!!!!

Hopefully this case along with the others, will serve to show that gun carry permittees are
not as "law-abiding" as the NRA crowd would have us believe.

As the story is written, it sounds like a failed attempt to use a firearm in self-defense. It's tragic, but not unheard of.

Based on the sketchy details, and without blaming the apparent victim, it sounds as though he made two mistakes: engaging in a pointless argument while carrying, and failing to ensure that his assailant was truly stopped when the need for self-defense arose...

But he had a gun, and had probably invested a lot of time training to shoot someone, so why not shoot the guy when a chance arose. People need to leave the dang things at home where they can do just about whatever they want to with the dang things.

and none of the evidence or witnesses have been cross examined under oath, I would say neither you or I am qualified to make a judgement. But then, I get the feeling that you would point at a woman who shot a rapist and claim, "she wore that dress hoping to blow someone away."

Having fun with the wild speculation? OK, let's try another: perhaps he hadn't invested enough time training, and was therefore unable to successfully defend himself when the need arose. You know, like shooting those silhouette targets that help train you for the off-chance that you might be assaulted by someone who doesn't look like this?

Given that Paul and Dickens must have been at very close quarters--within punching distance--I could understand if Paul wasn't quite able to put his shots neatly into Dickens' center of mass. But to have them strike the target at opposite ends of the torso does not speak well of Paul's shooting skills.

Do you have any basis for this conjecture except your over-active imagination? Anyone who's put even a modicum of effort into learning about self-defense with firearms knows that even a shooting that was unequivocally justified is going to come with a serious amount of attendant hassle: you're going to be at least detained by the police while they try to establish what happened, you may have to live through some uncertainty of whether the local prosecutor is going to indict you (and even more if he does, not ot mention incurring legal expenses etc.), and that's assuming you're cold-blooded enough that fatally shooting another human being isn't going to affect you psychologically. With all these risks in mind, who in his right mind would even draw, let alone aim and discharge, his firearm unless he genuinely felt it was necessary?

This is why "shall issue without training or vetting" CCW is such a stupid idea

Any idiot can get a permit and shit like this happens

yup

you are assuming facts not in evidence

Yeah, they are law abiding alright....right up until they aren't!!!! How closely did you read the article? What crime did he commit? He is the dead guy. He fired in self defense.

Based on the police press release, before any grand jury decides if it is worth prosecuting, the gun owner was attacked. We only have the police speculation have no idea how much is based on third party witnesses and how much is based on defendant's statement.



There is nothing to say because no one knows the chain of events, other than the defendant. Wake me up when there are facts to talk about and not police speculation.

and go from broken nose to a couple of bullets in the chest.

Best options would be to run or stay down when hit.

Well, since none of us were there, all we have is a vague press release, and none of the evidence or witnesses have been cross examined under oath, I would say neither you or I am qualified to make a judgement.

In other words, you are arguing facts not in evidence. You don't get what evidence there is right, the bullets went through the jaw and leg. As an ADA, you should know better than to make assumptions based on little to no evidence. For all we know, maybe he did stay down and it seemed that the attack would continue, maybe there are size differences, maybe there was no way to retreat?

That is one of the problems I have with duty to retreat. It opens the door to malicious prosecution. Someone who was not there or has an ax to grind, would try to prosecute the defender for political or philosophical reasons.

truck. I ignore enraged drivers and would never exit my car or truck. I would never shoot a single unarmed man. I would take an ass kicking first. With what little info we have, I'd still bet you dollars to donuts that he would be alive today if he hadn't drawn his weapon, or was not armed.
To be fair, we should wait for more info. My guess is that the license holder fucked up. If proven other wise, I'd be very surprised.

Can't say I feel bad for Mr. Dead guy, but then I'm biased as I've always had a problem with those who think the appropriate response to being punched in the face is to shoot and kill the other person.

Bottom line is we can speculate back and for all we want, but if this was actually an incident were the the gun owner felt he might be heading into a situation where lethal force was going to be necessary, perhaps he should have never got out of his truck in the first place.

As a CCW permit holder, aren't you obligated to avoid trouble?

Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

If you mean that one should not deliberately create, prolong or escalate volatile situations, then yes, you do have that responsibility. But you have no obligation to "avoid trouble" that is not at least partly of your own making.

I do not make judgments.



Maybe, but I am not making any such bet based on speculation, and the cop was mostly speculating. In my experience, you would not have taken the ass beating. Like antis who get guns and CCWs for them or are rich enough to hire body guards and do, you would have shot him.

As the story is written, the gun-owner was assaulted; we have no reason to doubt that he legitimately feared for his safety. But he should have finished what he started...

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.

...to avoid hurting your aggressor's feelings.

A dozen such cases would still be statistically insignificant. Tragic, yes, but not statistically significant.

It's impossible to tell who was "law-abiding" here, if anyone. It still could turn out to be a case of failed self-defense. But don't let that stop you from leaping to conclusions.

Both states publish websites where they list the total number of permitees vs, the subset of said permitees that have had their

permits revoked for cause. ISTR that the permitees of those states not only had a lower crime rate than the public as a whole,

they had a crime rate lower than cops.


You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Most groups do. Like having a lower rate of child molestation than preachers.

for 3 years, I changed my opinion about the honesty of many of them. Many, not all, there are plenty of fine LEOs, feel they are above the law and it does not apply to them. So, I really have to laugh when someone says a group of people have a lower crime rate than cops.

No human is perfect. When you achieve perfection let us know how you did it. Until then your post was sanctimonious bullshit.

Have you ever wrecked a car? Dinged a fender? Gotten a ticket? Do you have a drivers license? That license merely shows that you are reasonably safe to drive a car because of your previous record of safety. It does nothing to guarantee you will never fuck up on the road. Every civil certification works the same way.

You are confusing the term "citizen" with the term "consumer". The government doesn't owe you a bubble of peace, tranquility and good karma. The best it can do is help you get along with others around you by establishing a small measure of common ground and predictability. You have to do the actual work of getting along with others. Get to work on it.

community college, it might help with your critical thinking skills when it comes to understanding how statistics are derived..

Hopefully this case along with the others, will serve to show that gun carry permittees are
not as "law-abiding" as the NRA crowd would have us believe.

:eyes:

"Coulon said he be­lieves the argu­ment might have started at an­oth­er location."

http://www.ongo.com/v/1204096/-1/4D402450EC525755/one-dead-one-injured-in-shooting

From the Tennessean article:
So if "the argument ... started at another location," it means Dickens followed Paul from that location to Owen Place, with the apparent intention of assaulting him.

could Paul have been dumb enough to follow him there? Assuming it started someplace else.

...more than anything else, what is "punch_in_the_face_on_a_cold_morning" obvious is the utter dearth of useful journalists.

yup

dude could be home punching holes in paper right now enjoying life....other dude could be home drinking beer. Sad these two goons had to get a gun involved in their dispute.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

From descriptions in various articles, it looks like Dickens (they guy who punched first) may have followed Paul (the deceased) from another location. Now, if somebody follows you some distance and then displays an intention to physically harm you, I'd say you were justified in fearing that you would suffer permanent injury, possibly even death.

So far I haven't encountered any drivers that nasty yet...but as an armed citizen I take no chances of being caught unarmed.


Hell I even carry my LCP on my evening bike rides...of course I also carry a light just in case something happens and it should turn dark before I return. And extra pound total doesn't seem to hurt my times that much.

pulled up next to the other guy, who had an appointment in the complex. That suggests there was an opportunity to drive away (speculating from limited information, of course)...

Okay, that rather alters the situation. It's extremely unwise to seek confrontation when you're carrying.

At Firearms Academy of Seattle, Marty showed the "Ultimate Survivors" video by Calibre Press. The Steve Chaney incident is the one that sticks in the head of most people.

Short story: 1977, Baton Rouge Police Officers Steve Chaney and Linda Lawrence respond to a disturbance call. The BG they encounter attacks them. BG tries to get Chaney's gun. Lawrence shoots BG once. BG grabs Lawrence's gun and kills her with it. Chaney and BG continues struggling and fighting, and Chaney ultimately kills the BG with about 10 or 11 shots, including one to the head.

The sad lesson learned was that a gun is not a talisman. If you NEED to shoot someone to stay alive, you shoot until the threat subsides. That appears to the be the lesson in Cheatham County today. The person with the gun didn't shoot until the threat ended.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/7964-police-officer-linda-a-lawrence
http://articles.philly.com/1991-08-22/entertainment/25806826_1_shotgun-blast-law-officers-shootings

For some reason, the late Mr. Paul was unable or unwilling to keep shooting. If the two were in punching distance of each other, it's possible Dickens was able to wrest the weapon away, thereby making it physically impossible for Paul to continue shooting. It's also possible that Paul wasn't fully convinced that the threat to him merited shooting and possibly killing Dickens (though I'm inclined to think it did) and hesitated after the first two shots, thus giving Dickens the opportunity to wrest the gun away. With Mr. Paul dead, we'll never know.

is the gun OK? That's the important part!

Some thug violating CURRENT LAWS against gun possession will murder someone who is DEFENSELESS. That should should be "OK" in your book.

When Troy Brake was convicted of killing four people, authorities threw the book at him. They took his freedom. They took his gun.
But did they take his license to carry a concealed weapon? http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/ready_aim_misfire_analysis_fin.html

But when specifically asked if Brake, serving life in prison, had his license revoked, Clerk Laurel Breuker declined comment. License holders’ identities are secret under state law — although Brake’s permit was widely publicized by authorities.

...and assuming the facts as presented by Chief Coulon were accurate, I would totally be voting that Dickens be charged with second-degree murder, if not first-degree. If Dickens didn't actually shoot Paul until he'd chased him into and out of the Mexican restaurant after already having gained control of the gun, Dickens cannot credibly claim he was responding to any perceived threat on Paul's part, or that Paul's death was the result of anything but willful and deliberate intent to inflict lethal injury. You can't chase a guy through a restaurant, then put two rounds center of mass and claim you didn't mean to kill him.