Posted on 02/21/2012 8:54:11 PM PST by smokingfrog
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is probing the weekend shooting death of an Iraq war veteran in an armed standoff near Appling County’s Surrency community, Appling Sheriff Bennie DeLoach said.
Neighbors of James M. Dixon III, 31, called the Sheriff’s Office about 3:50 a.m. Sunday to say someone had fired a shot through their house, DeLoach said in a release.
Deputies went to Dixon’s house but decided for safety reasons to wait until daylight before confronting whoever fired the shot, DeLoach said.
As they waited, Dixon left the house and drove to his parents’ house about a half mile away on Holland Road Extension, Chief Deputy Lee J. Sweat Jr. said.
Deputies were not in position to stop Dixon but tried to stop him as he came back home, Sweat said.
“When he returned, he ran through a [partial] roadblock and we pursued him,’’ but Dixon made it back into his house, Sweat said.
The Georgia State Patrol SWAT team came to the scene and took over, and Dixon came outside the house just before 9 a.m. armed with a shotgun, DeLoach said.
When Dixon refused orders to put down the weapon, the SWAT team fired on him hitting him twice, Sweat said.
(Excerpt) Read more at jacksonville.com ...
Requiring someone to lay down on asphalt shouldn’t even be legal. That gets hot enough to cause injury.
Tranquilizers wouldn’t be as much fun as an mp5.
His last words were "we've known each other a long time" .....then BOOM! The guy shot him point blank.
That whole Andy Griffith Mayberry thing has great potential for catastrophic failure.
Just saying...
Cops have forgotten that hazarding their lives to protect innocents is part of the job. Instead, they resort to maximum force the moment their lives are at risk.
There was a swat case where a woman and girl were held into custody while their home was searched. The holding officer shot the dog. (you knew that was coming). Another officer paniced and sprayed the wall, killing one and wounding the other. There were no consequences because he was “into fear for his life”
I shouldn’t laugh at your picture, but I did. But that is the way they seem to see it, as a really good games of Call of Duty.
I know
But to me that was part of the job. Get it done and try not to hurt anyone.
But your right
Sometimes crap happens
>That whole Andy Griffith Mayberry thing has great potential for catastrophic failure.
>Just saying...
And, as this incident shows, this style of approach ALSO has potential for great failure... unless, that is, you are willing to discount the shedding of innocent blood as failure.
Jeeezzz,,, I can’t believe that service in Iraq doesn’t allow a guy to shoot his neighbors house, run through police roadblocks, and run grab a shotgun to confront cops with! They should have just let him do anything he pleased,, forever,, with no limits!
Glad this guy won’t be a menace anymore. Sad that it went this way, but the failure was long before this night. It was that he wasnt locked in a nuthouse.
He should have never been living on his own if he was so screwed up by ptsd that he cannot refrain from being a danger to the community.
Sounds like those cops gave him a lot of latitude,,, they waited till daylight instead of pushing the issue too fast,, they let him LEAVE. They let him return,, they let him into the house to retrieve his shotgun.
Although its sad that his life went that way, he gets no special latitude to go get a shotgun and go confront the cops. Anything the family says about his service might be true,,, the ptsd might be true,, but that just explains how he got there. It didn’t give him license,,
Lots of violent criminals were victims of horrifying abuse as small innocent children. It explains some things for us,,, but we never excuse what they did. Same for this kid, the neighbor has a right to not live in fear, no matter how honorable his service was.
This guy sounds like he should have been institutionalized. His own sister says he sometimes had hallucinations that he was actually IN Iraq.
Lots of vets have flashbacks,, but for most, its a whiff a diesel or jet exhaust that gives you that ‘oh yeah’ memory,, its the unexpected firework at Disneyland that makes you jump right out of your skin, or hit the deck,,and feel kinda embarrassed in front of people. But if that boy actually couldnt tell reality from delusion,,, and people knew it, he should have been an inpatient somewhere.
But i’m sure a lot of people will be blaming themselves for a long time.
You're right. In my town the tranquillizer darts would be used to obtain women for “dates.”
I don’t think there’s anybody who despises arrogant power-mad cops as much as I do – however – because I’m getting a little older and am starting to use my head for something other than a hat rack, I have to ask – there seems to be more to this story than is being told in the thread. 1) Did the man in any way point the weapon (shotgun) at any cop or bystander? 2) Did the man in any way endanger anyone? If he simply STOOD there on his own property holding the shotgun by his side or maybe even at port arms, what was the decision to shoot to kill (could not have been any other intention) based on? There’s gotta be more to this than the thread originally indicated. As much as I dislike police ignorance, I have a difficult time believing that this man was shot to death for simply standing in his yard holding a shotgun. Yeah, the OBEY thing is significant. But – what was the situation? DID HE THREATEN ANYBODY? I live way out in the boonies and routinely do yard work with a sidearm on me and a rifle close by - like on the truck seat. Barney is NOT going to disarm me if I am no threat to anybody. If I was crazy drunk shooting up passing cars, yeah - I could understand that. BUT - standing in my own yard HOLDING a shotgun?
It is interesting that you should phrase it this way; as it brings up a VERY important point.
The Second Amendment says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
(This version, with a single comma, is that which was ratified by the several states. See this and this.)
The intent of this is obvious: the government cannot disallow the right to keep and use (bear) arms, because that is deleterious to a free state. (The colloquial would be "the first step toward permanently institutionalizing tyranny.") So then the police, being agents of the State, must be included in those who are prohibited from infringing upon that right.
Given the above, a person simply carrying a weapon cannot be justification enough for the police to kill.
Furthermore, as the entire 2nd amendment would be worse than useless if there was an obligation for the citizen to obey any/all orders given by an officer of the state, the failure to obey [police] commands also cannot be held to justify the use of lethal force by agents of the state.
Anything the family says about his service might be true,,, the ptsd might be true,, but that just explains how he got there. It didn’t give him license,,
No, but this leads to the question of "a free state," for it is undoubtedly a free state's militia to which the 2nd Amendment applies. (The actuality is much more broad, as the right is guaranteed to 'the people' not the militia, that is another topic, however, and irrelevant to this case because it must needs be a superset of the militia.)
So, is it a free state when a police officer can shoot someone for a) possessing a weapon, and b) refusing to obey their orders, while c) not in the commission of an actual crime?
Lots of violent criminals were victims of horrifying abuse as small innocent children. It explains some things for us,,, but we never excuse what they did. Same for this kid, the neighbor has a right to not live in fear, no matter how honorable his service was.
Irrelevant; this man was shot not for something that he did, but for something he did not do; to wit: he refused to be [illegally] disarmed.
This guy sounds like he should have been institutionalized.
Perhaps, but that is actually tangential to the actual shooting; the reason I say this is that the government is prohibited from ending someone's life without due process (the 5th amendment). That he was not actually in an institution is irrelevant to the issue, which is that the police were acting contrary to the Constitution. Even if there are laws they may have been acting under, those laws should provide no protection for them BECAUSE their actions were so contrary to the Constitution.
But i’m sure a lot of people will be blaming themselves for a long time.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It is amazing what one can rationalize.
I would say the opposite, that 'failure to obey' is insignificant; see my post 33.
I have to ask – there seems to be more to this story than is being told in the thread. 1) Did the man in any way point the weapon (shotgun) at any cop or bystander? 2) Did the man in any way endanger anyone? [...] what was the decision to shoot to kill (could not have been any other intention) based on? [...] 3) DID HE THREATEN ANYBODY?
Those are good questions, and as the article did not say otherwise I assume the answers to be: 1) No. 2) No. 3) No.
Why?
Because a story like this would be much more sensational if any of those were 'yes,' given the political/media stance on returning veterans.
yeah, a shotty is lethal, but I doubt the po-po shoulda been so skeered, being as tho they had numbers and ranged weapons, and the will to use em...
You are correct - the FAILURE to “OBEY” is the thing.
The story is thin on details, but it sounds like the cops bungled the whole thing from start to finish.
You seem to be forgetting that the LEO were called to the scene because a round had been sent through the neighbor’s house and he was apparently believed to be the shooter.
That is an indication that he was a danger and his further refusal to engage in a reasonable conversation regarding the event, but instead get a weapon indicates that he is a danger times 2.
Dixon was known to be 100% disabled and suffering from advanced PTSD. They killed him when they turned the scene over to SWAT. He needed psychiatric care, not gunfire. The Army failed him. The V.A. failed him. His community that he fought for and became disabled as a consequence of his combat failed him.
Dixon was a mess. He was a mess because of what “we” asked him to do.
In which case, the Sheriff still did the Right Thing, and the Criminal unquestionably did the wrong thing.
We don’t need law enforcement officers who have have the same amount of regard for the law-abiding citizen as the average criminal.
We need peace officers who are willing to keep the peace—even at the cost of their own lives.
Peace officers who lose their lives making a reasonable effort to keep the peace die a hero’s death.
LEOs who shoot others on the flimsiest of excuses live a coward’s life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.