Another Case Of C & C Gone Wrong?

[Montana250]

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.

 

[JJFlash]

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

 

[FN1910]

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.

 

[c45man]

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.

 

[AZSATT]

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.

 

[FN1910]

Link Removed

Several stories linked here.

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

 

[Xader]

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

 

[tattedupboy]

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?

 

[JJFlash]

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

 

[FN1910]

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.

 

[SCbuckeye12]

Shooter was wrong on two counts. One, when your carrying a weapon, you avoid conflict not seek it. From the article it sounds as if he was the initial instigator of the incident. Second, he left the scene and never called 911. He should have immediately called 911 and stayed at the scene. Being the shooter he was suspect, leaving the scene made him a look guilty.

 

[takemine2]

Shooter was wrong on two counts. One, when your carrying a weapon, you avoid conflict not seek it. From the article it sounds as if he was the initial instigator of the incident. Second, he left the scene and never called 911. He should have immediately called 911 and stayed at the scene. Being the shooter he was suspect, leaving the scene made him a look guilty.

I agree 100%. According to the article, the shooter initiated the argument, therefore, he became the "Aggressor" in this case. Does not look good for him...

 

[marionandjohn]

So if I understand this right and I obviously dont have all the facts but it seems as though yall are saying that if you are carring then you cant speak your mind and tell some they are stupid/being dumb (maybe not in so nice of words) because then you become the aggressor if they wanna fight you for some words said? Just curious, let me spin off this with a what if and keep in mind in GA your vehicle is considered your personal property under the castle doctrine. Me being 5'7" 160 and Billy Bob (6'2" because that was used) is stopped at a green light, him being in front of me and I honk my horn, he then gets out, and being a man of considerable size, coming at me to "punch me in the face" I have no right to draw my weapon? I have to disagree and feel I have the right and even if miller did call the guy an idiot and tell him to move there was nothing that waranted a punch in the face if it were only words exchanged. As for leaving the scene he shouldnt have and doesnt FL have a civil protection in the castle doctrine? Again let me know if I am in left field or not. Another question is dont FL have a stand your ground law meaning you dont "have" to retreat first? It seems to me that the only crime here is fleeing the scene and possibly having the firearm. I know in GA you dont have to have a CC to have a loaded firearm in your vehicle, is FL the same way? If so no crime there either. This seems like Vigeant tried to be a big man and got put in his place. Im sorry for the family but seems he was in the wrong and is one reason I carry. I am also sorry for Miller who has to live with knowing he took another mans life, rough on the mind but easier then another coma.

 

[FN1910]

I have tried to read all the articles on this and most of the posted comments including those in several papers. There is much more to it than what most people are jumping on and making comparisions to. I may be all worng on this but it is what I have been able to find from my reading.

Mr. Vigeant left Summerville for a couple of days of golf with friends and got to Myrtle Beach late. He decided to stop by McDonalds instead of Hooters for something to eat.

While at the drive through Mr. Miller pulled up behind him.

For some unknown reason Miller becam impatient and started honking his horn and cussing at Vigeant.

Vigeant may have been cussing back a Miller. That may have been probable but I don't know and not really part of it.

Vigeant finally pulled up to allow Miller to go on through. I think Miller pulled up enough to either place or get his order. he may not have even pulled up any but he is still yelling and cussing at Vigeant.

From witnesses reports Vigeant gets out of his car and walks over to Miller's car.

Wintesses hearthem arguing, a gun shot, see Vigeant stagger back to his car and Miller peal out of the place via the route the Vigeant had left open for him at a very high rate of speed.

Cops are called and Vigeant is pronounced dead.

Cops notify Vigeant's wife of his death and tell her that he went over to Miller's car to tell him to calm down and ask what is his problem. They tell his wife that they have a suspect but have not arrested him.

Cops locate Miller and make arrest the next day.

Miller claims that Vigeant punched him in the face and was the reason that he shot him.

Miller's family claims that the reason that he shot him was because Miller had been beaten half to death several years ago after taking on several guys down at Boardwalk at the Beach.

Points to note:
In SC for Castle Doctrine or Stand Your ground you must meet four criteria:
You must be in a place where you have a right to be. (Miller had a right to be there but he was out on probation so I don't know if that removes his right to carry a firearm with or without a CWP or not)
You must be at no fault for starting the action. (Miller definitely started the altercation but only verbally. The rest is going to be up to a jury)
You must not be doing anything illegal. (Whether Miller was carrying a gun illegally I do not know)
The amount of force used must be in proportion. (This is still going to be for the jury.)

Additional Point:
The only one saying that Vigeant threw punches is Miller and that came out after the arrest. Until then there was no mention af any punches being thrown, just a bunch of yelling and cussing.

 

[marionandjohn]

Sorry but I meant SC not FL in the above comment. Even with what I have read it all says that Miller may have started the argument or not and I just know how I would react if some guy came to my car in anger (obviously I dont have all the facts and most of us dont). Even If miller was yelling at Vigeant Vigeant was the one that had the chance to leave before Miller did he prooved that by pulling out of his was and getting out of his car.

 

[6shootercarry]

I reside in Massachusetts. And with that typed if this incident had happened here there would be hell to pay.. Fox news would have a field day and the gun control folks would be ready to lynch someone and take away their firearms...We have castle doctrine law here as well, but there is no mention of vehicle occupants in the laws that I have read . I'll have to ask a few friends I have here in law enforcement what the rule is. I'm sure that the beating from the past was a factor in the thought process of the shooter, but still it's a tough sell. I do believe that anyone deservers the right to be safe and free from harassment and or physical threats while occupying a vehicle. I was not there to witness the events that preceded the shooting so speculation it is. It sounds like a case of two people who instead of keeping their cool and not escalating aggression and violence, decided to make many mistakes that ended in poor judgment and a deadly decision. I have found that with the right to carry a firearm a greater degree of patience and tolerance is required and in my case has brought to me greater restraint in making decisions regarding folks who have more attitude than brains.

 

[6shootercarry]

FN1910: If what you have written here is close to the truth, it sounds like Miller is in the wrong. The fact that he quickly left the scene is an indicator that he may have "felt like" what he had just done was wrong... Jury is going to have a tough time with this and will need good witnesses to state the facts...

 

[FN1910]

FN1910: If what you have written here is close to the truth, it sounds like Miller is in the wrong. The fact that he quickly left the scene is an indicator that he may have "felt like" what he had just done was wrong... Jury is going to have a tough time with this and will need good witnesses to state the facts...

I wrote it as close as I could determine from all of the articles I read. I totally agree that a jury is going to have a tough time with this one. Some of the articles were published before Miller was arrested so they give a different view on it than after when he gave his side of the story.

 

[vn6869]

Whether justified or not. It can very easily have turned into a BAD situation.
Not necessarily the parties involved, but innocent bystanders.
And most definitely ammo for the liberal media which report as they see things not the facts.

 

[6shootercarry]

Bad on all counts. It will be ammo for the liberals who would like noting more than to remove the 2nd amendment and all mention of the phrase "The right to keep and bear arms"... Like I wrote it's a case of two wrongs... Bad for the wife and kids who will come home from a vacation and not have a father or husband. Bad for a person who had been beaten close to death before and who will live with that nightmare playing in his head forever. Now it's going to be two nightmares playing in his head forever and lots of time to see both shows. That's never going to go away. I don't know the details, but if what the media reports had written regarding Miller being the instigator then this could be his wake-up call… Who knows that may have been the catalyst for the beating that he received some years ago maybe a history repeating kinda thing... I feel for the kids. That’s going to be a hard story to tell for the rest of your life…