Acting Coroner Argues Self Defense

[Kennedy 0]

http://www.indystar.com/articles/3/148638-3803-127.html

Quote

INDIANAPOLIS -- A pizza delivery driver who fatally shot a man he said brandished a gun and tried to rob him may have fired many of the shots after his alleged assailant fell to the ground, preliminary autopsy results showed.

Ronald B. Honeycutt, 38, of Carmel shot Jerome Brown-Dancler, 20, Monday, police said.

Honeycutt said he was returning to his van after making a delivery at an apartment on the city's far east side when he heard someone say "Hey, my guy" and turned to see a man approaching with a gun.

He said he pulled out his 9 mm pistol and fired all 15 rounds at close range.

John Linehan, acting chief deputy for the Marion County Coroner, said Friday that Dr. Stephen Radentz has completed his autopsy and was reviewing his notes before submitting findings to prosecutors.

Roger Rayl, a spokesman for Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, said officials were waiting on more information, which he would not specify, before deciding whether to file charges.

Honeycutt, who has been fired from his job with Pizza Hut because he was carrying a gun, told the Indianapolis Star that he continued to fire his gun because Brown-Dancler stood there, and he could not tell whether the bullets striking him.

Linehan disputed the claim.

"There's no way someone could be standing up after being shot so many times," he said.

He said the angles of entry wounds indicated to examiners that Honeycutt fired some of his shots after Brown-Dancler had fallen.

Honeycutt told the Star for a Saturday story that the bullets entered Brown-Dancler's body at a downward angle because he was standing on the floorboard of his van when he fired.

He said he was disappointed that the coroner had reached a different conclusion.

"I thought that in this world in this day and age they would be able to figure this out," he said. "That is their opinion, but they are wrong."

Shaunika Jackson, Brown-Dancler's sister, said she believed Honeycutt deliberately set out to kill her brother.

"It isn't fair that he is at home with his family and my brother is in a coffin," Jackson said.

Brown-Dancler's mother, Esther Birden-Jones, said she hoped that the new information leads to Honeycutt's arrest and conviction.

"Then at least my son would not have died in vain, and it wouldn't be like no one cares," she said.

This coroner doesn't know WTF he's talking about. There are plenty of recorded instances where a perp or enemy combatant has taken 9mm slugs and kept going.

The article says the delivery guy, Honeycutt, fired 15 rounds. It doesn't say how many hit the perp. Even if all fifteen hit, it's possible to keep going. Adrenaline, possible drugs, etc. make it possible to keep moving even when mortally wounded.

Honeycutt was following a basic tenet of self defense with a firearm: (one that police follow as well) - once you decide to fire, keep firing until the threat is neutralized or until you are out of cartridges.

Close up defensive firing can cause all sorts of entry angles because the target moves and the firearm is not aimed in conventional ways.

To the sister: Honeycutt didn't set out to kill anyone; he defended himself. Also, it is fair that Honeycutt is home and your brother isn't - Honeycutt wasn't the one committing armed robbery.

To the mother: your son did die in vain, because he was committing a felony.

Quote

If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended
victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police,
and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he
must be taught to fear is his victim.

-- Jeff Cooper

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[RoadRash 0]

First of all, this article does not contain all the necessary information to make any real conclusions...but I will chalk that up to poor reporting...here is my question(s)...

I can't understand why they would mention that 15 rounds were shot, but not how many were removed...or found in the body or around the body...etc.?...Other than what was stated, which isn't much, what other evidence is present that would lead to the coroners conclusions? I'm also still a bit curious about the entry wounds and how the coroner reached his conclusions in the first place...

~R+R......

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

"There's no way someone could be standing up after being shot so many times,"

Bollocks!

[Skyrad 0]

Kennedy, In relation to the picture you posted, if the criminal doesn't know if you're the person carrying a weapon or not does't that raise the chances of them shooting you first and checking afterwards?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Kennedy, In relation to the picture you posted, if the criminal doesn't know if you're the person carrying a weapon or not does't that raise the chances of them shooting you first and checking afterwards?

I'm pretty sure that he meant that they might be more hesitant to attack someone who “might” be armed. You just never know. Where I live, it's usually assumed that a person probably has a weapon of some sort. It kind of works as a deterrent. The good guys “will” fight back.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

It kind of works as a deterrent. The good guys “will” fight back.

Agreed. I think it's generally accepted that criminals prey on the weak. If they're no longer sure who is and isn't one of the weak, well, that sort of changes things. We'll never eliminate crime, but if criminals aren't sure who will and who won't shoot back, we might make a dent in violent crime - we'll probably trade it for property crimes, but really, that's OK in my book.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

In relation to the picture you posted, if the criminal doesn't know if you're the person carrying a weapon or not does't that raise the chances of them shooting you first and checking afterwards?

Well gee, of course, I forgot every petty thug and burglar is really a seething homicidal maniac, willing to have a shootout with thier victims, and will kill you for possibly being armed.

In states that have concealed carry, not only have violent crime rates dropped, and not only faster than the national average, but deaths and gun violence have gone down in relation to the state crime rate. The conclusion to be drawn from this: criminals are less likely to shoot, first or otherwise.

It's really very simple. When targets are likely to be armed, criminals will either leave the area or move to crimes where they never confront the human element. This is born out in RTC states, and the opposite is true in places where ownership is banned (Aus, for one - where do you think the term home invasion was coined?)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Luv2Fall 0]

Unarmed citizens make the best target/subjects.

[WrongWay 0]

Call me a cold hearted insensitive bastard, but I completely agree with you. If somebody comes at you with a gun, the situation is very clear that it's THEM or YOU.

It takes a lot of guts/stupidity/desperation/lack of human decency to point a gun at someone and rob them. Frankly, if the guy was crazy enough to do such a thing, then it was right that he was put down in self defense. Not only should they drop all charges, but this guy deserves a pat on the back for doing the right thing.

I'm not in the military, but I hear they give medals for this kind of stuff.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[Kennedy 0]

OK. You're a cold hearted insensitive bastard.

Now join the club, the first round is on me. cheers!

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

It's really very simple. When targets are likely to be armed, criminals will either leave the area or move to crimes where they never confront the human element. This is born out in RTC states, and the opposite is true in places where ownership is banned (Aus, for one - where do you think the term home invasion was coined?)

You make that sound as though Home invasions are the primary crime in Oz. They are not and violent crime in Oz is still way lower than in the states

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

• Quote

[Kennedy 0]

Well, seeing as the Aussie murder rate is approaching ours, their violent crime rate is rising, and their property crime is above ours, there is one more important fact: the crime rates in America are, and have been, dropping for many years now.

So we're fixing our problem. What are Aussie rates doing again? Yeah, that's what I thought.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[akarunway 1]

Kennedy, In relation to the picture you posted, if the criminal doesn't know if you're the person carrying a weapon or not does't that raise the chances of them shooting you first and checking afterwards------------------------------------------------------------------------Thats why you pack, stay aware, and shoot first

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Tonto 1]

Quote

told the Indianapolis Star that he continued to fire his gun because Brown-Dancler stood there, and he could not tell whether the bullets striking him.

That's what I felt when I was shooting at people. I'd always trained to double tap, but when confronted by 3 shooting assailants at maybe 6 feet, and with no cover, I elected to fire only one shot and move to the next target. (Better to hit 3 once, than fire 3 accurate shots and get nailed by assailant No 3 logic) As the range was SO close I was PDS I'd hit when I moved on to target 2, but saw no sign of bullet impact. same as I moved to target 3, but he was already turned through 90 degrees and I didn't want to shoot a running man. (legal issues here)

As I realigned on targets 1 and 2 I saw they were going down. Both my shots were fired in maybe half a second. (It's only a .22 after all - not much recoil)

The 3 assailants had fired 18 shots, one of which had hit a guy in the upper arm, penetrated his torso, trashed a lung and turned south to nail half his liver. He was in intensive care for 2 weeks, but survived.

I think movies condition us to see major damage when we shoot someone. Truth is, they just seem to go down, like a puppet without strings at least with a minor calibre like .22.

If I'd been in the same situation as this dude, one assailant only, I'd have kept shooting till he was done, or I was done - or out of ammo, whichever came first.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Kennedy, In relation to the picture you posted, if the criminal doesn't know if you're the person carrying a weapon or not does't that raise the chances of them shooting you first and checking afterwards?

If that were the case -- if criminals were modifying their techniques to preemptively shoot and kill those who might be armed -- we would have seen that kind of thing increase tremendously in recent years, given that 37 states now allow concealed carry of firearms for self defense.

The fact is, this "preemptive strike" theory has not materialized... much like the liberal-predicted bloodbath over traffic altercations and parking spaces did not materialize once concealed carry got a foothold.

Skyrad, why do you ask questions that taking a look at the reality around us could answer? CCW has been around since the late '80s. The premise suggested in Kennedy's picture is not new. Surely if what you're concerned about was going to manifest itself, it would have long before now.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"