Murder charges dropped in stabbing of surfer
Dobson
Previous stories
Questions linger in surfer's death published 08/24/08
19-year-old charged with murder, assault says his home was invaded published 07/04/08
Prosecutors on Tuesday dropped murder and assault charges against a James Island man who fatally stabbed a popular local surfer and wounded two others in a bloody confrontation at his home in July.
Solicitor Scarlett Wilson said witness statements and other evidence led prosecutors to conclude that 19-year-old Charles Richard Dobson Jr. acted in self-defense when he fatally stabbed Craig Massey on July 2.
Massey, 20, entered Dobson's Teal Marsh Road home without invitation and attacked Dobson, Wilson said.
"The defendant, Mr. Dobson, was at home minding his own business when the victim came in and began assaulting him and others in the house," she said. "Even witnesses who are friendly and sympathetic to (Massey), even in their stories he was the aggressor."
Wilson wouldn't get into what brought Massey to Dobson's home that night, saying that was irrelevant to the legal issues at hand.
Others involved in the case have suggested that a romantic triangle lay at the heart of the dispute. Massey and Dobson had dated a young woman who also was wounded at the home that night, and one participant claims that Massey entered Dobson's house only after being taunted about his girlfriend, the man's lawyer said.
The case was scheduled for a preliminary hearing Tuesday to determine whether there was sufficient probable cause to bring the matter to trial. Instead, the hearing was canceled and the charges dismissed.
Andy Savage, one of Dobson's lawyers, said the Solicitor's Office made the right call, much to the relief of Dobson and his family. "We're certainly not surprised by the action taken by the solicitor, which we think was appropriate."
Massey's friends were clearly disappointed by the outcome. They have harbored doubts about Dobson's claims, maintaining that Massey was known as a friendly, outgoing guy with a passion for surfing and an easy-going manner.
"It's very disappointing, and I don't think it's right that (Dobson) was let off with no accountability at all," said Nancy Hussey, a friend of Massey and director of the Eastern Surfing Association. "This whole thing is just really sad. It's such a tragedy."
Massey went to Dobson's home on July 2 accompanied by his friend, 21-year-old Travis Barrow. Massey apparently wanted to retrieve something from the car of his girlfriend, 19-year-old Mary Whilden Hills. She was inside the house with Dobson, a former boyfriend, lawyers involved in the case have said.
Massey reportedly walked inside and went after Dobson, Wilson said. He threw the first punch and ignored Dobson's pleas for him to leave, striking Dobson and two others in the room. Dobson then pulled out a 4-inch pocket knife to defend himself and stabbed Massey, Wilson said.
Hills and Barrow also were wounded during the close-quarters confrontation, authorities said.
Wilson said witness accounts varied as to whether Barrow struck anyone during the episode. "He was part of the fight, and at various points he was trying to keep Dobson's friends away so Massey could have a one-on-one with Dobson," she said.
Alan Tanenbaum, Barrow's lawyer, said Barrow only tried to separate the combatants and displayed no aggression. Barrow maintains that he and Massey went to the home with innocent intentions and only went in after Hills responded to them from inside, he said.
"Mr. Barrow believes the altercation between Dobson and Massey was brought about and provoked by the repeated taunts which were directed at Massey by one or more of the individuals inside regarding Hills," Tanenbaum said.
Dobson's attorneys had pledged to mount a defense rooted in the "Castle Doctrine," which outlines a person's right to use deadly force to defend himself from violent intruders to his home.
Wilson said the Castle Doctrine clearly applied in this case, as did the principle of self-defense. Once Dobson was under attack and feared he would be killed or injured, he had a right to defend himself as he did, she said.
Wilson also pointed out that Massey was bigger and stronger than Dobson. Police records show that Massey was 4 inches taller and 25 pounds heavier than Dobson.
"It's a real shame that it escalated the way it did," Wilson said. "But our law says that Dobson didn't have to wait for Massey to get the drop on him."
The Charleston County Sheriff's Office investigated the case and filed the charges against Dobson. Sheriff's Maj. John Clark said investigators take no issue with Wilson's decision.
"The Sheriff's Office made charges they felt were appropriate at the time, and if the Solicitor's Office feels there is not enough to move forward, then we can only go with what the solicitor decides," Clark said.
Dobson has been living in Virginia with his sister while awaiting trial. Savage said he would recommend that Dobson stay there until emotions surrounding the case have had a chance to calm down. "There has been enough harm already," he said.
Reach Glenn Smith at gsmith@postandcourier.com or 937-5556.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
In the previous story I felt there wasnt enough information.
Now, more details do support this being the correct decision. It sounds like Massey was normally a mellow guy, but the fact that the girl he was dating was inside this other guy's house made him do some uncharacteristic things.
Still, I wonder:
-Who else besides Dobson and Hill were in the house?
-What were Dobson's friends doing during all this?
-Was the door locked? If so, how did Massey and his friend get in?
-Did the fight actually occur inside the Dobson home?
Hills seems like the problem here, to be honest. But, I only know what I'm reading. No doubt there's more to it.
September 3, 2008 at 3:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
It sounds like Massey WAS "invited" or "lured" into the house, so to speak, using the taunts as bait.
It sounds like it is likely that after Massey & Barrow arrived, the situation was set up so Dobson could do what he did. From what I've seen & heard, it is likely Dobson wanted that confrontation. It also does not sound like he was just "minding his own business".
Can one lure someone into an altercation & then claim self defense & castle doctrine because it occurred in one's house?
Is that a type of case to which the castle doctrine was intended to apply?
I also wonder if Dobson was under the influence of anything. That info is absent. Was that aspect even looked at?
Reference to the size discrepancy between Dobson & Massey appears as grasping at straws while defending the decision to drop charges. One was tall & skinnier, the other short & stockier. Often a short stockier individual, such as Dobson, is stronger than someone taller. Height along with an extra 25 lbs. has little to do with strength.
Wasn't Andy Savage one of Wilson's biggest defense lawyer supporters?
Many of her supporters here made such a big deal about all the defense lawyer support her opponent had, insinuating that would influence his decisions. But, of course, SHE is above that sort of thing, right?
As I recall, Wilson also recently dropped another case using castle doctrine as the reason(the stephaniem case). The defense lawyer in that case was a former state prosecutor colleague.
It seems to me that if the castle doctrine truly applies in both of these cases, then it would have been pretty obvious from the get go.
I have to wonder why Dobson & Morosi, in these 2 separate cases, were arrested for MURDER in the 1st place.
September 3, 2008 at 6:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hawks10 (anonymous) says...
James Island finest! Rich pricks got what they deserved.
September 3, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
It is pretty interesting that some here who do not believe the right decision was reached in the Morosi case believe that the right decision was made in this case.
I absolutely want to be able to defend myself in my home against an aggressor.
However there are many circumstances under which the castle doctrine should not & does not apply.
September 3, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
abitskeptical - It's an over-simplification, but useful all the same, to quote the old "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" line in answer to your question about luring someone into an altercation.
If Massey turned an argument into a fight by getting physical first and, assuming he was in fact not invited in, then I think it's the right decision. I would still like answers to my questions above though to understand the situation better.
Massey being taller and heavier does fall into Dobson's favor. Being shorter and ligher, while not always a handicap, is certainly no advantage in a fight. Typically, the bigger person is assumed to have the advantage.
September 3, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tayloriam (anonymous) says...
wpc3iop: weren't you the one last night when the story first broke who apologized for your blog being so insensitive? You just can't help it, can you? "... got what he deserved, plain and simple." Amazing.
September 3, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
luckylady (anonymous) says...
I for one find this most annoying. You men out there have to stop letting women have some strange hold on your emotions. We are women, not property to fight over. I do not feel that the girlfriend is to blame at all unless she had something to do with stirring up the trouble. Just because she is with someone else is no reason to fight. Women can date whoever they so choose as well as men can too. The relationship might end badly but the end is just that - the end, finished, done, over and out. Put a period behind the relationship and move on!
Don't get me wrong - I adore men but I hate seeing men (or women) feel so angry AFTER a break-up they feel the need to fight, especially since the girl here had apparently moved on.
With that said - I too feel this was the right decision based on what I read.
Now I know I am going to get a verbal lashing from some of you out there but I felt I needed to say what I said.
September 3, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crankyyankee (anonymous) says...
I love Jerry Springer's show!
September 3, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tayloriam (anonymous) says...
abitskeptical: I think your comments are right on the money. It sounds like you've thought about this case a lot, as have my family and I.From what I understand, Massey and Barrow went to the house to get something from Mary Whilden's car. When the door was opened, they asked for her and were told, "She's busy, come back in a little while." When she heard them talking, she said Craig's name (not hollering it or anything, just like, "Craig?") and then the boys went went in.
Hawks10: Who are you referring to as James Island's Finest? Surely, not Dobson??
September 3, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mate0115 (anonymous) says...
ok so say someone comes in my house who i dont like im just going to kill them. you really want to know what happened that night ask his friends not the loser who stabed craig how many times in his chest knowing he was killing him. and what about the other two peolpe that were stabbed? i mean the girl was stabbed too did she "break in" and did dobson have to defend himself from her? dobson should be in jail becoming an inmates boytoy,
craig was and still is loved by james island and folly beach and as for dobson james island and folly beach does not welcome him
September 3, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tayloriam (anonymous) says...
mate0115: I second that.
September 3, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Larz13 (anonymous) says...
To Mr. Massey:
Enjoy the tennis elbow.
All of these folks appear to be a bunch of rednecks. Dobson looks like a female (sorry ladies).
September 3, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tayloriam (anonymous) says...
Larz13: I don't get it. What does your blog mean?
September 3, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannyofseven_2 (anonymous) says...
Ok this has nothing to do with this, but someone who lets say is not pleased with me, just said they were going to have an APB on me. Now I know the real one stands for all points bulletin, but what is the slang for it and should I be worried yes the person know me.
September 3, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nikkiP (anonymous) says...
So someone taunting you gives you the right to fight them? Not exactly, and it's definitely not something that will hold up in court.
By the age of 19 or 20, most people should know how to control themselves by then. I'm sure we've all been in a situation where someone was provoking us but we had the sense not to act. because if you do, you might end up like Massey.
On the other hand, some of the kids do seem pretty immature. That might fighting over a girl is something that should have stopped in high school.
September 3, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
willie08 (anonymous) says...
Wow, it sounds like a very complicated story.
Legally speaking, it was self defense.
However, unless I am by myself with this person, I would not have pulled out a deadly weapon to fight him off.
He didn't have to kill him. When someone punches you, they're not trying to kill you.
Someone should have just called the police.
Stupid kids.
September 3, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
number1volsfan1 (anonymous) says...
Someone taunting you resulting in a fight is called mutual combat. If the same thing happens in your home (especially if the assailant is uninvited), it is called defense of person and property.
September 3, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
Willie - if it was on the street or in a bar, I bet the law would have seen this differently. But "Castle Doctrine" says that deadly force is a legitimate response to the threat of death or serious bodily harm from a violent intruder in your house.
September 3, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
number1volsfan1 (anonymous) says...
http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2...
September 3, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
Correct. Trespassing alone is not a reason for deadly force. You have to demonstrate hostility / violence by your actions, not just be there.
September 3, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
What are you trying to say granny... did someone threaten you and used that term?
September 3, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
CB, I second your comment on the Morosi case. Her word was the only defense. There were witnesses, supposedly friends of Mr. Massey, who claimed he was in the wrong.
Morosi also let her accused attacker into her home under her own free will. Unfortunately, a dead man can't tell his side of the story.
I do have a couple of questions concerning this case.
Were drugs and/or alcohol involved?
What did Ms. Hills have to say about what took place?
I had figured that if this case went to trial the girl's testimony would be a key factor in determining Dobson's guilt or innocence. It sounds like if she was wounded also, then she must have gotten into the middle of the fray.
There are still too many unanswered questions all around.
September 3, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
number1volsfan1 (anonymous) says...
" who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred"
Cid95
The above paragraph was taken from the SC Code authorizing deadly force in one's home. Unlawful and forcible entry is alone enough to justify the use of deadly force. We no longer are required to ascertain the intentions of the intruder. Assumption of intent is on the home owner's side.
September 3, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AAJI (anonymous) says...
under the law, charles dobson's actions are deemed appropiate. case closed. from the facts as ive read them though deadly force was not needed. the understatement is that this was a very unfortunate event. one young man lost his life & the other ,if he continues to mature and grow as a "normal" adult would, will most likely be haunted by these events for the rest of his life.
ps... anyone who takes, has to take, or talks about taking someones else's life and never once feel remorse or second guess their actions is either a stone cold killer or completely kidding themselves...
September 3, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannyofseven_2 (anonymous) says...
yes Jeff they did
September 3, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Best I can find out it can mean "someone will be "on the look out" for you...
September 3, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannyofseven_2 (anonymous) says...
Thank you Jeff
September 3, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JINeighbor (anonymous) says...
AWFUL!! Well, thank you for reiterating for us that some kids clearly are allowed to get away with MURDER. I am sure this kid has spent his whole life getting away with crap, well thank you for making sure that every future screw up he makes he'll be able to sleep at night knowing that at least he got away with murder. Nice job Wilson - so happy to have you in office, yes please throw the Castle Doctrine in the middle of what may have not been more than a typical school yard fight until a knife was pulled. Clearly Massey was NOT armed when he entered the home, had he entered with intent to kill I feel sure he would have armed himself in a house of enemies - Nice job, yet again justice not present here in Charleston. Great job.
September 3, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Posted by JINeighbor on September 3, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Clearly Massey was NOT armed when he entered the home, had he entered with intent to kill I feel sure he would have armed himself in a house of enemies -
There was not a house of ememies. By all accounts there was only Dobson and this Hill girl in the house. Massey and his friends enter the Dodson home. Who is to say they were not "armed"? Is this something you know to be fact or is it an assumption?
Posted by JINeighbor
"I am sure this kid has spent his whole life getting away with crap,"
Again ,,what proof do you have of this. Or is this just another assumption on your part?
September 3, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
Ok first let me just say that a couple of posts on here were absolutely the most immature pieces of crap I've ever read! First wcp3iop - how dare you sit there and say someone got what they deserved when Craig was only 20!!! Yea he went there and punched Dobson, but if you think about it, pulling a knife on someone is premeditated! It's not the same as shooting someone. You're a jerk and YOU need to grow up!! Secondly, hawks10 - screw you!! Dobson is no where near JI's finest! Why don't you actually get out and meet some people from JI and you'll see that we have everything from the rich to people who are just barely getting by!! How would you two like it if someone killed you and people were saying "Good! Pricks got what they deserved??" GROW UP!!
I personally know Travis and he wouldn't have let Craig go into the house if he was armed....with ANYTHING!! And if the Castle Doctrine is being thrown out there, then explain to me why Craig was stabbed OUTSIDE in the DRIVEWAY!!! Come on people!!! I completely and 100% agree with JINeighbor!! Dobson is the prick who one day will get what HE deserves for taking an innocent life!!
September 3, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
number1volsfan1 (anonymous) says...
"Massey reportedly walked inside and went after Dobson, Wilson said. He threw the first punch and ignored Dobson's pleas for him to leave, striking Dobson and two others in the room. Dobson then pulled out a 4-inch pocket knife to defend himself and stabbed Massey, Wilson said."
Massy attacked Dobson in his house. Dobson ordered Massey to leave. Massey continued to attack Dobson. Dobson then defended himself with lethal force. The article says nothing about stabbing Massey outside.
Dobson was justified by using lethal force to protect himself from assault INSIDE of his home.
September 3, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
jeff61 - Again, I personally know Travis, and he stated that Craig didn't have anything on him. And don't you think that if he did then it would have been stated in the papers that he was armed with a knife, a gun, something?
And it was not JUST Dobson and Hills. The article clearly states that there were more people in the house. Be sure to read the article where it states that Craig hit Dobson and two others. Craig was being taunted about his "girlfriend" by others at the house. He didn't go in there and just start throwing punches for no reason! For all we know, they could have been threatening to beat him up. But we won't know that because this little boy decided to make a grown up decision and take someone's life and now he isn't even going to face the consequences for it.
September 3, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ashbug200 (anonymous) says...
This whole story is such a tragedy. This comment is addressed to all those who have said that Massey's girlfriend was at fault for his death. I know for a fact that she has been treated horribly through this whole ordeal. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I know there is only one true judge and only His opinion matters. I pray for all the families involved in this tragedy.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." ~ Plato
September 3, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Posted by Proud_JI_Girl on September 3, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
then explain to me why Craig was stabbed OUTSIDE in the DRIVEWAY!!!
Do know this for a fact? Do you have first hand knowedge of this or what you heard? Was this reported and part of the record. Just asking, it seems all the facts are not clear
September 3, 2008 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
ColdBeer - Quit being ignorant! Craig was pretty innocent because he had no intention of KILLING Dobson, give him a good beatin, yea, but Dobson knew what he was doing...OUTSIDE of his house! For all we know, Dobson could have said let's take this outside and grabbed the knife on the way out! But of course Dobson is going to say it was self defense because he knew his behind was on the line otherwise! I hope he stays up in VA, because honestly, JI doesn't want him.
September 3, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
jeff61 - I would say so since it showed police taking photographs and evidence from outside in the drive way. If Craig was stabbed inside, I don't think they would have done all of that.
September 3, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
number1volsfan1 (anonymous) says...
Assumptions contradict remarks made by Wilson in the article. No mention of the conflict escalating outside of the home.
September 3, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
number1volsfan1 (anonymous) says...
The facts still support justifiable homicide in accordance with the Castle Doctrine. No one has the right or the justification to give someone a "beating", especially in their own home.
This isn't 1862. We have laws and are expected to abide by those laws.
Proud_JI_Girl
You are obviously emotionally involved with this article. As many of us have previously stated, when you are emotionally involved with an incident and you choose to enter the opinion blog, you will only become more upset by reading opinions by bloggers with no emotional attachment to the article.
September 3, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
96whaler (anonymous) says...
JI.....a good beatin?
Settle down young lady. I think all the elders involved with these kids understand the seriousness of violence and how precious life is. Now these kids understand it too.
September 3, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Charleston_21 (anonymous) says...
So I have a proposition... if Dobson got off due to that Castle Doctrine claiming he was doing it for selfdefense against Massey, then can't Barrow technicially sue him or have him retried because he was stabbed and hospitalized, and according to this article, Barrow was not the one that attacked Dobson.
September 3, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Posted by Proud_JI_Girl on September 3, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And it was not JUST Dobson and Hills. The article clearly states that there were more people in the house. Be sure to read the article where it states that Craig hit Dobson and two others. Craig was being taunted about his "girlfriend" by others at the house.
Not sure what the Solicitors response is about Massey being stabbed out side.. maybe the pic was of the blood trail??? Who else beside the people that came in house with Massey were in the Dobson house. I have only read about Dobson and the Hill Girl. You are stating that you know there was more people in the house? I am not saying your information is not accurate. You seem to have first hand information. I can only comment on what is printed in the paper.
September 3, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
number1volsfan1 (anonymous) says...
The Castle Doctrine also protects the homeowner from lawsuits resulting from the defense of themselves or their property.
September 3, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
ColdBeer - First, don't EVER call me ignorant! You don't know me!
Secondly, I do apologize about stating that it was outside when it was inside.
Thirdly, OF COURSE Dobson is going to say that he "begged and pleaded" for Craig to get out of the house. He knew the charges he was going to face if he didn't. But that didn't warrant Dobson to pull out a knife after Craig hit him. He could have called the cops to come and take care of the situation. He obviously knew Craig, so if Craig would've ran after the cops were called, then Dobson could have very easily identified him and let Craig get an assault charge. There was no need to kill him.
96whaler - I understand how serious it is, but the first thing that got me riled up was the ignorance of previous posters who stated that Dobson is one of JI's finest and that we're rich pricks. Also when they sit there and say that Craig got what he deserved. No one deserves to die at the hands of another. And what I meant by a good beatin is that Craig probably only had the intention of fighting Dobson, not threatening his life. I knew Craig and Travis personally from school and once we graduated at different parties. To know that someone took his life at such a young age is horribly. I still stand by my opinion that Dobson should not have had ALL charges dropped. Especially since Travis is still alive and was in critical condition for a while.
September 3, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
number1volsfan1 (anonymous) says...
You cannot illegally enter someone else's home with the intention of assaulting them, PERIOD! The kid was fully justified in using lethal means of self-defense. He would have been just as justified if he had used a .44 magnum. What is so difficult to understand?
September 3, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
jeff61 - I think that the blood trail is what lead me to believe that the stabbing was outside.
From what Travis has said, Dobson was having a get together that Hills was at. Craig didn't "break" into the house I believe Craig came in saw Hills, probably sitting on Dobson's lap or another person's lap, and flipped. He did punch Dobson and that's what started it. And there was a "love triangle" going on with the three of them. But like I stated and will continue to stand by, there was no reason for Dobson to pull a knife when Craig wasn't threatening to kill him or his family. Dobson is full of it, and thanks to Wilson, got off scotch free. Dobson probably feels all big and bad and tough because he got away with murder.
September 3, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Posted by Proud_JI_Girl on September 3, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OF COURSE Dobson is going to say that he "begged and pleaded" for Craig to get out of the house.
There does appear to be other "witnessess" that were there and have backed up what took place. I do not think the solicitor is only relying in Dobson's statements or version of events, or I am wrong?
September 3, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Posted by Proud_JI_Girl on September 3, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ColdBeer - First, don't EVER call me ignorant! You don't know me!
Yea,, THAT KID CAN READ
September 3, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCgal (anonymous) says...
***shakes head*** ***eye roll***
September 3, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Larz13 (anonymous) says...
...people from JI and you'll see that we have everything from the rich to people who are just barely getting by!
OK....rich rednecks and just barely getting by rednecks.
ColdBeer...ignorant? NO. Apparently she knows CB well enough to be call him ignorant.
September 3, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Ok so at least three people were in the house to start with,,, Dobson, Hills and Barrow.
Massey came into the house with his friends and saw Hills, probably sitting on Dobson's lap or another person's lap, and flipped.
Ok if she was sitting on another persons lap then why hit Dobson? It appears you are guessing at some of this.
And there was a "love triangle" going on with the three of them.
Hmmmmm....
Ok why did Massey go over there in the first place....and not the story to get something out of a car...
Sorry Proud_JI_Girl,, but you seem to given all the reason why Dobson would have been fearful of Massey, "love triangle" flippen out, giving him a good beating. I am not saying the guy should have been killed over this but I will have to agree with the Cold one on this.
September 3, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
jeff61- are you trying to insult me? I have said nothing disrespectful to you. I do admit that I started off very heated with my postings, but I stepped away and calmed down. But if someone is disrespecting where I've been my whole life and where all the great people I know live, it makes me mad. Just because this jerk was on James Island does not mean that everyone on James Island is like that.
September 3, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mate0115 (anonymous) says...
first off cold beer is that your name cool, they said that craig was called in so how is that breaking in? get your head out of your ass. dobson had what like 2 other people with him? only a boy brings a knife to a fist fight. how many fights have gone on at parties? criag's girlfriend was inside so how do you know she didnt call him inside. i think dobson knew what he was doing the whole time! its just a shame that such a nice caring free spirt had to die bc of some loser ass hole trying to look cool in front of his boys.
September 3, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
What you talking about Proud_JI, Trying to insult you??? I have read what you have posted with, The "love triangle" The flippen out, The going over to give him a good beating. You seem to have given all the reason why Dobson would have been fearful of Massey, I am not saying the guy should have been killed over this.
Massey came into the house with his friends and saw Hills, probably sitting on Dobson's lap or another person's lap, and flipped.
You say probably here,, meaning you don't know and it appears you are guessing at some of this.
So Ok if she was sitting on another persons lap then why hit Dobson?
There still seems to be some conflicting information and you are trying to add hear say as facts. If you find it insulting then so be it.
September 3, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Time4action (anonymous) says...
If Massey's true motive was to retrieve something from his girlfriend's car, why did he go to Dobson's home to get it. Why not get it at a time when she was at her home. Maybe his intentions were to make a scene and look tough in front of his girlfriend. I don't know. Wasn't there, don't know either party involved. Just such a poor choice of actions on both boys part.
September 3, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier (anonymous) says...
I think what many ppl fail to realize is that Wilson doesn't make the laws. She very well could've prosecuted and even IF she would've gotten a guilty verdict there would have been an appeal and the verdict would be overturned, thus burning tons of tax payer's dollars.
And the whole situation is a matter of law. It's not debatable. Like many have said before, it's unfortunate someone had to die but IF Dobson was found guilty (which wouldn't happen) it would set a legal precedent that says you can't harm anyone (w/o repercussions) who comes into your house regardless of their demeanor, disposition, etc... Pretty sure no one wants that.
I'm sure Massey was a cool guy and certainly didn't deserve to die but that doesn't take one's right away to defend one's self.
September 3, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
THANK YOU MATE0115!!!!!!
Larz13 your an ass. There aren't just rednecks!
Jeff61 - even the article say that there was a romantic triangle between the three! He probably went over there because Hills probably said "hey I'm at a party you should come over."
Some of you people think that everything in the paper is true. But it's not. They're going to make it seem like Dobson was the poor innocent person and Dobson is going to plead self defense because he would be in jail along time if he didn't.
September 3, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MCalmus (anonymous) says...
Well said, Postandcourier. Unfortunately, your sensibility will fly right over the heads of some of these commenters. Most of their blather even hurts my eyes to read.
September 3, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
elirok (anonymous) says...
Why cant everyone just get along...Larz13 where are you from Murray Blvd??...And Charleston_21 i agree with your comment about Travis. Shouldnt he have a right to get justice whenhe was only an accessory to either party?? Any other real attorneys out there who could shed some light on the other two stab victims? Also, did anyone read the article a couple of weeks ago that went on and on and on about how much money Dobsons family has?? I guess Savage really got paid for this one huh?
September 3, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MR_PRETTY (anonymous) says...
It sounds to me that this fluzie was the cause of it all, indirectly. She knew the boys were drunk from benging all night, and she wanted to start something by letting her X boyfriend take her home and she made sure that Massy got wind of it. Now when your drunk and someone takes your girl and taunts you in front of other people, a real man is gonna go handle business. That little tramp could have quiet the whole thing down but she did'nt she the type of girl that is not worth it she trouble. Now both of her boyfriends are gone and I'll bet you the little trash is already onto another Charles Dickens!
September 3, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Posted by Proud_JI_Girl on September 3, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jeff61 - even the article say that there was a romantic triangle between the three!
Pround_JI..Exactly...not sure you are following me. With that being the case this is the most likey reason for Massey going over to Dobson's house and not to get something from a car. It is also a reason for Dobson to be fearful / defensive of Massey,, agree
He probably went over there because Hills probably said "hey I'm at a party you should come over."
Again there you go with the Probably...
I am sure the Solicitors office has conducted interviews and have the "facts" as presented by the witnessess that were there for each side.
This guessings about this and that does not lend to anything. It is sad this young died and it never should have escalated to this..but I again agree with Cold Beer and P&C
September 3, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
I just hope that Travis's family sues the hell out of Dobson's family. At least make him pay for what he did, even if it's not in jail.
And ColdBeer, how else would Craig have known that Hills was over at Dobson's? I don't believe that he went over there to get something out of the car. I agree with what MR_PRETTY said. Hills wanted to see drama so she tipped of Craig.
September 3, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Posted by Proud_JI_Girl on September 3, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just hope that Travis's family sues the hell out of Dobson's family.
Sue for what???? On what grounds do they have to sue??? "Even witnesses who are friendly and sympathetic to (Massey), even in their stories he was the aggressor."
September 3, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
Still sounds like a lot of "he said, she said".
If "The case was scheduled for a preliminary hearing Tuesday to determine whether there was sufficient probable cause to bring the matter to trial", then why was "the hearing...canceled and the charges dismissed."
Certainly a life lost is worth the time and money involved in a preliminary hearing to make damn sure all evidence is being introduced, not just the words of a bunch of kids who were more likely than not drinking.
Regarding the comments here, if Dobson was being so violently attacked as to warrant pulling a knife and killing Massey, why is there no visible sign of this in his mugshot?
I agree one has the right to defend himself in a case of "home invasion",but this sounds more like a couple of kids fighting over a girl, and one of them becoming a ruthless murderer by using deadly force.
September 3, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
I've been painting, so I've missed some of the discussion..tried to skim thru most of it.
1.The article states, & it seems to be backed up by others, that Hill called Massey's name, calling him to come in. I realize it was not her home, but if she did that, as has been reported, it does account for why Massey entered. It does not seem from what has been reported that he just burst in. It seems there was some sort of gathering/party going on & the door was not locked, which often occurs when young people are having a party.
2. The article only states that "even Massey's friends" stated he was the aggressor. It did not state they believed him to be in the wrong. I realize usually that goes hand in hand, but not always. I would like to know exactly what those friends stated & what they were asked, for Wilson to make the statement she did. Perhaps it seems simple enough, but we should not be so sure about that.
3.I make the above statement because I know for a fact that there is at least one case about which Wilson &/or her office did not report the truth as they dismissed the case.
4.I question Wilson's judgment based on personal knowledge of that case where Wilson's office stated WRONGLY, (ie they lied) that there was no evidence of stalking. She ignored the fact that there had been domestic calls to the home when the couple lived together. She ignored the fact that the victim not only felt threatened of bodily harm or death, the sheriff's deputies who arrested the stalker on 2 separate occasions w/in 30 days also were concerned about that. Indeed, she ignored the tons of evidence of stalking & much more.
(BTW, part of that case is still pending, but another part is close to completion & the stalker soon will be placed on a national registry as an abuser..good work Wilson)
5.The fact that Wilson uses Dobson's "fear" of Massey to justify dropping this case demonstrates to me that she is capricious in how & when she applies the law. She talks out of both sides of her mouth.
6. It appears that young Mr. Dobson had himself quite a criminal record prior to this terrible incident: Multiple drug charges as well as an assault charge (if it is the same Charles Dobson).
I am not meaning to defend what clearly was horrendous judgment on Massey's part. I just do not think Dobson is "so innocent" that this entire case should be dismissed, & like Ms. Morosi, he probably will kill again.
I agree with some on here about Morosi . She seems unbalanced & I always questioned why someone defending herself would shoot through a pillow...kind of odd.
September 3, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Jennasmommy (anonymous) says...
The entire situation is tragic. I was always told that when someone became agressive the best thing to do would be to remove myself from the situation. This lesson was lost on Mr. Dobson. If he had enough control in this situation to fatally stab someone with a 4 inch pocketknife AND stab 2 others, critically injuring 1 he could have run to a room and called 911. As much as we all hate to admit it, Mr. Dobson will not be accountable for his part in this because he and his family can afford to buy his freedom.
This won't be his last brush with the law. I hope no one I know makes him angry enough to pull out the pocketknife.
September 3, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stephaniem (anonymous) says...
RTC, again you lie so convincingly about my case
the solicitor's report clearly stated that jason's own friends admitted to him being suicidal and homocidal and his ex girlfriends went to the paper and filed reports on him being very abusive.
my own side of the story stated that tile construction had just happened and my front door was unlocked as I was painting. He wasn't invited in, he was just there when I looked up.
-----------
I am happy this guy had charges dismissed. Of course, had it not been election year, neither one of us would have been charged as quickly......lynch mobs like to see charges brought on people and fail to realize the lawyers are the ones getting rich and the courts are overcrowded with cases that should never have been arrested.
September 3, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ptmama73 (anonymous) says...
Verbal taunts and questionable girlfriend/boyfriend triangles do NOT give you the right to "beat" anyone. A "good beating" is Assault and Battery with Intent which, in turn, gave Dobson the right to protect himself.
September 3, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
jeff61 - Craig Massey was the aggressor, NOT Travis. Travis said that he tried to seperate Dobson and Craig, not hold people back so the two could fight.
"Alan Tanenbaum, Barrow's lawyer, said Barrow only tried to separate the combatants and displayed no aggression. Barrow maintains that he and Massey went to the home with innocent intentions and only went in after Hills responded to them from inside, he said.
"Mr. Barrow believes the altercation between Dobson and Massey was brought about and provoked by the repeated taunts which were directed at Massey by one or more of the individuals inside regarding Hills," Tanenbaum said."
Hills had a LOT to do with instigating the situation, which is what many people, both friends of Craig and others, believe to have happened. I know she has probably got to feel horrible right now, but she probably knew that the two were going to get into an altercation and she did nothing to stop it or avoid it.
Travis may be able to sue because of the fact that Dobson critically injured him and put him in the hospital.
September 3, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
ptmama73 - Craig had NO intention of KILLING Dobson. If you take people who have been drinking and put them in a situation like that with two people pissed off at one another, there's going to be some sort of altercation. And that is why I said that Dobson should have left the room and called the police after Craig took the first swing at him. Once the police arrived, then yeah, Craig probably would've gotten charged with assault. If Craig had pinned Dobson down and was beating him to a bloody pulp then I could understand where he would fear for his life. But look at Dobson's mug shot, there is not one scratch, bruise, or mark of blood on his face.
September 3, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
IPFreely (anonymous) says...
It just shows the well connected and rich get off. If this same thing happened in chickora he would be locked up and nothing else done. The great solicitor would lock his butt up for life. It must be nice to be rich.
September 3, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
I am not sure witnesses on both sides of the story "support" Dobson's account in the positive way that "support" usually means.
Apparently there was a consensus of sorts(as reported by Wilson)that Massey threw the 1st punch, but it does appear that there is more to this story & I do not believe Dobson is " innocent", nor that he was merely minding his own business.
I believe he & some of his buddies & also the girl manipulated the situation to achieve an altercation..perhaps not intending a fatal one. Unfortunately, Massey fell for it & did something fatally stupid.
I find it interesting that those who, in other cases, seem rather concerned that a possible murderer "got off" on a technicality do not seem to have that same concern here.
Again, I do not believe this is the last we have heard of Dobson, unless he moves away & his next crime will then not be fodder for the local news.
September 3, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
ColdBeer - I misread one of the comments. I dropped it, so grow up and do the same!
September 3, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Charleston_21 (anonymous) says...
Well hopefully Barrow will take everything from him as much as he can get, even if he can't go to jail, maybe he can milk everything he can get because we haven't heard if Barrow is doing anything. All we hear is the trial that is against the deceased Massey and Dobson. Sounds bad but it just blows that Dobson isn't even getting a slap on the wrist for what happened!
Good luck Barrow..
September 3, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCgal (anonymous) says...
Come on folks!! Oh don't be so silly it's just that fair, aggressive justice ya'll that we find only in our outstanding city!!!!
Case after case- rapist set free to repeat, DUI mom kills daughter and gets 1 yr house arrest, GG kids get half way house, Mt. P employee steals hundreds of thousands and get 1 yr house arrest,
taxi cab driver murderer gets not guilty in 25 minutes!
But wait there's more-- we can send TEENS to 10 yrs for pellet gun robbery of $44.16, SHOCK treatment, and let the master mind have a record a mile long and walk for squeal and deal!!
September 3, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
Why was the preliminary trial cancelled on the day it was to take place?
There are too many grey areas in this case for it to not even warrant a preliminary hearing.
By the way, the law didn't decide, Scarlett Wilson decided that Dobson was "fighting for his life".
September 3, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
I completely agree with you Charleston_21!! Hopefully soon I'll find out what he is going to do.
September 3, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
ColdBeer...the "LAW" did not decide that Dobson was innocent.
Wilson decided, for whatever reason, to apply the law such that in this particular incident, this particular person will not face criminal charges.
You are right about one thing though: None of this would have made Dobson a criminal. He already was one before all of this occurred.
September 3, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
geekguy2008 (anonymous) says...
I bet "proud_JI_girl's" rear end that massey anticipated trouble BEFORE he went to dobson's house. That line about "needing to get something from her car" sounds like a weak excuse to go over to where she is and stir up some crap. WTF is so important that he HAD to get out of her car that very minute?
Further, I betcha massey's friends said, "man, I wouldn't go over there if I were you. Dude, let it go. She ain't worth it..."
So massey allows a female to get in his head. Mistake #1
Massey goes over to the house where the wench is with her car.Mistake #2
Subsequently, gets taunted and loses his tempter. Mistake #3
When he lost his tempter and attacked someone, he took his life in his own hands. Mistake #4
Someone was calling him names, teasing him, talking about his x-girl....what-TF-ever! Massey should have been MATURE enough to walk away. Take responsibility for your actions. If you ALLOW someone else to push your buttons or piss you off, you just might be taught a hard lesson.
September 3, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scfirefly (anonymous) says...
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?com...
Somebody needs to tell this drunken bimbo to make her Facebook page private.
September 3, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
yeahright-you make some very good points.
This case deserved a prelim hearing, at the least.
It seems that prosecutors have forgotten, but only in some cases, that all they need for a case to go forward is probable cause of guilt, for which the standard is very low. This is very different from "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" for a conviction, for which he standard is SUPPOSED to be very high.
Then they have a trial, present evidence & let the JURY decide whether or not the evidence proves the crime beyond reasonable doubt or whether or not a defense, such as the castle doctrine, is plausible to the situation.
It seems that in several cases lately the prosecutors have taken on the mantle of judge & jury. Seeing as how we always hear they are overworked, maybe they could cut back on areas not in their job description.
What we have here folks is a total lack of consistency. What a great way to run a system of justice. Keep 'em guessing.
September 3, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
geekguy2008 (anonymous) says...
.....and even though dobson appears to have gotten the upper-hand by not being charged, he should be careful. If dobson likes to taunt others, especially in regards to a female, he'll end up facing a hard lesson of his own if he taunts the wrong person.
September 3, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
Posted by geekguy2008 on September 3, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I bet "proud_JI_girl's" rear end
I have not said anything to you so don't talk about my ass! How about bet your own "rear end"! Thanks!!
September 3, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
abitskeptical are you a lawyer? or studying to become one? you seem to know technicalities involving cases.
September 3, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
I agree geekguy & others, Massey was acting like an immature hothead & should have walked away.
I, for one did not intend to imply that he was in the "right".
However, from all accounts, aside from Wilson's "statement" characterizing the situation, Dobson was NOT just minding his own business when, lo & behold, Massey burst into his house & attacked him. There is much more to the story.
I am questioning the application of the Castle Doctrine as a complete & total defense that 100% "exonerates" Dobson. It seems a contrived defense in this situation, regardless of Massey throwing the 1st punch.
Also, I'd be willing to bet(but I won't since it is illegal) that if Dobson had not had Savage or another big name defense lawyer, that pre-liminary hearing would have marched on forward.
September 3, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
No I am not a lawyer.
I do have an interest in the law & have considered lately applying to law school at my advanced age of 51(I need to wait until my last child is out of middle school)
I have served a jury & also done a tremendous amount of study & reading...
September 3, 2008 at 6 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
I think that you should definitely go for it! That's awesome!
September 3, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sportsfan (anonymous) says...
I just hope and pray that you young men still holding grudges and threatening the Dobsons never have to live the hell this family has been living. If you know them, you know that they are nice folks not rich snobs. Try doing positive things instead. As for you JI neighbor, please cut your grass and clean up your nasty yard. You are totally out of line with your comments.
September 3, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
jeff61-be careful about that of which you are so sure. It is naive to assume that things are done the way they are supposed to be done & for all the right reasons. This system of justice, as it is now carried out on a daily basis, is a game.
Prosecutors are making decisions, not on ensuring that truth and justice are, minimally, attempted, if not always maintained, but rather mainly on what winning headlines the case is likely to generate.
September 3, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
redfisher8 (anonymous) says...
It's hard to believe that so many people can be so sure about the facts of a case in which they truly know nothing about. I love how so many people refer to Craig and everyone on James Island as these "thugs". The only thug involved is the rich son of a bitch who is guilty of murder, but will never face consequences for any of his actions because mommy and daddy will always buy his way out. His parents have probably spent close to half a million dollars towards his "legal team" throughout his 19 year lifespan. It's terrible how corrupt and backwards our legal system is. Money can buy your way out of anything these days. The Post and Courier and Scarlett Wilson are equally guilty for shaping these views of "self-defense", when in reality Charlie had it out for Craig all along and was just looking for an excuse to seriously harm him. Craig's also not around to tell his side of events, so it's essentially Travis' word against Charlie and all of his friends'. Those of us who knew Craig know how things really happened on July 2nd, but it's not worth trying to tell the real story to these closed-minded conservatives who have nothing better to do than talk about how great the legal system is, and that Charlie did what anyone else would do in that situation. My sincerest condolences to the Massey family, who will never truly taste justice.
September 3, 2008 at 7:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
I have no doubt Abitske,,, I was only responding to comments made here by some...and what has been published...some want to inject what they think is the truth along with hear say and opinion with words like probably he did this and maybe he did that...I can understand the anger with all this but if you don;t have the facts..don't comment like you have them and are only guessing with half truths
Cold Beer has been on target and no I am not kissing his ass
September 3, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Pround_JT... there is not point.. you can not keep anything striaght.. I am responding to you comments and you act as if I posted what you posted.. I know who the agresser was....If you looking to do any of your "friends" a favor I would not post anything more.. you already supported everything the solicitor has said but you don;t seem to have the common sense to realize it
September 3, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
But that there girl can read...and doesn't like it when people get off "scotch free"(as opposed to vodka free?)
September 3, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
well jeff, you are entitled to your opinion as to who is on target & who is not.... :)
I, however, as my posting name suggests, am skeptical about many things, not the least of which is trusting the powers that be to tell the truth & have right motives. I have found & seen up close that almost always the positions are abused & personal career advancement or comfort is a common motive.
September 3, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
One thing I'm really curious about, who were the witnesses who were "sympathetic" to Massey?
According to Wilson's statement, Barrow "...was trying to keep Dobson's friends away so Massey could have a one-on-one with Dobson,".
The above indicates that aside from Barrow all the other witnesses were Dobson's friends. I'm sure they were totally truthful & unbiased, especially after having taunted the person who ended up dead at the end of the evening. They sound like individuals you could bank on for the truth.
Also, it is amazing that Wilson can make the above statement of "fact", while Barrow's lawyer denies that version.
Wilson is not supposed to be a finder of fact. That is the job for the judge &/or jury.
September 3, 2008 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fullmoon (anonymous) says...
For all you sea lawyers on both sides of this why don't you actually read the Castle Doctrine statute before spouting off.
I'll even help you. It starts at 16-11-410.
Here's the link:
http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t16c...
September 3, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
Dobson probably is an assh0le, which his previous record supports. Remember, though, Massey was also arrested a week before this happened in some drunken drama with Hill in Mt Pleasant.
Massey didn't expect to have a knife pulled and used on him when he thought he was just starting a fistfight, I bet. But, that's what happened and since he started a fight while he was uninvited inside Dobson's house, Dobson could defend himself. As I said above, if this happened on the street the situation would be different.
Massey A) shouldn't have gone to this other guy's house where he knew he wasn't welcome, even if his "lady" was there, B) shouldn't have gone inside and C) shouldn't have attacked Dobson. Massey's actions put these events in action.
Don't let your enemies control you, control yourself.
September 3, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Posted by abitskeptical
Again I maybe not commming accross correctly.. I agree with what you are saying..I find your posts to be on the mark....I think we have a disconnect...your posts are sound and based on fact......
September 3, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
jeff61 - I will post whatever I feel. I'm free to do so. If you don't like what I'm saying then don't respond to my posts.
September 3, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
southerngirl45 (anonymous) says...
Sorry to say but this one ended just like I predicted!
Didn't Scarlet Wilson just recently let a rapest go when there was an actual witness that saw the incident take place?.The victim was 80 something.
And who says money can't buy happiness????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 3, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
ProudJIGirl~ You need to cool it! I know of these people also and it seems as though Craig was not going there on friendly terms. The only one who knows what really happened was the girlfriend. She will have to live with that for the rest of her life.
For you to say that this guy just took this guys life for no reason .. there clearly was a reason. Craig was not going there to make ammends ... He went there intending to start something. You know when someone pisses you off to the point and punches you in the face, you are going to do nothing? You are going to retaliate. Im thinking that Dobson just wanted to hurt him, not kill him. Who am I to say? As for your friend who says this and that ... it is all hear say.
There are all sorts of rumors going around and you coming in here blasting people and saying that you know so and so doesnt make any part of this seem any better.
I know many people from James Island. One thing is no matter how rich or how poor they are, they all treat everyone the same. They are very laid back, love life and know how to party.
September 3, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
Southerngirl ~ Wasn't that the most sad story you ever heard of? A poor 80 something year old woman suffering from dimentia ... oh, that burned my blood that the scum got away with that.
Yes, Scarlett Wilson. She got voted in after that also. Not sure how she sleeps at night. :(
September 3, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
southerngirl45 (anonymous) says...
ChasCarolinaGirl~Yeah she has a tract record uh? First it was StephenieM,Then that poor woman, and I still can't get that out of my mind.AND with witnesses!!!Now a young man is gone and the ones responsible are off scott free!I have no use for her(Wilson that is) I think it was the rape case that did it for me!How does she sleep? Speaking of,it's my bedtime-good nite all.
September 3, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
I have read the castle doctrine & that is why I do not believe it should have applied in this case. It was a stretch of a defense for the death of Massey.
September 3, 2008 at 11:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
redfisher8 (anonymous) says...
abitskeptical- i agree completely. craig never posed a threat of using deadly force when he went in the house
September 3, 2008 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charlestonroots (anonymous) says...
Proud_JI_Girl you need to get a hold of yourself. I have lived on JI all of my 47 years. We have the good, the bad and the ugly just like everywhere else. Your comments do represent you as somewhat of a redneck-sorry if I offend you. Many of your post contain insults against others that have posted and then you tell them not to call you names. Whats up with that?
September 3, 2008 at 11:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeff61 (anonymous) says...
Post what you wish Pround_JI.. I am simply calling you out on what you post...again It appears you don't even realize what your posting. Yours posts makes you loose your own argurement
September 4, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
84rats (anonymous) says...
Someone above mentioned Whilden Hills being at fault and probably on the lookout for her next victim/boytoy....well, she is on match.com! No lie! I wouldnt want to date anyone with that kind of baggage! Its strange that she would put herself out there so soon after such a tragedy. Super Sketchy
September 4, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
"A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person"
The above is part of the "castle doctine". A preliminary hearing should have been held to determine if it's reasonable that Dobson thought Massey was going to kill him with his bare hands.
September 4, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
Regarding the girl, Hills? On her facebook, its like nothing has happened. Seems as though she has gone on with her every day life as though nothing happened. I agree, 84rats .. Super Sketchy!!
September 4, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
It is sad as to what happened. Some people do not take life literally.
As for anything with Scarlett Wilson involved always makes me question. Just my 2 cents
September 4, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
Here is the info from her facebook. Here you go single guys ... She's looking for men and single. Interested in dating ...
Sex:Female
Birthday:September 23
Relationship Status:Single
Interested In:Men
Looking For:Friendship & Dating
Political Views:Moderate
September 4, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
Cold Beer-Don't spin my words. I never tried to discredit Wilson, or blame Ms. Hills. I simply don't feel the castle doctine applied 100% in this case. I'm entitled to my opinion. And I'm obviously not the only one questioning this decision, so why not let a jury decide.
How you can proclaim Dobson was "100% in the right" with the limited information given in this article is laughable.
September 4, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
If you're not basing your "decision" (thanks again for another laugh),on the information provided in the article, then what are you basing it on? Insider info? Gut feeling? Or are you just always so sure that you're right that you don't need no stinkin information?
September 4, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
Yeahright ~ If anyone comes into your house uninvited and you feel threatened, you have a right to take matters into your own hands. That is the law and that is how it should be. That is what ColdBeer is saying (ColdBeer ~ correct me if I am wrong for rewording what you are saying).
This guy may or may not have a great reputation but in this case it DOES NOT MATTER. Massey clearly was the aggressor in this situation and he was trespassing. It has noting to do w/ "gut feeling".
As it says in the article : "The defendant, Mr. Dobson, was at home minding his own business when the victim came in and began assaulting him and others in the house," she said. "Even witnesses who are friendly and sympathetic to (Massey), even in their stories he was the aggressor."
September 4, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
As for my stance, this is not about "blaming" Wilson.
I am offering opinion about what I believe to be a very questionable application of the law as well as dereliction of some duties, while assuming some that are not hers to assume.
The Castle Doctrine does not exist to give people carte blanche to use deadly force on someone just because a bad situation occurs in one's home.
The Castle Doctrine exists to protect INNOCENT crime victims by maintaining presumption of their innocence should they be faced w/ use of deadly force in their homes. (There is a good amount of evidence, as reported, that Dobson was not just innocently minding his own business, as Wilson stated)
It gives permission to use, as a LAST RESORT action, deadly force when they fear for their life.
The Castle Doctrine, as it exists in civilized society, is such that the homeowner can use deadly force against a person who unlawfully enters his home if he cannot safely retreat or defend himself. Defense of a home, a man's castle, by deadly force, according to the statute is, subject to limited conditions. Killing is not to be the front line of home defense.
Because of the Castle Doctrine the use of deadly force resulting in death MAY BE defended as justifiable homicide. It was not intended as a definitive or "done deal" defense.
The Castle Doctrine was not intended as a weapon to be used at the whim of a homeowner:
"I have decided I will believe that anyone, whether I know them or not, who does not obey my orders in my home, intends to do me grave bodily harm or kill me, so that gives me a right to snuff them out".
Good Lord!
BTW-a good R or L punch rarely counts as intent to do grave bodily harm, unless one's hands are registered weapons or unless one boxes as a pro.
I do not know any reasonable person who truly believes that a slug from one 20 yr old to another is intended to cause death or grave bodily harm.
September 4, 2008 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blahblah (anonymous) says...
i think that is was really stupid of craig to make the choice of going into charlies house even after he was told to leave. you cant keep going around bullying people and beating them up, sooner or later your gonna get your ass kicked, maybe even killed, and thats exactly what happened. people say that its a tragedy but i think that he brought it upon himself, ya maybe he didnt know he was going o get killed, but he should have known that theres that risk when you go around beatin people up, especially when your beating them up when your in THEIR house. i dont see how people are justifying craigs actions, he was the one that instigated it, and maybe charlie got off alittle too easy, maybe should have served like 5 years, but he WAS justifyed to defend himself in his own home, how did he know that craig didnt have a knife and wasnt going to kill him first? and i dont think that mary whilden should have been messing around with other guys when she had a boyfriend, she did in a way instigate this also. and for travis... he should have been smarter too, when are these kids going to stop actin like kids and start acting their age. i really dont have sympathy for any of these people.im mean its sad that somebody had to die, but that what can happen when you decide to act stuid.
September 4, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
blahblah ~ I completely agree w/ you. Well said.
September 4, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
"witnesses who are friendly and sympathetic to (Massey), even in their stories he was the aggressor."
He said, she said. They should have held a preliminary hearing. That's all I'm saying.
"If anyone comes into your house uninvited and you feel threatened, you have a right to take matters into your own hands."
100% untrue. "A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person"
It takes more than just "feeling threatened". There's room for interpretation, and the prosecutor took that liberty rather than holding a preliminary hearing. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm with abitskeptical. "The Castle Doctrine does not exist to give people carte blanche to use deadly force."
According to some people's logic, every kid that crashes a keg party can legally be shot and killed if the homeowner throwing the party feels "threatened." BS
September 4, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
YeahRight ~ If someone comes into your house and punches you in the face, what are you going to do? Call the police? Ask them to leave? If they refuse to leave, are you going to sit there and take it?
Someone w/ your sense probably would as you say "Let me look up the laws on this so Im not in the wrong" ... Im not saying that this guy was right about KILLING someone, but how do you know that he didn't act in self defense after being punched. How do you know their history and that he hasnt been beaten up several times? How do you know all of this stuff? You dont! I am going by the paper and what Ive heard people say. What are you going by .. Your "gut feeling" or your "presumptions". Yeah, it was he said she said of WITNESSES that were FRIENDS of MASSEY saying that he was the AGGRESSOR. If you were even close to any of this, you would still hear people talking about how Massey taunted Dobson and all b/c of Hills. Then again, you are probably someone against WITNESSES b/c its all he said she said.
All I know is that if someone comes into my house uninvited and starts punching me and threatening me ... I will retaliate! But of course, you wouldnt ... you would have to look to make sure that it was okay for you do retaliate and what the papers may say about you afterwards.
September 4, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blahblah (anonymous) says...
and Proud JI Girl doesnt sould like she know what shes talking about, quit saying "how dare you call me ignorant" when you where the first one to call them ignorant. but you really do sound ignorant, ive heard ALLLLLL the stories, that EVERYONE has said from JIHS including ALLLLL the victims, who i all know personally, and im sorry but you shouldnt make up your own scenarios. craig got stabbed, freaked out and ran outside and died in the neighbors yard. if anyone ever came in my house (doesnt matter if mary whilden invited them in or not) and i didnt want them there, and they started beatin me up or my family, i shoot their ass in then head, in a second! this is how the world works, it just so happenes that he was your friend. but im done with all this. i hope that everyone that was affeced by this finds peace.
September 4, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
chascarolinagirl, I never said I know any of the things you've asked, that's why, as I've said all along, but apparently you are not able to comprehend, that there SHOULD HAVE BEEN A PRELIMINARY HEARING.
If someone comes in my house and I feel my life is threatened I'm doing whatever it takes to protect myself.
I don't believe Dobson's life was ever in peril.
You do realize there's a difference between retaliating to being punched, and plunging a knife into someones chest until they are dead, right?
September 4, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
I understand the whole "prelimary hearing" but guess what? ITS TOO FREAKIN' LATE! Can't go backwards dear.
We do not know exactly how everything happened. We cannot assume that he plunged a knife into his chest waiting for him to die. Or did it say that and Im missing it? But wait, the newspaper said it so its all he said she said, right?
WE DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT OF WHAT HAPPENED! I am going by what I would do if I was in that situation. If he died after attacking me in my own house, he had it coming. ("He threw the first punch and ignored Dobson's pleas for him to leave, striking Dobson and two others in the room") Massey should have used more sense in what he was doing before he attacked Dobson. Bottom line.
September 4, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JIgurl156 (anonymous) says...
OK wanna know what REALLY happend?
Craig, Mary Whilden, Travis, and Dylan were chillin at MK's house. Then Mary Whilden went to the Dobson's to sell them some pills.
THEN Craig, Travo & Dylan forgot they left the weed in Mary Willy's car, so they went there to retrieve it.
Next thing you know they start banging on the Dobson's door and the Dobsons didn't let them enter. But of course the instigater, Mary Whilden let them in and a fight broke out.
Younger brother Chris gave Charlie the knife and he started jabbing away & accidently stabbed Mary.
Then they rode out to the hospital and Craig stumbled out the house and died on the side of the rode.
P.S. Mary Whilden had a love triange with CHRIS DOBSON(lil bro) not Charlie.
September 4, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JIgurl156 (anonymous) says...
Oh forgot to mention Mary Whilden had a love triangle with EVERYONE! She is known as the biggest hoe on James Island. She's already dating another guy. Wow didn't take her too long to get over Craig. She also has HPV and gential warts. This girl ultimately led to Craig's death. Herion snortin junkie!
September 4, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
JI Gurl ~ I guess you were the ultimate witness to all of this? I believe that Mary Whilden has moved on rather quickly. Ive seen evidence of myself with that. Saying that she has HPV and genital warts is very immature. Whether she does or doesnt, who cares?
September 4, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
Coldbeer posted:
"You do not have to fear for your life or great bodily harm in order to use deadly force."
The below was copied and pasted directly from Castle Doctrine and Section 16-11-440 of Article 6:
"A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person"
It seems that what you posted is in direct conflict with what the law clearly states.
September 4, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
Coldbeer ~ Yeahright is the type of person who will not defend him or herself if attacked. He/She will be the law abiding citizen being buried while the attacker (WHO WAS IN THE WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE) will get parole after 2 years and be a free man.
Yes, I agree to disagree with someone with no common sense.
September 4, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
"You do not actually have to fear for your life because the law already says that you DO fear for your life"
I disagree. If you use deadly force, the law presumes you feared for your life. If you don't fear for your life but instead are killing out of malice, the law doesn't protect you.
I appreciate the civil debate, however.
Chasgirl, on the other hand, stop assuming. You don't know me, and you're obviously too clouded by emotion or just incapable of having a civil debate.
September 4, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChasCarolinaGirl (anonymous) says...
"Chasgirl, on the other hand, stop assuming. You don't know me, and you're obviously too clouded by emotion or just incapable of having a civil debate."
That is funny that I shouldnt assume but yet once again, you contradict yourself by assuming things about me about being too clouded by emotion.
I just know that if I was in Dobson's position, I would do what I needed to defend myself. Just as most normal people would. You were questioning that and I never understood why.
I can have a civil debate, but when someone contradicts themselves or when they only want to see it their way, they get annoying.
They also find it easy to say that the opposition is incapable to make themselves feel better about making themselves look stupid. :-)
September 4, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
Too clouded or simply incapable. Take your pick.
I didn't question defending oneself, I question the severity of defense. You can defend yourself without stabbing someone to death.
September 4, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
Yes ColdBeer, many of us have read the law. You have made assumptions as well.
The SC statute does impose limitations on use of Castle Doctrine defense. My posts were not off base. While I am interested in the law, I certainly am not a lawyer. However I can read & look things up just like a real lawyer can.
Also, I do read a law before shooting off about it. It does not appear you did that. Maybe that is because I do not have the level of trust you do of Wilson & her cohorts. I have found that many authorities get away w/ a lot of c-rap because of the general ignorance of the public they serve.
Below is from http://www.sled.sc.gov/ProtectionOfPe...
The stated intent of the legislation is 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. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person's place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.
Notice there is a limit (an "if") on the lack of a duty to retreat.
Also notice "This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person's dwelling,..."
This implies, to most reasonable people, that the castle doctrine is is not an open invitation to use deadly force against an intruder or attacker in one's home.
What many of us are arguing here is that it is a stretch to claim that Dobson was in danger of death or grave bodily injury(that is specifically defined in the statute also).
Of course it could be argued that Massey was engaging in a violent crime..assault/battery, but as I stated before, most reasonable people do not see a punch by one 20 yr old to another as deadly force & violence rising to the level of excusable retaliatory deadly force.
I respect your right to agree with Wilson's actions & be one of her cheerleaders, but it is difficult to do so when you belittle others as "wanna be lawyer" because they have read the law & case history & have formed an opinion based on that.
September 4, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
1. ColdBeer, I disagree. The law as I read it, and as explained to me from internet sources and people I consider credible, does require there to be fear of death or serious bodily harm to me or another in the home.
Of course, late at night if you are awakened by a noise and find an intruder in your home - that does constitute reasonable fear. One need not ascertain whether they are armed or aggressive. However, if you were to find an 80 year old woman in your home sitting on your sofa in the afternoon and shoot her where she sat (obviously you wouldn't, this is an example) Castle Doctrine wouldn't apply. My point is an intruder in your home is not the SOLE criterion.
2. Yeahright, Abitskept
Someone of able body and comparable size punching you constitutes a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm, and lethal force is thus a justified response. One punch can do a lot. I know of a case in Australia where a guy was killed by one punch to the head. Vision loss, broken bones - the law DOES NOT require you to take a beating and risk serious injury.
3. Duty to retreat, duty to respond to force with like or similar force
These are elements of law in other states and other countries (the UK comes to mind immediately). Not South Carolina.
September 4, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
Cid95--the statute does not require the home owner to "needlessly" retreat. I haven't yet found what the intent of that wording is, but I imagine it is there to allow "wiggle room" as circumstances dictate. If I am wrong on that I'll "retreat" on that aspect. If anyone has info on that verbiage I'd gladly read it.
I agree & understand that one good blow can be "deadly force", but of course that is hardly ever the case especially when it occurs, as it has from the beginning of time, among young males.
Again, I'm not trying to justify the stupidity & hotheadedness of Massey.
However, by all accounts this was not some "home invasion" on an unsuspecting innocent person, which clearly this law was adopted to address.
There is evidence that those inside were plenty aware Massey was on the premises. By Wilson's own statement she revealed Dobson was not alone nor just "minding his own business". Throwing that fabricated description into the mix is one of many reasons I believe her interpretation of the law in this case is capricious & contrived.
What ColdBeer does not seem to understand, or want to understand, is this law, like many, is not as black & white as he wants it to be. There is verbiage allowing room for interpretation & application of evidence & common sense. We have judges & juries as the "finders of fact", not ColdBeer or Scarlet Wilson, to examine evidence, & based on that evidence, to determine the facts of the case, based on the rules of law (which is a different thing from the law itself).
There is no doubt there are LEO who saw evidence gathered up to the dismissal as indicating probable cause that some crime was committed by Dobson. They MUST have seen probable cause, or they would not have arrested Dobson. As a matter of FACT, the LAW addresses this...read further down in SECTION 16-11-450:
(B)...the agency may not arrest the person for using deadly force unless probable cause exists that the deadly force used was unlawful
I have no doubt there are other prosecutors & magistrates/judges who also would have seen probable cause to have this case bound over for further examination.
Altho I clearly have an opinion, I certainly cannot determine (& now no one else can either) that Dobson was criminally guilty of anything in this case. What I am saying is that I believe that this case minimally, not only deserved, but should have required, a preliminary hearing, & probably a trial. Wilson, I believe, interfered with due process, the truth, justice, & the process by totally dismissing this case even before a prelim hearing.
NOTE:
The explanation/"commentary"/"remarks" on the SLED site also was taken directly from the ACTUAL LAW, just like the authoritative ColdBeer's remarks.
Imagine that: SLED putting forth information/explanation/commentary based on ACTUAL LAW. Yep, reading comprehension is a great thing.
September 5, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Proud_JI_Girl (anonymous) says...
I just wanted to come back and apologize for my heated comments the other day. I understand that in some places I was in the wrong and, again, I do apologize for those that my disrespectful comments were made towards. This is why I posted nothing yesterday because I was taking a day to cool off and get my head back on my shoulders. I do hope that you all accept my apology and I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
September 5, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
Never stated that the law said one HAS to be an "unsuspecting innocent person".
I stated/indicated that the law clearly had that type of thing in mind when outlining the LAWFUL use of deadly force in defending oneself in one's "castle". When SC adopted changes to the common law castle doctrine several violent, FORCEFUL & horrifying home invasions had occurred in years previous to that. (I believe that in all of these more than one forceful, ARMED & violent intruder was involved)
Further, CB I agree with you on the point that the law does assume, if someone forcefully enters your house, that you can & will fear immanent peril. However, there is NO evidence or indication, in any of the reports, that Massey FORCEFULLY entered Dobson's house.
Reading the law IS simple (most of the time anyway..especially if one has a law dictionary handy). It is the interpretation of it & its intent that is not always so simple.
September 5, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
"You do not have to fear for your life or great bodily harm in order to use deadly force"-ColdBeer.
"Once Dobson was under attack and feared he would be killed or injured, he had a right to defend himself as he did"-Scarlett Wilson.
September 6, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
http://archives.postandcourier.com/ar...
... "As chief prosecutor of South Carolina, I have the right to direct that in cases where a person defends life and home against a home invader, he or she should not be prosecuted," he said. The home-invasion policy stands, Condon said. "Home invaders beware; the life you threaten may be your own."
September 6, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
Look CB, if, for the purpose of this discussion, you, & certain others, want to act like you do not understand the generally accepted concept of "home invasion" nothing I say will matter unless I agree w/ what you have so far stated, but I'll try again anyway.
Furthermore, I refer you to the following:
http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2...
It seems this bill was introduced, (governor's approval still pending) for the very reason I raised: Not all situations where there is an altercation in one's home amount to a home invasion. Not even all situations where one is in another's home UNINVITED rise to the level of a situation where a home dweller can lawfully use deadly force against an intruder.
You contrived a (personalized) definition of "forceful" entry to suit your argument. It does not meet the legal definition. By all accounts Massey did not use any force to enter the unlocked dwelling. Nor was he armed. Nor is there any evidence reported that he INTENDED to commit a crime.
According to the above proposed bill, this situation would not be considered a home invasion. I realize this bill is not yet "in force", but clearly there are people much more knowledgeable than I who also see that clarification is needed. If clarification is needed, it certainly means things are not as simple & cut & dry as you want them to be. I do not know why you think that is talking in circles. That idea does not seem so complicated to me.
Claiming I said something I did not say does not make it so. I did NOT state that within the law it states one HAS to be an "unsuspecting innocent person".
I did state that was the type of situation this law was intended to address (& clearly the above bill will address more specifically that what I was describing more closely constitutes a "home invasion" than what you have been saying).
Perhaps I should have been more specific & stated "While certainly it is not the ONLY situation this law addresses, it is a situation(home invasion such as defined in the above bill, that is) where there is no question that all conditions are met within which the homeowner can lawfully use deadly force in protecting himself or others within his castle" . Is that better?
I also know teenagers--who understand that many laws have nuances which can muddy the waters...& who therefore could discuss this issue & case without getting so frustrated that they claim others are talking in circles & misconceptions.
September 6, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
Lilly, in case you have not noticed, Condon t'ain't the chief prosecutor in SC any more.
Also, addendum to my other post:
Apparently this bill took effect Jan 2006
http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2...
September 6, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
I have noticed that Condon -- t'ain't -- the chief prosecutor in SC any more. I have also noticed that you -- t'ain't -- the chief prosecutor either. Something else I have noticed is that I -- t'ain't -- got no duty to provide no free legal "edumacation" to every goober that rolls down the pike.
AND -- I have not failed to notice that your only issue with this case is your personal vendetta against Solicitor Wilson-as evidenced by your own comments.
September 7, 2008 at 6:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
Lilly-what you've labeled as a personal vendetta against Wilson is a strong concern about her decisions/judgment in several situations.
As I've stated(& you've belittled), I'm more than familiar w/ a real life case & witnessed how she handled (or did not handle) it. Prior to that reference point,I had no informed opinion about her & would have wanted to judge her positively (she is my 3rd/4th cousin).
Subsequent to that there have been other incidents where her words or actions have concerned me. If I'm a goober for questioning & being upset w/ her judgment on that case & others, then I have plenty of legally "edumacated" & degreed company. Their opinions certainly would carry more "legitimacy" than mine, so if it sounds better I could say I agree w/ them, who are NOT unedumacated goobers..
I acknowledge that her handling of that case colored the way I view her. I realize you have no way of knowing about that case except from what I've said.
Not sure what I did to deserve the honor of being a recipient of your ugly & sarcastic attitude, but this pattern toward me started long before discussion about Wilson began. Talk about personal vendettas.
I never asked you to provide any legal education or info. But, be honest, Lilly, when you have provided links, has it really been in the spirit of providing "free" legal education?
After the way you've responded to me on numerous occasions,why would you think I'd be interested in any "legal" education you had to offer? I certainly would never guess that it was offered in any gracious spirit.
Once again you are wrong about me & my intent. Why do you keep jumping to erroneous conclusions? You saw what you wanted to see.
I was drawn to read about this case as I was out of town w/ a friend when her 18 yr. old daughter called upset & wanting to talk about this horrible situation involving Barrow & Massey w/ whom she was familiar...she did not know them well, but had some overlapping friends. My daughter & her daughter are very good friends, so of course my daughter heard things also.
I did not report any of that because everything they heard was 2nd,3rd,etc. hand & was irrelevant & conflicting in itself. I kept my comments to what was reported or posted here.
My interest in this case had nothing whatsoever to do w/ Wilson. If someone else had dismissed this case, I would have the same concerns. As God is my witness, that is the "God's honest truth". I do not expect you to accept or acknowledge that, but it is the truth.
September 7, 2008 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
-- YAWN --
September 8, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
smile...chuckle....
you are so predictable...
September 8, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Honda_Cutie (anonymous) says...
Okay ya'll are all messed up in the head!! I mean really a boy was murdered and another stabbed to near death! So let's just paint a picture shall we okay:
You have a girl (Weldon) inside an X's house (Dobson), and she will not go out side to let her Current boyfriend (Masse) so that he can get his stuff out of her car, then you have relentless taunting from the people inside that is all directed to one person who just wanted to get his stuff, right? and then stuff gets out of control who came in the house or unlocked and opened the door who throw the 1st punch, why was a knife the weapon of choice, why did no one call the police when Masse was outside calling for Weldon: there are far to many questions and then you look at the fact that Masses was there with one guy Barrow and Barrow spent his next couple of weeks in a hospital in major pain along with the knowledge that his best friend will never come back! And you have Dobson with how many people in the house with him along with an ex girlfriend who is NOT on Masses side because if she was he wouldn't be dead right now because her fat would have walked out the house unlocked her car to let Masse in. so you have a group of people all against Masse who are all left with the police to give Dobson's side of the Story and the only people who can verify Masse's side are fatly wounded and Dead! Don't we just have the best lawyers? I mean they care more about a paycheck then they do about finding the truth, because if they cared at all about the truth then someone please tell me how self defense is justified when you stabbed someone in the BUTT!! That tells me she was walking/running from him when he got her and if it was truly self defense then why do you need to stab someone 7 damn times when they have NO weapons on them and after you hit him in the gut and lung I don't think he is going to get up and come after you but lets just stab him a few more times for good measure?? HUH?? (Did you know that one of Barrows friends saw him and had to pick him up literally and put Barrow in his car to drive him to the hospital that much damage was not necessary Dobson is Insane and should not be free because he will kill again just wait and see) Oh Right I forgot when you have money you have freedom and that will always be the system. Though I do really feel bad for that kid Dobson I mean he has ruined his own life over all of this, he has been forced to leave a beautiful city and friends and family all for what one stupid girl. Well best of luck to him because if he ever gets to come back to this state I very seriously doubt happy smiles and warm hugs will greet, him he has hurt the lives of many here on James Island with the action he Choose to take!
September 12, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cman1 (anonymous) says...
Posted by Honda_Cutie on September 12, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
why do you need to stab someone 7 damn times when they have NO weapons on them and after you hit him in the gut and lung I don't think he is going to get up and come after you but lets just stab him a few more times for good measure??
for the record he only got stabbed twice
September 16, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
13falala (anonymous) says...
I have know both of the dobson boys since they were younger. They have spent their lives getting away with terrible things, and I cannot believe they have amounted to something this catastrophic. They were raised backwards, but honestly I don't know who the hell you people think you are who say that Dobson acted in self defense. Craig clearly couldn't have killed him with his bare hands. Dobson had no right to pull out a knife. This is a pitiful case to justify murder, and I find the final verdict despicable. After Dobson (who was once- for a short time- a friend) broke one of my friend's noses and punched me in the face for trying to break up a fight some years ago, I had a slight fear that one of those brothers would do something like this one day. And now they have. And he has gotten off without a scratch. Way to go authorities. You are to blame when he does this all over again down the road.
December 27, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.