1 dead, 1 injured in Ashland City shooting

[Guest WyattEarp]

A little update on this case:

Grand jury to decide charges in deadly shooting case | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

The two guys were Shannon Scott Paul, 40, (who died) and Ryan Neal Dickens, 34. I only mention their names here to make it easier to discuss the events. (Instead of saying "the one guy shot the first guy who had punched the other dude, etc)

Looks like Dickens started the physical fight by throwing the first punch, then Paul pulled out his gun & shot Dickens twice. Dickens then got Paul's gun away from him & chased him around a restaurant & ultimately shot him twice in the chest, killing him.

This case is going to go to the grand jury soon. If I was on the jury, just based on the evidence we have so far (which granted, is not ALL the evidence) I think I would have to recommend that they indict Dickens for 2nd degree murder.

What do you guys think?

this is a tough one for me, but it seems that Dickens is in the wrong.

1.) Dickens stopped his car in a parking lot to further escalate the situation.

2.) Then he got out of the car. To me that sounds like he had the intent of escalating the situation further. He did not have to stop. He could have driven to the nearest police station and let them handle it.

3.) He then further initiated confrontation when he physically assaulted Paul by throwing the first punch, therefore escalating the situation unnecessarily, when he could have simply gotten back in his truck and continued on his way. Too much testosterone and lack of common sense has put many a man in jail throughout history.

4.) After he had wrestled the gun away from Paul (and after being shot twice) who then fled in retreat, he should have stopped and not pursued, because Paul was in retreat and was no longer armed at this point, and was not trying to further provoke or attack Dickens, therefore he was no longer a threat to Dickens safety or well being and Dickens was no longer in "imminent fear" for his life. When Dickens pursues him into the restaurant and says "Where did he go?" and then shoots and kills Paul, it becomes vigilante justice (and it is clear to me he had the intent to kill Paul because he pursued and made the statement "where did he go?"), and that's not how our system works.

He should have called the police (and an ambulance for himself) and let the police handle it from there, and it would be Paul on trial for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and maybe attempted murder and some other chargers. Instead he decided to play Wyatt Earp (the lawman, not me... ) and took the law into his own hands . He would have been justified in pursuing and detaining Paul at gun point until Police arrived on scene, but shooting an unarmed man when he was retreating goes against my understanding of what the T.C.A. says.

And I see in the post below an indictment has been returned against Dickens, and IMO, that is the right action, and it looks like the Grand Jury was lenient in the charges, because it could have very well easily been 2nd degree murder charges.

with that said, there seems to be a lot of middle ground and grey areas in this case, maybe a seasoned defense attorney can spin it enough to the jury to confuse them and get a not-guilty verdict. I won't be surprised if Dickens is found not guilty, nor will I be surprised if he is found guilty, but personally I don't think the prosecutor will have too difficult of a time getting a conviction in this one. This could still go either way, but I think Dickens is in the wrong on this one. Unfortunate set of events, but Dickens had multiple chances to end the conflict without escalating it. He should have used his brain to think (multiple times), and instead he didn't. Stupid is as stupid does.

The Armchair Prosecution now rests.

A little update on this story. Grand jury returned the indictment:

Man indicted on two charges in deadly shooting | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

Voluntary manslaughter & reckless endangerment.

not surprising, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Edited August 11, 2011 by WyattEarp

[Guest WyattEarp]

I'm thinking along the same lines as you except we (or at least I) still don't know for sure that Paul pulled over to fight. Maybe he was stopping because he intended to go into the Mexican restaurant and Dickens followed him and punched him. If that is the case (and such could somehow be verified by witnesses, etc.), I'd convict in a heartbeat. If not then, yeah, I hardly think you can use the 'reasonable person' criteria to judge a guy who has just been shot unjustifiably and, for all he knows, is dying and is chasing his murderer to confront him (and put paid to him) before succumbing to his own injuries.

From the article:

"Ashland City police chief Marc Coulon said Dickens had an appointment at Star Physical Therapy, a business in the shopping center."

Looks like Dickens pulled in there 'cause he had an appointment. Paul pulled up beside him & probably started a verbal altercation.

I definitely agree with you that this whole case is one giant "cluster-eff" though!!!

I'd like to quote something Mr. Brooks posted on the first page

I pulled this off my Channel 4 app.

"One killed, one injured in shopping center shooting

Jun 20, 2011 7:05 p.m.

One man was killed and another was injured after a shooting in the parking lot of the Owen Place Shopping Center, police said.

According to investigators, Shannon Scott Paul and Ryan Dickens got into an argument while driving in separate vehicles on Highway 12 Monday afternoon.

Police said the men drove into the parking lot near the H&R Block and Don Pancho restaurant and continued their spat. Officers said the men got out of their vehicles and Paul, whom police say was a licensed gun permit holder, shot Dickens.

Officers said Dickens then wrestled the gun away and shot Paul. At some point, witnesses said Dickens ran through the restaurant, yelling, "Where is he?"

Paul died from his injuries, police said. Dickens was rushed to Vanderbilt Medical Center for treatment.

Police have recovered the gun, however they said it's still unclear what the men fought over originally.

No charges have been filed at this time, investigators said."

Now, there appears to be a conflicting report that there was road rage prior to the men parking in the parking lot.

The Tennessean Article on the Grand Jury Considering the Indictment that was linked at the top of the page was dead, so I found another article on google.

Ongo | Grand jury to decide charges in deadly shooting case

A Cheatham County grand jury will decide if charges will be filed against an Ashland City resident who shot and killed a man last week in the Owen Place Shopping Center.

Assistant district attorney Bob Wilson said the case will be presented to the grand jury in August.The grand jury could return indictments ranging from second-degree murder to manslaughter, Wilson said.

The shooting occurred on June 20 about 2 p.m. in the parking lot of the shopping center on Highway 12 South. Shannon Scott Paul, 40, of Scoutview Road in Ashland City, and Ryan Neal Dickens, 34, of Cherrywood Court in Ashland City were traveling on Highway 12 when they pulled their trucks into the parking lot.

Ashland City police chief Marc Coulon said Dickens had an appointment at Star Physical Therapy, a business in the shopping center.

Coulon said Paul pulled up next to Dickens, and the two men started arguing. Dickens then allegedly punched Paul. Paul, who had a valid gun permit, then shot Dickens in the jaw and leg, according to Coulon.

The chief said Dickens took the gun away from Paul, who then made his way into Don Pancho Mexican Restaurant. Coulon said Dickens followed Paul into the restaurant, and the two men went into the dining area and bar before heading back outside in front of the restaurant.

Dickens allegedly shot Paul twice in the chest. Paul died at the scene, and Dickens was transported to Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. No one was injured in the restaurant.Rumors have circulated that road rage led to the shooting, but Coulon said that can't be confirmed at this point." We have talked with Dickens, but will we re-interview him when he gets out of the hospital," Coulon said.

even if the road rage didn't occur, Dickens still escalated it by getting out of his vehicle, and continuing to take part in the argument rather than walking away, and then again further escalated it by punching the man. Once he got the gun away and Paul was in retreat and unarmed, he should have ceased and desisted further action.

Bottom line is that Dickens still had numerous chances to walk away and de-escalate the situation and let it go and he didn't do that.

Edited August 11, 2011 by WyattEarp

[MattCary]

Reading through all this from the beginning; I've reached the conclusion that both acted stupidly. If the other man had lived, I think he'd be facing similar charges.

Bottom line for me is this: all the advice I've seen about being an angel and turning the other cheek while carrying is exactly what I intend to practice.

[Makiaveli]

on another note, NEVER give in to people with rode rage. Just keep on driving. If they actually follow you or try and run you off the rode, call the police on your cell and do your best to just keep moving.

This...if he had just kept going, he would likely still be alive.

And this...

It really doesn't matter how healthy you are - one shot to the right spot with the right force can knock anyone out temporarily, which is all it takes to fall and strike your head on something hard enough to kill you.

I can handle myself, but if someone attacks me I'm not waiting to see if they're armed or are able to beat me down.

One punch to the head is enough to cause serious damage. Not saying it's likely but it can happen. One more reason to walk away, keep driving etc.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Makiaveli

[Guest G22DaD]

Whoa! Really sad! Armed or not...pissed off or not... why would someone pull over and risk it all just to be tough! Real strengh is shown in restraint. I'm not trying to insult anyone involved. I guess in the heat of the moment, priorities can get blurred.

All I know, is I've worked too hard for what I have just to throw it all away for a fight! If I'm going to fight, it's going to be for something really worth fighting for (my wife, my child, my life... stuff like that!). Pride can be poison.

[Fallguy]

Just for the record....

39-13-211. Voluntary manslaughter.

(a)

Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional or knowing killing of another in a state of passion produced by adequate provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable person to act in an irrational manner.

(

Voluntary manslaughter is a Class C felony.

According to 40-35-111((3) a Class C Felony carries a sentence of 3-15 years and a fine up $10,000.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Fallguy

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

Some of you guys seem to be missing the fact that Dickens pulled into that parking lot because he had an appointment there. We dont know that he pulled over to fight. He could have been just trying to go to his appointment when the other guy got out & started yelling in his face.

Granted, that didnt give him the right to punch him & start the fight, but I wouldnt say that he should have just kept on driving. If I had an appointment somewhere I would have stopped there & got out also. I would have just walked right past the guy if he was yelling at me tho & went to my appointment.....

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

Just for the record....

39-13-211. Voluntary manslaughter.

(a)

Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional or knowing killing of another in a state of passion produced by adequate provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable person to act in an irrational manner.

(

Voluntary manslaughter is a Class C felony.

According to 40-35-111((3) a Class C Felony carries a sentence of 3-15 years and a fine up $10,000.

Looks like they picked the right thing to charge him with......

And I'm guessing that the reckless endangerment charge might stem from him running through a crowded restaurant waving a loaded gun around, & then discharging it in the parking lot....

[Fallguy]

Some of you guys seem to be missing the fact that Dickens pulled into that parking lot because he had an appointment there. We dont know that he pulled over to fight. He could have been just trying to go to his appointment when the other guy got out & started yelling in his face.

Granted, that didnt give him the right to punch him & start the fight, but I wouldnt say that he should have just kept on driving. If I had an appointment somewhere I would have stopped there & got out also. I would have just walked right past the guy if he was yelling at me tho & went to my appointment.....

That is my understanding of things...they guy charged is the one that had a "legitimate" reason to be in the parking lot.

Looks like they picked the right thing to charge him with......

My thoughts as well. Guess I really didn't know that even if you had "adequate provocation to act in an irrational manner" it could still be such a serious charge.

And I'm guessing that the reckless endangerment charge might stem from him running through a crowded restaurant waving a loaded gun around, & then discharging it in the parking lot....

Again I imagine you are right.

39-13-103. Reckless endangerment.

(a) A person commits an offense who recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.

( Reckless endangerment is a Class A misdemeanor; however, reckless endangerment committed with a deadly weapon is a Class E felony.

[Guest WyattEarp]

Some of you guys seem to be missing the fact that Dickens pulled into that parking lot because he had an appointment there. We dont know that he pulled over to fight. He could have been just trying to go to his appointment when the other guy got out & started yelling in his face.

Granted, that didnt give him the right to punch him & start the fight, but I wouldnt say that he should have just kept on driving. If I had an appointment somewhere I would have stopped there & got out also. I would have just walked right past the guy if he was yelling at me tho & went to my appointment.....

regardless if the road rage portion really happened or not, he had a chance to defuse the situation several times, by walking away (i.e getting back in his vehicle, or walking into his appointment), but instead he hit the guy and escalated it.

but I don't care if I had an appointment or not, I would have left, because my life and safety (and in Dicken's case his freedom) are worth missing a stupid appointment over. the appointment is totally irrelevant except to explain his purpose in being at that location. appointment's can be rescheduled. your life unfortunately can not.

[Fallguy]

regardless if the road rage portion really happened or not, he had a chance to defuse the situation several times, by walking away (i.e getting back in his vehicle, or walking into his appointment), but instead he hit the guy and escalated it.

but I don't care if I had an appointment or not, I would have left, because my life and safety (and in Dicken's case his freedom) are worth missing a stupid appointment over. the appointment is totally irrelevant except to explain his purpose in being at that location. appointment's can be rescheduled. your life unfortunately can not.

You're right in that he didn't have to strike the guy and/or escalate it. I think ArmaDeFuego's point may have been that some think the guy that has been charged is the one that chased the other guy down to continue whatever may have happened on the road. So one could make the argument the deceased is the one that kept the confrontation going by following this guy. I agree with others had he lived, he also would have been charged with something. ponpoi

[Guest 808-South]

Whoa! Really sad! Armed or not...pissed off or not... why would someone pull over and risk it all just to be tough! Real strengh is shown in restraint. I'm not trying to insult anyone involved. I guess in the heat of the moment, priorities can get blurred.

All I know, is I've worked too hard for what I have just to throw it all away for a fight! If I'm going to fight, it's going to be for something really worth fighting for (my wife, my child, my life... stuff like that!). Pride can be poison.

^^^^This ×1000

Also, Ive met a few HCP holders that has the attitude that they'll fight anyone because if loosing they always got thier gun on them. With that attitude they shouldnt be carrying. It seems that cold steel on thier hip makes them brave.

Ive only been carrying for a very short time. And in my short time Ive had incidents where if I engaged it would of escelated. But knowing I have my weapon on me. I choose to let many things pass.

[DaveTN]

This will possibly be a case we can all learn from. I wish someone in the gun community could record the entire trial so we don’t have to rely on the statements the media chooses to print. Argue the law all you want, but the case law and the real life decisions created by these trials is what’s important.

Sure, we all know you can’t chase someone down and kill them. But in my opinion this case is different. This guy had been shot twice. His mind, I’m sure, wasn’t thinking right. I also would argue that the threat was not over. If he passed out from his wounds the other guy could have finished him off. I’d buy that if I was on the jury.

This is a case where this guy better have the best lawyer money can buy.

Can we get Court TV to go there?

[Fallguy]

This will possibly be a case we can all learn from. I wish someone in the gun community could record the entire trial so we don’t have to rely on the statements the media chooses to print. Argue the law all you want, but the case law and the real life decisions created by these trials is what’s important.

Sure, we all know you can’t chase someone down and kill them. But in my opinion this case is different. This guy had been shot twice. His mind, I’m sure, wasn’t thinking right. I also would argue that the threat was not over. If he passed out from his wounds the other guy could have finished him off. I’d buy that if I was on the jury.

This is a case where this guy better have the best lawyer money can buy.

Can we get Court TV to go there?

Yes, it would be nice to see first hand coverage of this.

It appears the DA would agree with your opinion that he wasn't thinking right, it seems voluntary manslaughter takes that into account. Which I admit I'm a bit surprised about...

You make a decent argument about still being a threat, I think it would be stronger had he not chased him, but it may work anyway.

[zapfbroad]

Regardless of the motives involved, which we may never get accurately, this will be used as a medium to paint all HCP as reckless hotheads. Have to count this one as an L for the community. Id like to see a 501c3 of like-minded HCP that volunteer time to improve situations like a homeless aid or home rehab group or something, anything. But that do it while carrying & advertise. Doesn't matter to me if they did OC or CC. It may seem a little off thread but I think its related. There needs to be a proactive organisation looking. To improve the image by irrefutable deed rather than leave if to the opinion of selective actions. Just a thought, not aware of any groups that do this. To me the NRA spends more time focused on the legislative side which is needed & appreciated but I feel like there needs to be some 'perception' activism.

via EPIC4G SRF1.1.0 by Android Creative Syndicate

[Guest nicemac]

Id like to see a 501c3 of like-minded HCP that volunteer time to improve situations like a homeless aid or home rehab group or something, anything. But that do it while carrying & advertise. Doesn't matter to me if they did OC or CC. It may seem a little off thread but I think its related. There needs to be a proactive organisation looking. To improve the image by irrefutable deed rather than leave if to the opinion of selective actions. Just a thought, not aware of any groups that do this.

So start one!

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

regardless if the road rage portion really happened or not, he had a chance to defuse the situation several times, by walking away (i.e getting back in his vehicle, or walking into his appointment), but instead he hit the guy and escalated it.

but I don't care if I had an appointment or not, I would have left, because my life and safety (and in Dicken's case his freedom) are worth missing a stupid appointment over. the appointment is totally irrelevant except to explain his purpose in being at that location. appointment's can be rescheduled. your life unfortunately can not.

He might have not known that the dude was going to follow him into the parking lot. I would have pulled into where ever I was going as usual & attempted to enter the building. If the other guy wanted to get in my face & start yelling I would try to just walk on into the building. If he was trying to block me I would just try to go somewhere where there was a lot of witnesses around & call the cops.

He was ok pulling in there. His mistake came when he let his emotions get the better of him & he punched the guy.

Now of course the guy who got killed really is more to blame here in my mind than Dickens. From everything I've read, the ONLY reason he pulled in beside Dickens was to start a confrontation with him. That is totally stupid, & even more so because he was a permit holder carrying a weapon. Of COURSE he would have been charged if he would have lived. Like I said, I think he's more to blame than Dickens.

But this trial isnt about the guy who died, its about Dickens. He should have been the better man & walked away. After he was shot I dont know if he could have done anything but take the gun away & try & kill the other guy at that point. HOWEVER, his dumb actions were what got him into the situation in the first place. He cant really argue self defense since he started the fight.

If I were on the jury, I would probably go with a conviction for voluntary manslaughter. Of course none of us here have all of the facts of the case so we are all kind of armchair quarterbacking, but knowing the facts that I have been able to find out, I would say he should be convicted of what he has been charged with.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

Also, Ive met a few HCP holders that has the attitude that they'll fight anyone because if loosing they always got thier gun on them. With that attitude they shouldnt be carrying. It seems that cold steel on thier hip makes them brave.

Ive only been carrying for a very short time. And in my short time Ive had incidents where if I engaged it would of escelated. But knowing I have my weapon on me. I choose to let many things pass.

I agree 100%.

People with that attitude should NOT be carrying. When you are carrying a gun you should ALWAYS try to REMOVE yourself from any kind of violent situation. The ONLY time you should even think about using your weapon is when a deadly situation has been thrust upon you that you did not start & you cannot avoid.

Going around looking for a fight is just stupid. If someone starts something its your obligation as someone carrying to simply WALK AWAY. Who cares if they call you every name in the book? There is nothing that anyone can call me that would make me risk going to prison. I dont care if you cut me off in traffic. I'll wave & go on with my day. Its NOT the end of the world if someone disrespects you. But it might be the end of your freedom if you cant act like an adult about it.....

[Fallguy]

(Talking in general, not about this incident)

I agree you shouldn't go around looking for trouble, acting like a bada** or starting trouble. But I've never thought just because you are armed, you have to just let someone slap in you in the face and do nothing either. Because you have a firearm doesn't mean you have to or even need to use it. Self-defense is just that...if someone attacks you, you can defend yourself. Self-Defense does NOT equal deadly force...it is just a level of self-defense. So again just because you are prepared for a higher level of self-defense, I don't understand why you have to let everything less than that go...... But that's just me.....

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

(Talking in general, not about this incident)

I agree you shouldn't go around looking for trouble, acting like a bada** or starting trouble. But I've never thought just because you are armed, you have to just let someone slap in you in the face and do nothing either. Because you have a firearm doesn't mean you have to or even need to use it. Self-defense is just that...if someone attacks you, you can defend yourself. Self-Defense does NOT equal deadly force...it is just a level of self-defense. So again just because you are prepared for a higher level of self-defense, I don't understand why you have to let everything less than that go...... But that's just me.....

Because with the way most people are now days, if you "slap back" when someone slaps you in the face (to use your metaphor) things have a VERY high chance of escalating, which will probably only end badly for you as a person carrying a gun.....

"Turn the other cheek" is the best advice you can follow when carrying.....

[DaveTN]

So again just because you are prepared for a higher level of self-defense, I don't understand why you have to let everything less than that go...... But that's just me.....

Because it’s the law. If someone bitch slaps you during an argument and you pull a gun, unless there is some great disparity of force; you are more than likely going to jail.

An unprovoked attack from someone that you are not an active participant in an argument with is another story. (As in a robbery.)

Pull a gun, display a gun or let someone see a gun, and you have just escalated the situation to you being a “man with a gun†to responding Officers. Having been the responding Officer on those calls many times I don’t want to be involved in that level of interaction with cops.

You can argue all day long whether you threatened anyone or committed a crime, but chances are you are going to make that argument in a courtroom and you are going to have a big azz attorney bill to do it….. I’ll pass on all the drama.

[enfield]

Bad, bad news. I really would like to know the FULL story of what exactly happened if anyone finds it once it is reported though. It will be interesting to see what prompted the HCP holder to draw his weapon? Although if the other man was indeed TOTALLY unarmed there is no excuse for using that weapon.

Disagree, nobody's ever totally disarmed. I'd feel justified if Chuck Norris was whippin' up on me barehanded. But, stopping originally, and (possibly) chasing the other guy reflects poor judgment. Guess we'll have to wait and see what develops.

[Guest WyattEarp]

This will possibly be a case we can all learn from. I wish someone in the gun community could record the entire trial so we don’t have to rely on the statements the media chooses to print.

are court transcripts public record? wonder if they're available for free or for a fee? maybe someone can make an inquiry and find out. I'd be interested in seeing the entire transcript or hearing an audio recording of the trial.

[Fallguy]

Because with the way most people are now days, if you "slap back" when someone slaps you in the face (to use your metaphor) things have a VERY high chance of escalating, which will probably only end badly for you as a person carrying a gun.....

"Turn the other cheek" is the best advice you can follow when carrying.....

Because it’s the law. If someone bitch slaps you during an argument and you pull a gun, unless there is some great disparity of force; you are more than likely going to jail.

An unprovoked attack from someone that you are not an active participant in an argument with is another story. (As in a robbery.)

Pull a gun, display a gun or let someone see a gun, and you have just escalated the situation to you being a “man with a gun” to responding Officers. Having been the responding Officer on those calls many times I don’t want to be involved in that level of interaction with cops.

You can argue all day long whether you threatened anyone or committed a crime, but chances are you are going to make that argument in a courtroom and you are going to have a big azz attorney bill to do it….. I’ll pass on all the drama.

Apparently I didn't make myself clear. I am not talking about using the firearm or even displaying it. If it is concealed properly I am talking about no one ever knowing you are armed unless the law shows up and you tell them.

I am talking why can't you defend yourself with equal force that is used against you? So many on here make it sound if someone punches you, that just because you are armed, you have to run and hide and can't hit back. (NOT SAYING USE YOUR FIREARM!!) If someone hits me I will punch back. If I go to court, so be it.

I didn't start carrying a firearm to feel like more of a victim if someone attacks me.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

Apparently I didn't make myself clear. I am not talking about using the firearm or even displaying it. If it is concealed properly I am talking about no one ever knowing you are armed unless the law shows up and you tell them.

I am talking why can't you defend yourself with equal force that is used against you? So many on here make it sound if someone punches you, that just because you are armed, you have to run and hide and can't hit back. (NOT SAYING USE YOUR FIREARM!!) If someone hits me I will punch back. If I go to court, so be it.

I didn't start carrying a firearm to feel like more of a victim if someone attacks me.

Whoops sorry yea, maybe I misunderstood you.

If someone starts punching me while I am carrying I wouldnt just stand there & take it. I was talking about before it comes to blows. I thought your slapping thing was a metaphor. If you are talking about someone physically slapping me then yea, thats a different story. I wouldnt just "turn my cheek" on a physical assault.