Challenging read- Special ops soldier won’t face charges after fatally shooting civilian on his property

Status
Not open for further replies.
But.... was he?
I wasn't there.
I would leave it up to the investigation.

I doubt the guy was mute. Maybe there was a background investigation into his profile / language skills? It doesn't matter though. He could have been singing "Mary had a little lamb" while he attacked the Colonel, the guy defended himself and his family.

Some dude taking pics of your kids on your property is creepy enough.
 
These are small counties in the South. How many people did Alex Murdaugh kill before he was even brought up on charges. In fact, the only way he was finally even looked into is after too many they finally brought in the medical examiner from Charleston County and they refused to agree with the original findings.

Not saying he did or didn't, but things work differently in these places.
Interesting point. I think Alex is an anomaly though. He was very powerful, wealthy, connected, possibly a king maker in the county? His sway might have helped him multiple times

Is there corruption? Yes of course. Could the prosecutors office and medical examiner be colluding in protecting one of their own? Maybe, but it would be hard to do with the media attention here and the guys phone being sent to the FBI for forensics.

The spotlight brought Alex down and is probably making sure the police dot their i's and cross their t's in this case.

If I were in a jury, the heat of the moment statements made in the 911 call would carry the most weight that the Colonel gave the guy multiple warnings to leave, the owner stood his ground and was attacked.


Fun fact - this shooting took place in Moore County. You may recall a couple years ago someone was running around shooting up power substations and whole communities were without power for weeks. Same County.
There wasn't enough media attention to this matter. Maybe because they didn't want to have any copycats? Who ever was doing this really hit the system in a weak spot. We really need to have a surplus of transformers as a national security priority, not some just in time manufacturing solution.
 
What Brigade does this Colonel command at SOCOM? SOCOM Commander is a four star general officer, a designated combatant commander, typically but not always an air force officer, and based at McDill AFB in Tampa.

I would appreciate a link that validated the special ops officer is a Colonel, as I seem to have missed that. Thank you.
Not the commander, just a commander of some function of an army base (usually), such as supply, medical, pay and finance, engineers, vehicle maintenance, artillery, aircraft maintenance, a brigade of infantry divisions, ect.
 
The pictures this far found on the smartphone don’t show this guy was on the private property.
Also women always bring up children to make the situation sound more serious.

It’s quite funny how many assumptions are made to be true for the defense of this army men, but the worker is automatically presumed as a predator, spy, child kidnapper or a pedo without a shred of evidence.
 
IF he attacked the Colonel.
I wasn't there.
I'd say he did because the forensics on this high profile case would be hard to falsify. There is an entire field of science and professions devoted to piecing back a crime scene and interviewing suspects.

It’s quite funny how many assumptions are made to be true for the defense of this army men, but the worker is automatically presumed as a predator, spy, child kidnapper or a pedo without a shred of evidence.
I am, as many of us here are, going off what information we have at the time, the same as a jury would. In my view, the 911 recording is very solid evidence. Maybe the kids really were outside? That is an important fact and shouldn't be downplayed. The phone is being analyzed by the FBI so it would be interesting to see if anything else is recovered, maybe photos were deleted?

If the Colonel just shot the guy up for fun, do you think the police would have let him off so easily on such a high profile case? The forensic evidence would be ****ing for those investigator careers. No one wants to lose their job / pension maximizing capability by protecting a murderer I would presume.
 
This is where the the medical examiners office will pay very close attention and go into detail during the autopsy and investigation. If there was any shred of evidence that this guy just plainly shot the guy in the back and made up a lie it would be uncovered.

This isn't the 50's where you tell the police "ask the dead guy what happened" and the problem goes away. The tech and knowledge modern county medical examiners have is pretty amazing. Look at the old Forensics Files episodes from the late 90s - 00s, they performed miracles in those labs and can do even more now. The size of the gunshot residue, if any, on the assailant would be an easy tell how close the shot was.


"The initial 911 call to the Sheriff's Office was made by the homeowner's wife at 8:12 PM. During the call, she stated that a suspicious person was observed on her property taking photographs of the house and children, and that her husband had approached the individual to speak with them. She noted that there was an apparent language barrier, and that the person was acting aggressively. The second call, which was more exigent, was made at 8:25 PM. At one point during the calls, the caller could be heard pleading for expedited law enforcement response at the request of her husband, who could be heard yelling to her in the background. She secured a rifle during one of the calls, reflecting the perceived level of threat. The shooting allegedly took place shortly after the second call, just prior to deputies arriving on scene."

"Efforts to access Daraev’s cellular phone continue in effort to fully understand his activities and the nature of any photographs taken. Some images Daraev uploaded to a shared directory have been obtained, and analysis is ongoing. Given the unique circumstances of the incident, the sheriff’s office has voluntarily kept all case materials accessible to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Army Criminal Investigation Division throughout the investigation."

https://www.facebook.com/MCSheriffOffice/ see 8/12 post

At the 2:10 mark of the second audio recording, the wife states pictures are being taken of the children. I doubt she made this up in the heat of the moment as a future defense.

https://www.thepilot.com/news/audio...cle_7d22432c-1e96-11ef-a4af-b720a4ec2d30.html

“He's from Chechnya. He came up on our poverty line. My kids are in the backyard," the caller said. "He's taking pictures of our property. My husband is, he's a military specialist. He's trained and he knows what he's doing, but I really need some police presence here."

"He's taking pictures of your property?" the dispatcher asked.

"Of our children, of our property," the caller said.


Well maybe if they are screaming "derka! derka! derka!" at you while being aggressive and trespassing on your property?
Thanks for posting. Both calls are worth a listen if your interested in the actual story.

I listened to both 911 calls. In the first call, the lady says that the "there talking to each other on the property line right now" - between 58 and 60 seconds. 1:32 she specifically says "there is a power line that runs down our property and there standing on the powerline.

Second call is much less discernible - but she again says "he came up on our property line" at 1:42. She says he was taking pictures of her property and her kids were in the backyard.

She specifically says property line at least twice. Not property - property line.

She also mentions she is on a farm and watching them (the worker and her husband) - but doesn't say how far away this is.

From listening to the calls, I don't believe the original story represents this very well. If the person was on their "property line" and on a power line easement taking pictures, that is wildly different compared to what seems to be represented elsewhere like the guy was standing near their house purposefully photographing them.

I don't expect much to change in the decision either way, but the calls seem much more informative than the articles.
 
I'd say he did because the forensics on this high profile case would be hard to falsify. There is an entire field of science and professions devoted to piecing back a crime scene and interviewing suspects.

Where are you getting the forensics from? Please post a link of the forensic or at least coroner’s notes.

Right now you’re making a lot of presumptions based on nothing really.
 
Thanks for posting. Both calls are worth a listen if your interested in the actual story.

I listened to both 911 calls. In the first call, the lady says that the "there talking to each other on the property line right now" - between 58 and 60 seconds. 1:32 she specifically says "there is a power line that runs down our property and there standing on the powerline.

Second call is much less discernible - but she again says "he came up on our property line" at 1:42. She says he was taking pictures of her property and her kids were in the backyard.

She specifically says property line at least twice. Not property - property line.

She also mentions she is on a farm and watching them (the worker and her husband) - but doesn't say how far away this is.

From listening to the calls, I don't believe the original story represents this very well. If the person was on their "property line" and on a power line easement taking pictures, that is wildly different compared to what seems to be represented elsewhere like the guy was standing near their house purposefully photographing them.

I don't expect much to change in the decision either way, but the calls seem much more informative than the articles.
I listened to the 911 calls too. She interchanges the guy being on their property with being on the property line.
On the second call she is quite frantic and says “they are on the property” when the 911 dispatch asked if there were multiple people she said “I don’t know”. She also never said the worker was filming her children, only that children were outside with her husband.

I like to watch the first amendment videos from time to time and people, both civilians and police, constantly freak out over a camera in 100% public places. They oftentimes bring up protection of children or minors when confronting the cameraman.

I think this might be a case of this family freaking out over something that’s was 100% legal and escalating the situation.
 
+1

I wouldn't shoot someone on my property unless I knew there was a threat (armed, attempting to break in, etc) but if someone in an unmarked vehicle in plain clothes just showed up on my property to take pictures at an odd time of day I'd be asking them some serious questions.
That may have worked in the ‘50s, but that’s not today’s world. What makes you think they’ll answer your “serious questions” truthfully?

Yes this story could be seen as sad, in a way. But if someone claims to be “utilities” with no ID, in a personal vehicle, and gets animated/violent when asked to vacate, sees the homeowner is armed and still refuses to leave…

I’ll keep it P.C. in this way, similar to one of Astro’s responses: Locke should be required reading for everyone. Don’t mess with a person’s life, liberty, or property, and 99% of the time if you’re not in a metropolis, nobody will ever go out of their way to mess with you. I don’t ever want to be put in a position like this homeowner was either, but with the training he likely had it’s difficult to believe he would have acted rashly and unprovoked. Protecting one’s family isn’t always rated PG.

Even if I was surveying something for my job, the minute somebody showed up with a gun I don’t care, I’d be departing the property even if I had a company ID and vehicle and everything else that made me appear legitimate. A supervisor can take his butt out there and figure out how to deal with the homeowner if things were that crazy. Not leaving is asking for trouble.
 
the minute somebody showed up with a gun I don’t care, I’d be departing the property...
I would too. But my question always has been: was he on private property or a utility easement? One, he absolutely has to leave when asked/told. The other, the easement, he has no legal obligation to depart because it isn't private property even if the owner thinks it is.
 
Where are you getting the forensics from? Please post a link of the forensic or at least coroner’s notes.

Right now you’re making a lot of presumptions based on nothing really.
I should have worded that sentence better. I presume there would be forensics in this investigation, it would be insane for there not to be. The sheriff doesn't just show up, stand over the corpse, and shrug their shoulders. These professionals are just itching to use their skills, bring the evidence truck out, write up reports.

The sheriff's office is sending the phone out to the FBI and I can't imagine they wouldn't do an autopsy or an analysis of the guys clothing for gunshot residue? So with such a bright spotlight on this situation, any error or perceived bias in the report and evidence could look bad for the ME. The family could have gotten an independent autopsy and can scrutinize the investigative report creating a liability for the professionals involved.
 
It also says he was shot in the head and in the hand. Since it isn’t specified which shots happened first no assumption can be made that he was shot while retreating.

He could have spun and turned in all kinds of different ways that would result in getting shot in the back while the shooter was shooting to eliminate the threat.

If we aren’t going to assume things about the intentions of the guy getting shot that can’t be verified then we should not assume things about the shooter that can’t be verified.
 
I would too. But my question always has been: was he on private property or a utility easement? One, he absolutely has to leave when asked/told. The other, the easement, he has no legal obligation to depart because it isn't private property even if the owner thinks it is.
Without any ID or proof he’s got clearance to be on the easement, the easement is private property, no?
 
Where are you getting the forensics from? Please post a link of the forensic or at least coroner’s notes.

Right now you’re making a lot of presumptions based on nothing really.

There is no report yet, you're making up that the guy was shot in the back as much as any other.
 
OSHA is going to have fun with this one. Maybe the guy should have used common sense and have identification and not be aggressive towards somebody with a gun.
Meanwhile, the Moore County Sheriff’s Office has requested an investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into the work practices surrounding this incident to ensure all safety protocols were followed.
 
Without any ID or proof he’s got clearance to be on the easement, the easement is private property, no?
I live on 5 acres and it's pretty clear that I don't own the easement. I 'think' its 35 ft. from the center of the road is where my property line starts. The county even cuts the grass on this easement. If utility lines cut through a property that might be a grey area, but I don't think it's the case here. Look up the GIS survey map where you live. It should show the easements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom