SC Officer shot 4 times in the back and killed - investigation continuing

[Sportcat]

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2175396&nav=0RaMPsSk

(Eastover) August 14, 2004 - A Beaufort County sheriff's deputy was shot and killed outside the town of Eastover Saturday.

Robb Odam, 22, a Beaufort County sheriff's deputy was visiting his family just outside the town of Eastover in Richland County when authorities say he got into an armed confrontation with a neighbor.

In July, Odam celebrated his one year anniversary on the job as a deputy.

Saturday night, a Richland County deputy guarded the land where Odam was found shot at least four times in the back.

Authorities have charged Thomas Rye, 58, with Odam's death. Rye lives in Columbia, but investigators say he owns property just outside Eastover.

The Beaufort County sheriff says that Odam is married and lives in Blufton.

Richland County authorities say this is an ongoing investigation. An autopsy is scheduled for Sunday morning.

 

[myopicmouse]

Any details on why he turned his back on him?

 

[Sportcat]

Another article...

http://wltx.com/news/news19.aspx?storyid=20424

(Richland County) - Richland County Sheriff's department officials say a Beaufort County Sheriff's deputy is dead after a shooting near Eastover.

Richland County Chief Deputy Coroner Ted Kennedy tells News19 22-year-old Robert Odam was shot and killed in a wooded area on Vanboklen Road around 4:00 p.m. Saturday.

That wooded area is where authorities say the victim's body was found. The deputy coroner says Odam died at least four gunshot wounds. He says three of those gunshots were to the victim's back.

Investigators say they do have a suspect. 58-year-old Thomas Grover Rye of Columbia owned the wooded area Odam was found. They say Rye has been charged with murder and is currently in custody.

Sheriff's department officials think a confrontation might have taken place between the two men.

As to what exactly happened to cause the deadly shooting and why the Beaufort County deputy was in the area are questions still under investigation.

 

[Ala Dan]

So sorry to learn of this tragic incident. GOD's speed to the
deputy's family and friends, as our thoughts and prayers
will be with them.

Respectfully,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[Sportcat]

Another update

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/9411658.htm

Posted on Mon, Aug. 16, 2004

Suspect in deputy's death says he shot in self-defense

Associated Press


COLUMBIA, S.C. - A man charged in the death of a Beaufort County deputy says he shot in self-defense.

Thomas G. Rye, 58, of Columbia, has been charged with murder in the death of 22-year-old Robert Odam, who was found dead on Rye's property in Eastover on Saturday afternoon.

Odam had been shot four times, including twice in the back and once in the left arm, Richland County Coroner Gary Watts said. Another bullet grazed his neck.

Rye had called 911 earlier Saturday to report that one of his cats on his property in Eastover had been shot and someone had tried to break into his shed, said Richland County Sheriff's spokesman Joseph Pellicci. Rye then called again to say he had confronted a man on his property and shot and killed him, Pellicci said.

Odam was visiting relatives in Eastover who live next to Rye's property, and Odam and his brother-in-law had been on Rye's property to take target practice, Pellicci said.

Pellicci said it did not appear Odam charged toward Rye or fired his gun.

"We haven't found anything during this investigation to support (Rye's) theory of self-defense," Pellicci said. "At this point, we feel that Mr. Rye murdered Mr. Odam without any provocation."

Odam joined the Beaufort County Sheriff's Office a year ago after two years in the Air Force, said Beaufort County Sheriff P.J. Tanner. Odam graduated from Hilton Head High School in 2000.

---

 

[hammer4nc]

Sorry about the death of the officer, but it really detracts from objectivity when biased conclusions are presented, when the investigation isn't even complete.

In this case:

"We haven't found anything during this investigation to support (Rye's) theory of self-defense," Pellicci said. "At this point, we feel that Mr. Rye murdered Mr. Odam without any provocation."

Why don't we see this statement in the many cases where an officer shoots an armed suspect? Except for the occupation of the actors?

Facts as presented now are: Odom and two brothers-in-law are on Rye's property taking target practice. Odom is armed with AK-47. Rye made previous calls to 911.

Presumably officer Odom's bil's testimony disputes the story given by Rye, of self-defense. Again, with the same set of facts, lets reverse the roles: Officer shoots armed suspect. Officer claims self-defense. Multiple witnesses dispute the testimony of the officer. Does the "police spokesman" immediately say: "We haven't found anything during this investigation to support officer X's theory of self-defense," "At this point, we feel that Officer X murdered citizen Y without any provocation."

Hell, when the roles are reversed, the "suspect" can be armed with a soda can, wallet, or cellphone, and the officer is justified in self defense. Does the officer get charged with murder "pending conclusion of the investigation"? 'Course not.

Right now, it appears a case of disputed testimony. Officials undercut their objectivity when they present their conclusion (guilty) within 24 hours.

Sorry for needless loss of life, but lets dispense with the obvious double standard in the official accounts.

 

[Edward429451]

I was caught on someone elses property target shooting uninvited once. I didn't get shot for it. I was appropriately polite and respectful though. I tell ya, it's all how you carry yourself.

Sorry the guy died but I have to wonder if young cop with an AK was polite and respectful that day to the landowner.

 

[Warbow]

Edward429451 wrote:

Sorry the guy died but I have to wonder if young cop with an AK was polite and respectful that day to the landowner.

Because rudeness warrants getting shot to death? I don't know what happened, but I do know that you don't get to shoot people because they're being rude to you.

 

[Edward429451]

Because rudeness warrants getting shot to death? I don't know what happened, but I do know that you don't get to shoot people because they're being rude to you.

I agree with you Warbow. But that don't mean that everyone feels the same way and especially on their own land. Best to play it safe and be polite as pie.

 

[myopicmouse]

If he went there with an AK he was looking for trouble, and that was exactly what he got. The guy got what he was asking for, you don't go to have an argument with someone whilst carrying a rifle - frankly he deserved it for his stupidity alone, people like that need removed from the gene pool.

 

[Sportcat]

If he went there with an AK he was looking for trouble, and that was exactly what he got. The guy got what he was asking for, you don't go to have an argument with someone whilst carrying a rifle - frankly he deserved it for his stupidity alone, people like that need removed from the gene pool.

***!?!?! The guy got what he was asking for? Deserved it for his stupidity? He deserved it?

Do you know something we don't? Were you there?:banghead: :banghead:

 

[Warbow]

Edward429451 wrote:

I agree with you Warbow. But that don't mean that everyone feels the same way and especially on their own land. Best to play it safe and be polite as pie.

Oh, I see what you mean now. I thought you meant something else.

Definitely, there are crazies out there who would shoot someone over something so trivial (road rage comes to mind).

I agree, it's best to be polite.

 

[myopicmouse]

***!?!?! The guy got what he was asking for? Deserved it for his stupidity? He deserved it?

It was Ryes land and this idiot has went to him with rifle in hand - If he felt he was going to need it, then whats the problem with him being shot if he was expecting it, he went there thinking it could happen, it did happen so he has no-one to blame but himself.

 

[outfieldjack]

It was Ryes land and this idiot has went to him with rifle in hand - If he felt he was going to need it, then whats the problem with him being shot if he was expecting it, he went there thinking it could happen, it did happen so he has no-one to blame but himself.

Ok, so this guy is getting ready to target shott on someone else's land.... that is a mistake, but HOW can you justify this guy getting SHOT IN THE BACK four times?!?!?!? And you say he was expecting it?!?!?!? He had the rifle BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO TARGET SHOOT WITH IT..... not because he was expecting trouble?!?!??

 

[Chris Rhines]

...Odam and his brother-in-law had been on Rye's property to take target practice, Pellicci said.

This is a major factor here. Did Odam have permission to be on Rye's property? If not, it would tend to support Rye's claim of self-defense.

If a couple of armed men show up uninvited on my property and start plinking away, I would not be too pleased.

- Chris

 

[Shootcraps]

I think even Perry Mason would have a problem with you shooting someone in the back and claiming self defense. We need more concrete details before we can make an accurate estimate of who is at fault.

If the deputy was trespassing, he should have apologized and scooted back to his property asap. No harm, no foul.

Does someone trespassing on your property with an AK deserve to be shot in the back? Depends on what they are doing, but generally - No.

Is it possible that a new deputy with an AK could become beligerent and cocky when told to get off someone elses property? Yes.

The picture's still too fuzzy.

 

[Carrying_1]

Close to home

I live only five minutes from bluffton. Something has to be up with these shooting him in the back? Maybe he arrested him before or maybe a family fued of some type.

 

[Edward429451]

Fuzzy indeed. Not being judgemental here but would the castle doctrine have application here in this type of case. Depends on the factual details of course, but generally speaking?

 

[DMF]

I'll say the same thing here that I say when it's a cop that's doing the shooting.

1- We don't have enough facts to determine if this is a justified shoot or not.

2- Just because someone got shot in the back doesn't mean the shoot wasn't justified as self defense. I don't know if I'd want to wait until a guy armed with a semi-auto turned and faced me before engaging the threat. I've seen the video of the cop in the shootout with the guy who had the Mini-14. Cop lost his life. Very tough to watch that video.

So it boils down to this there needs to be an investigation to determine what really happened. Maybe it was justified, maybe it wasn't, but we don't know anything more than what's in the crappy news article.

 

[Shootcraps]

Does the castle doctrine say that you can kill someone for just being on your property? If it does, that sounds a bit harsh to me.

Now if you're asked to leave and you refuse - I can see that.

For being in your HOUSE without being invited and refusing to leave, that I might be able to accept.

 

[tyme]

No, castle doctrine doesn't extend to land.

Too few facts, but going onto someone else's property to shoot an AK-47 doesn't seem very smart to me. However, neither does intentionally shooting said tresspasser three times in the back, if that's what happened.

If the shooter is going to claim self defense, it all boils down to the forensics report. Was the cop already on the ground when he was shot in the back? If not, was the shooter reasonable in believing he was in imminent danger?

 

[DMF]

Odom is armed with AK-47.

BTW, I realized my comments were based on this statement. Where did this assumption come from, I've re-read the articles and there is nothing about what type of gun Odom had, or how it was being carried.

 

[Hawkman]

If he went there with an AK he was looking for trouble, and that was exactly what he got. The guy got what he was asking for, you don't go to have an argument with someone whilst carrying a rifle - frankly he deserved it for his stupidity alone, people like that need removed from the gene pool.

I believe I have another good candidate for my ignore list...

 

[FedDC]

It sounds like the shooter is going to get the Gas. Lethal force is only used in defense of life, not property and it will be HARD to say that shooting someone in the back was defense of life. If it is like it was back around our farm, a lot of guys had the "You come on my land, you die" mentality and would probably have shot someone for just stepping foot on their property like that. They would then have gone to prison just like this guy will. Many folks have their own idea of what "Self Defense"is and they don't factor in the law.

 

[Evil_Ed]

Not enough info either way to make any kind of judgement... on the one hand the news report says that some of the shots were in the back but there was also a shot in the forearm so that could support a self defense situation if the first shot was the arm shot and then the guy turned to run.

Odam had been shot four times, including twice in the back and once in the left arm, Richland County Coroner Gary Watts said. Another bullet grazed his neck.

You see a lot of that in defense shootings from what I've read where the bad guy turns to run and gets hit a few more times in the back before the shooter can react to the turn. A human being pumped with adrenaline can move pretty fast.

On the other hand this could very easily be a case of crazy old man hates trespassers with a lethal intensity. I wonder if Rye has a history of violence/trouble with the law? Hopefully we will get more information as time goes by. I think the end result will be stupid mistakes on both their parts and just a general tragedy that could/should have been avoided.

Without passing judgement on anyone I would say that this whole thing could have been avoided if the deputy and his brothers had not trespassed while armed on someone elses property. Even if the other guy overreacted to the threat I think that it's not too bright to go onto someone elses property uninvited while visibly armed, let alone shooting.