Click on photo to enlarge
Dana Roberts
SENECA — A Seneca woman is behind bars after being arrested on two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill and resisting arrest Sunday.
According to the incident report filed by the Seneca Police Department, Dana Roberts shot John Cleveland, 40, and Tyrone Cleveland, 23, at their Main Street residence in Seneca with a shotgun as the two sat on their front porch. Roberts, who resides on the same street as the two victims, was in the Clevelands’ front yard when authorities arrived at the scene.
According to police records, Roberts threw her hands into the air and told officers to shoot her. A 12-gauge shotgun was later found in her home under her bed. When told to get on the ground by the arresting officer, the report says, Roberts did not respond. Responding officers had to forcibly subdue Roberts to affect the arrest, Maj. John Covington said.
John Cleveland suffered pellet wounds to the leg, knee, stomach and arm, while Tyrone Cleveland sustained a wound to his arm. The two refused medical treatment by Oconee Medical Center emergency personnel, saying they would take themselves to the hospital if they later deemed it necessary.
According to statements given by the victims, both black males, after they were hit by shots, Roberts a 35-year-old white woman, was heard across the street yelling racial epithets.
Three witnesses filed statements with Seneca police in the incident, and at least one shell was found on the property. The incident remains under investigation as to the cause of the initial dispute, Covington said.
Home
Discuss story 
iPod friendly version
Comments
Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of Eagle Media. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.I guess if this woman had been a doctor she wouldn't be charged with intent to kill. Maybe if the two men had gone to the hospital or she had used birdshot. Maybe the police don't know the difference in birdshot. Maybe it's because she was white and the men were black. Who knows what that was all about.
Too Bad this woman doesn't have the the money or the credentials like the doctor in Clemson. She would have just gotten "assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, a misdemeanor."
This is a prime example of the law enforcements preference to people with money vs. people without.
The doctor should have gotten the same charges as this woman. HE DIDN'T AND THAT IS WRONG!
THIS "WOMAN" IS IN TROUBLE ALL THE TIME, I HAVE SEEN HER NAME IN THE ARREST REPORT ON SEVERAL OCCASION. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE DOCTOR WAS RIGHT, BUT LETS LOOK AT HIS CRIMINAL RECORD AS OPPOSED TO HERS. I KNOW WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER, BUT JUST LOOK AT HER, THE PROBLEM IS OBVIOUS.
"THE GOLDEN RULE" Those with the Gold Make the rules !!
As i said in the Comment section on the Doctor.. He also Should have been charged with assault and battery with intent to Kill!
You people are crazy!! She came onto their property with a gun while they were sitting on their porch. That reads intent to kill to me!! The Dr. was at his house when a group of men came onto his property to start trouble. Now, if you were smart you would know that intent to kill means that you PLAN on killing someone. I seriously doubt that the Dr. saw into the future and knew that a group of men were coming onto his property to start trouble. People need to really think before speaking, because those first two posts are just ignorance. Please go and look up what INTENT TO KILL means. Any smart person would know that the dr. had NO intent to kill!!
She is in trouble a lot, and she seems to be a "regular" at the OCLEC (Her name appears freqently in the "arrests" section. Her charge is with "intent to kill" because that was clearly her intent. How can people even compare this case to that of Dr. Rao's. Dr. Rao was protecting himself and his family--and he had no intent to kill. Was this woman protecting herself? I seriously doubt it.
I'm with sidmaxlucy, you people are crazy!! she went onto THEIR property and shot them while they were sitting on THEIR porch, that's a different story than you shooting someone who comes on YOUR property with the intent to harm you. The Clevelands would have been within their rights to protect themselves just as Dr. Rao was in his right to protect himself. Both trespassers are lucky they didn't come on my property, I just checked my ammo and I seem to be out of birdshot.
AMEN!! Thank you Sparrow!!!
I guess shooting a man in the back then means to you people that he was protecting himself - WHATEVER! The last time I checked shooting a man in the back while he was walking away is not protecting oneself; it is a cowardly way of hurting someone!
Yes, each person has the right to protect themselves, I agree totally. The original reason for the Dr. to shoot was to protect himself and his family; however when he shot the man in the back - that becomes a different story. HE IS NO BETTER THAN MS. ROBERTS AND SHOULDN'T BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY - PERIOD!
Like I said before, if you enter someone's property with the intent to cause harm, there's a reasonable expectation that it's going to go bad and that's the risk you take. We don't know the circumstances, was he turning back, did he threaten the doctor, who's word is it that he was actually leaving and not playing to his friends, who some have said were there, and had no intentions of leaving, did he just turn around long enough to check his injured leg, until we know all the facts it's reasonable to give Dr. Rao the benefit of the doubt. I will support the Dr. no matter what, the punk shouldn't have entered his property with his intent to harm. Personally, I probably would have made the first shot count and there would be no question about intent.
I wonder why there's no mention of the punk being charged, where's his culpability? It was his own actions that caused the situation in the first place. The real sadness here is, the Dr. and his family, the real victims, will have to go thru the ordeal of a trial and the punk will probably get rich in a civil law suit.
Perhaps the woman does have an arrest record and the Dr. doesn't, I don't know. I do know the Dr.s son has a record and is branded a trouble maker. I wouldn't be afraid to bet he started it all. If the Dr., after fireing a warning shot and and injuring the boy, then shot the boy in the back as he walked away I would say it was not only intent but cowardace. Now who's ingnorant.
Another thing Sparrow is so concerned about what the young man had done to the Dr. who knows what those men had done to the woman. You don't seem to know details on that story either. It's easy to speculate.
That's exactly my point outoftowner, everyone is just speculating at this point, so YOU don't know what the punk was doing when he turned his back, was he reaching for a weapon etc. but yet you want to label Dr. Rao a coward without knowing the facts. The part you and a few others don't seem to be able to comprehend is, Storey was trespassing on the Drs property which is different then the other story where the shooter was the trespasser. It doesn't matter who has a record, who started what prior to the incident, what does matter is you can't go on someone's property and assault people or shoot them. This is a classic case of beating a dead horse to get some of you to understand the difference. These aren't cases of who has the gold or black vs white.
Evidently, none of you are looking at this from a gun perspective. Of course, the cops never do either nor do they look at the location of the people when they charge them. That makes a big difference. Neither one of these should be charged with "intent to kill". I say this because of the guns and the way they were used.
First of all, Dr. Rao fired birdshot which is not going to kill anything but maybe a small bird and burn a dog's ass. As far as shooting in the back is concerned,the trespasser could have stated he was going to his car for a weapon. Should the Dr. have waited to see? We all should know how "facts" are reported in the newspapers. Remember, this is the same town that the chief is facing charges that keep getting court dates postponed,need I say more. So,no, there was no intent to kill there. Only to stop. If the Dr. had wanted to kill, he definitely would have chosen a different gun.
The Roberts lady may have crossed the street to Cleveland's property, but not with intent to kill. If she had intended to kill, she would have blown their heads off. That definitely would have done the trick. Nothing prevented her from doing what she intended. The Father was struck with pellets in the stomach,leg,knee,and arm. The son was struck only in the arm. Neither of these were life threatening injuries. With a 12-gauge shotgun, and a regular shell, she would have only had to stood 3 ft. away to killed them. Now can you without a doubt believe this was intent in either case?
On the other hand,who cares if the Roberts lady has been locked up before? Give her the right lawyer and media coverage and I'm sure they would come up with and get her off because of childhood abuse and neglect. They will use her mental state as a plus and turn her into a victim that she was drove to it, which she probably was. She won't serve a day, maybe probation, and therapy.
Why don't you all look at the fact that a person can't be shot just because they are in your yard. Maybe he should have used buckshot and drug him in the house. He would have been paid for then. Why don't you find out what those boys were doing at his house. Was that a bad drug deal as some are saying or was it revenge on the punk that lived there. The Dr.s son is old enough to start trouble he should let the punk finish it. He always gets him out of trouble. Maybe he should send him to live with Paris Hilton They have a lot in common. Maybe you should go with him.
Wow!! We can tell how mature Outoftowner is. You are ignorant! Thats the problem with this community. Everyone likes to gossip about everyone else, but none of you know the truth!! Including me. I am just a rational person who sees from all sides. I'm not closed minded hypocritical like most of you are.
Its doesnt matter if I owed the damn president a million dollars or I was in the middle of a drug deal. He still cant come on my property trying to hurt me without me fighting back.
You really need to stop talking, cause your just making a fool of yourself.
I agree with you sidmaxlucy, gossip. DRUGS are the problem and if we can stop that then we might can help people like brock and outoftowner.
I had a drug problem. I was drug to church, drug to family reunions, drug to school, drug out from in front of a television and drug to the table for meals with my family and so were my children. Carry on.
Post your comment
Commenting requires free upstatetoday.com registration.