Marine of the year arrested for shooting in MA.


PDA






CentralTexas
August 15, 2005, 11:43 AM
Sad...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050815/ts_nm/crime_marine_dc

BOSTON (Reuters) - A decorated U.S. Marine, who had been treated for post-war stress since serving in Iraq, opened fire outside a Massachusetts nightclub, wounding two people, Boston media reported on Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Daniel B. Cotnoir will be arraigned on Monday on charges of assault and battery with a deadly weapon and assault with intent to murder after the incident early on Saturday in the city of Lawrence, The Boston Globe said.

Cotnoir had complained to police after a crowd of nearly 30 people gathered outside a nightclub and restaurant near his apartment. After someone hurled a bottle that shattered his bedroom window, Cotnoir fired "a warning shot," the newspaper said.

The bullet hit a 15-year-old girl and a 20-year-old man.

"He shot into what he thought was a safe area, but there was some ricochet effects that Mr. Cotnoir never intended," his lawyer, Robert F. Kelley, was quoted as saying.

"It was a military-type response to a threatening situation that was civilian in nature."

Cotnoir, a sergeant awarded the 2005 Marine of the Year by the Marine Corps Times, has been struggling psychologically since returning from Iraq in 2004, Kelley said.

Police were not immediately available to comment.

If you enjoyed reading about "Marine of the year arrested for shooting in MA." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MikeIsaj
August 15, 2005, 01:40 PM
Here's the AP release with more detail on www.phillyburbs.com (http://www.phillyburbs.com) ;

Marine Accused of Firing on Crowd in Mass.
The Associated Press
LAWRENCE, Mass. - A veteran recently named "Marine of the Year" for his service in Iraq was charged with attempted murder after firing a shotgun from his apartment window as a group of noisy revelers stood outside a nightclub, police said.

Two people were hit by bullet fragments and suffered minor injuries.

Daniel Cotnoir, 33, had called police minutes earlier to complain about the noise coming from the street shortly before 3 a.m. Saturday, The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune reported.

He later told authorities someone had thrown an empty bottle through his bedroom window and he feared for the safety of his wife and two daughters, who were home, the newspaper reported.

Cotnoir was being held on $100,000 bail and scheduled to be arraigned Monday.

"It was the craziest night of my life," said Kelvin Castro, 20, one of the two people injured. "I don't know what that guy's intentions were."


Cotnoir has frequently called police to complain about noise and fights outside the Punto Finale nightclub. Last year, police said, he claimed someone leaving the club had fired a gunshot at his apartment.

During his tour in Iraq last year, Cotnoir had been a military mortician responsible for preparing soldiers for open-casket funerals.

The job took a heavy psychological toll, he told the Eagle-Tribune in an interview last month after the Marine Corps Times named Cotnoir its "Marine of the Year," an award presented to him at a ceremony in Washington. At the time, he was getting counseling at a veterans hospital.

"It's a lot harder to talk about the job now than it was at the time to actually do it," Cotnoir told the newspaper then. "The stories I've gained from my deployment aren't the kind of stories you share."


I feel bad for this guy, I think he's going to get crucified. Don't get me wrong, he broke the law and endangered people, I just can't imagine him getting any slack in Lawrence, Ma.

Sounds to me like this was an ongoing irritation to him and he had plenty of time to move. Shouldn't live next to a night club if you don't want late night noise.

Eskimo Jim
August 15, 2005, 01:44 PM
I hope that justice is achieved in this situation.

Given the facts in the article it sounds like the improper use of a firearm to me. It also sounds like his training would have taught him that the actions he took were wrong. He'll need all the luck he can get being in Massachusetts.

This quote is just bizarre:
"It was a military-type response to a threatening situation that was civilian in nature."

-Jim

Leatherneck
August 15, 2005, 01:58 PM
This quote is just bizarre:"It was a military-type response to a threatening situation that was civilian in nature."

That's Sergeant Cotnoir's lawyer setting him up for a temporary insanity defense based on PTSD.

It sorrows me to see a good Marine fall from Grace. :(

TC

1 old 0311
August 15, 2005, 02:10 PM
So a "civilian" bottle can't cut you? Only a "militery" bottle?


Kevin

MikeIsaj
August 15, 2005, 02:14 PM
So a "civilian" bottle can't cut you? Only a "militery" bottle?Civilian or military the reasonable response to a bottle thrown through the window is move your family away from the window call 911 and report the escalation of the threat. Shooting through or out the window is not.

Old Dog
August 15, 2005, 02:26 PM
I'm not excusing, apologizing, justifying or otherwise rationalizing this man's reaction to a situation that occured at 3:00 a.m. -- but perhaps those folks who've not spent a year in Iraq should not rush to judgement about this Marine's actions ...

thorn726
August 15, 2005, 02:37 PM
but perhaps those folks who've not spent a year in Iraq should not rush to judgement about this Marine's actions ...

ridiculous statement. defeats the whole point of us needing soldiers if they are all gonna come back and shoot us up cuz they are too war stressed.

Civilian or military the reasonable response to a bottle thrown through the window is move your family away from the window call 911 and report the escalation of the threat. Shooting through or out the window is not.

exactly.
this is really sad, as i am sure it is mostly due to thew guy being stressed, and i find attempted murder ludicrous. but dont give me the "you havent been there" garbage, we can't totally excuse him, or we have to let every returning soldier act crazy and shoot at all of us.
somehow thaT doesnt seem like what the military is trained for.

hopefully he gets a short sentence mainly focused on giving him some mental help

pythonguy
August 15, 2005, 02:45 PM
It a shame, but should be an eye opener for all those "what if" threads if you catch someone destroying your property can you use your weapon to scare or intimidate them? You can for a $100,000 bond and the chance to spend a few years in jail, PLUS no more guns for you. Of course he was wrong, but I hope he gets some help for his problems, but, we all have problems, don't we? And we don't go shooting our guns to scare people.... :banghead:

Old Dog
August 15, 2005, 02:55 PM
ridiculous statement. defeats the whole point of us needing soldiers if they are all gonna come back and shoot us up cuz they are too war stressed.
Ah, Thorn ... I don't particularly care that you think mine that was a "ridiculous statement" ... however, the fact that you said that indicates that you may require a bit more life experience. I'm guessing that (1) you're young, perhaps about 20, 22 and (2) you've zero military experience and certainly have never experienced sustained combat operations. My remarks were intended to support the concept that combat-related PTSD is very real, and will govern one's behavior and reactions sometimes even much later in one's life ... If you cannot understand that, fine, just figure out a better way to argue someone else's remarks. The very fact that you haven't been there is indeed germane. As I stated, I was not intending to excuse this person's actions.

By the way, I find this portion of your statement ridiculous:
defeats the whole point of us needing soldiers if they are all gonna come back and shoot us up cuz they are too war stressed.

Diamondback
August 15, 2005, 04:38 PM
No ones defending this Marine's decision to fire into a crowd....Old Dog is just trying to put some perspective on an otherwise very poor decision. PTSD is real......and in this country we recognize mitigating circumstances. It doesn't absolve the accused.....it brings some clarity and understanding to an otherwise reprehensible behavior.

-regards

MikeIsaj
August 15, 2005, 04:47 PM
Wasn't there but was close enough. Woke up one morning in Beirut to the sound of the building next door being blown up by a truck bomb. Survived the shower of plate glass, concrete chunks and rebar, went over and picked up body parts for a few days. Was told later I had PTSD. Never once decided to shoot any number of jerks that I've had to deal with since then. Is it easy? Absolutly not but, PTSD is not an excuse.

That's my perspective.

Diamondback
August 15, 2005, 04:53 PM
No its not an excuse...we are not saying it is !........all I am saying is figure PTSD into the mix before you charge and sentance....that's all...if it's relevant in the case !

-regards

Joejojoba111
August 15, 2005, 04:56 PM
I think there are extenuating circumstances there, he's a combat very with ptsd, he was attacked, and he fired not at them but away from them, and the bullet richocheted. There's a lot of room for leniency there.

I remember a police officer in Boston who shot and killed a teenage girl because someone threw a botte and it landed near them, and he really did just open fire on the crowd. If that's not a precedent i don't know what is.

jdkelly
August 15, 2005, 05:00 PM
but perhaps those folks who've not spent a year in Iraq should not rush to judgement about this Marine's actions ...---Old Dog

No, I don't think that you need to have been in Iraq to judge whether the shooters actions were proper.

Nor do you need to have been in Iraq to understand that the shooter has "issues".


I remember a police officer in Boston who shot and killed a teenage girl because someone threw a botte and it landed near them, and he really did just open fire on the crowd. If that's not a precedent i don't know what is.---jojobaha

This shooter was not an on duty Police Officer working riot control. There is no precedent set here. The City of Boston paid dearly for that shooting.

If the shooter (Marine) couldn't identify the threat then he had no legitimate target.



Respectfully,

jkelly

Cosmoline
August 15, 2005, 05:06 PM
A bottle is absolutely a lethal weapon. MANY people are killed or seriously injured every year by broken bottles. They can slash through skin and break skulls. The only thing he did wrong was fire warning shots. He should have targetted the one throwing bottles and blown their head off. Sadly, he was living in a slave state so they'll hang him out to dry and give the night club scum awards. An angry mob of thirty people throwing bottles at you is a very imminent lethal threat. I'd probably open up on them with everything I have.

BostonGeorge
August 15, 2005, 05:08 PM
I remember a police officer in Boston who shot and killed a teenage girl because someone threw a botte and it landed near them, and he really did just open fire on the crowd. If that's not a precedent i don't know what is.

Actually she was eight days shy of 22 and it was with a less-lethal weapon, a FN303 pepper-pellet gun. I guess thats almost the same :rolleyes:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=victoria+snelgrove

BostonGeorge
August 15, 2005, 05:11 PM
A bottle is absolutely a lethal weapon. MANY people are killed or seriously injured every year by broken bottles. They can slash through skin and break skulls. The only thing he did wrong was fire warning shots. He should have targetted the one throwing bottles and blown their head off. Sadly, he was living in a slave state so they'll hang him out to dry and give the night club scum awards. Drunken pigs. They should all be slaughtered.

Wow. That was disgusting.

Joejojoba111
August 15, 2005, 05:11 PM
I was going to type that it was less lethal or less-than lethal, or non-lethal, but it would just confuse the issue.

Cosmoline
August 15, 2005, 05:12 PM
Drunken mobs are extremely dangerous. I have absolutely no remorse for them. People who get drunk and mill around in crowds threatening people are asking to have their heads blown off, that's just the way it is. A drunken, angry crowd is a mindless, potentially lethal creature. Worse than a wounded cape buf. And frankly a lot more dangerous than a random street thug.

Just imagine THIRTY FRICKING PEOPLE all drunk and hostile milling around outside your house throwing bottles at your family. The police had done nothing to stop it. The man should have hosed them down with gasoline and lit them up.

45lvr
August 15, 2005, 05:19 PM
its just a bad situation thats all. bad judgement, ptsd, liberal state....you name it. it just sucks he lost a moment of clarity, for whatever reason.

Cosmoline
August 15, 2005, 05:20 PM
If the shooter (Marine) couldn't identify the threat then he had no legitimate target.

The mob itself is a legitimate target if the mob is attacking you in your house and will not leave.

He needs some Alaskans on that jury I think :D

jdkelly
August 15, 2005, 05:23 PM
The man should have hosed them down with gasoline and lit them up.---Cosmoline

Cosmoline,

Tell me you're off your meds.


jkelly

Old Dog
August 15, 2005, 05:24 PM
No, I don't think that you need to have been in Iraq to judge whether the shooters actions were proper.
Did you read my posts? Of course, his actions were not proper.
Nor do you need to have been in Iraq to understand that the shooter has "issues".
No, of course, not, clearly, the man has "issues." I was addressing one poster in particular who doesn't seem to understand that spending a year of one's life in constant, neverending, unmitigated fear for one's life, never knowing where the next threat will come from, never feeling safe, while at the same time dealing with the butchered remains of your fallen comrades on a daily basis could just possibly contribute to an inappropriate, explosive and possibly lethal reaction in even the most benign situation ...

Cosmoline
August 15, 2005, 05:28 PM
Important safety tip: Alaskans with rifles and drunken crowds from the east coast are like oil and water. I have a hard enough time containing myself around the tour groups. How can you trust people who mill around in crowds together? It's not natural. Our drunks here tend to wander alone and at worst walk out in front of your car. Over there and in Europe they get in these big groups and start acting crazy.

BostonGeorge
August 15, 2005, 05:36 PM
I don't see where you're getting "drunken mob" from, he shot a 15 year old girl.

jdkelly
August 15, 2005, 05:38 PM
I was addressing one poster in particular...Old Dog
No, you addressed your post to "those folks who've not spent a year in Iraq", see quote below.

That's why I called you on your statements in THAT post.


but perhaps those folks who've not spent a year in Iraq should not rush to judgement about this Marine's actions ...---Old Dog


jkelly

Tory
August 15, 2005, 08:33 PM
Our petrochemical-packed Northern Correspondent rants thusly:

"Drunken mobs are extremely dangerous. I have absolutely no remorse for them. People who get drunk and mill around in crowds threatening people are asking to have their heads blown off, that's just the way it is. A drunken, angry crowd is a mindless, potentially lethal creature."

ONE person throwing A bottle is not a "drunken mob." However, mindlessly opening fire on people because ONE of them broke a window with a bottle is a great way to CREATE a mob.

Keep heading North, Sam Magee :uhoh:

Hawkmoon
August 15, 2005, 10:09 PM
Actually, according to the story (which could certainly be incomplete and/or incorrect, but which is all we have to go by at the moment), it would appear that he did NOT "mindlessly open fire on people" but intentionally fired ONE SHOT where he did NOT think he would hit anyone. Poor judgment and overreaction, no doubt, but a far cry from "mindlessly opening fire on people."

And I am surprised that nobody has yet commented on the charge: "Assault with intent to commit murder"?

Huh! His intent was to fire a warning shot, not to kill anyone. Sorry, I may be alone on the outer tip of a limb here but I see this as yet another example pf prosecutorial overreaching. What's wrong with just charging people with a "crime" more or less related to the facts? He negligently discharged a firearm in an urban area. In Massachusetts there are probably half a dozen or more charges they can pin on him that would legitimately grow out of this act, but ... assult with intent to murder? Gimme a break! (Brake? :) )

beerslurpy
August 15, 2005, 10:21 PM
Maybe people shouldnt get drunk and throw things through people's bedroom windows at 3am.

Firethorn
August 15, 2005, 11:38 PM
From what the article mentions, I wonder why he's being charged with 'with intent to murder'.

I can easily see battery. Heck, He was threatening the crowd with his 'warning shot', so I can even see assault. Negligent discharge of a firearm. But 'with intent to murder'? He coulda been much more accurate if he'd actually intended to, you know, hurt someone? Richocets don't count.

Hawkmoon
August 16, 2005, 01:53 AM
I don't even see it as assault. "Threatening," I can go along with. I may be old-fashioned, but my limited intellect has always believed that in order to "assault" someone you had to at least try to hit them or harm them in some way. In these troubled times, you can smuggle 50 illegal aliens across the border in Texas and you get a free ride back to try again tomorrowm but look at someone cross-eyed and it becomes "assault."

"Idiocy" is more like it.

Joejojoba111
August 16, 2005, 03:06 AM
the threat is assault, when you carry out the threat you batter them.

BostonGeorge
August 16, 2005, 05:54 AM
Actually, according to the story (which could certainly be incomplete and/or incorrect, but which is all we have to go by at the moment), it would appear that he did NOT "mindlessly open fire on people" but intentionally fired ONE SHOT where he did NOT think he would hit anyone. Poor judgment and overreaction, no doubt, but a far cry from "mindlessly opening fire on people."

Yeah, according to his lawyer. Quite the reliable source :rolleyes:

jdkelly
August 16, 2005, 06:59 AM
...it would appear that he did NOT "mindlessly open fire on people" but intentionally fired ONE SHOT where he did NOT think he would hit anyone.---Hawkmoon
He discharged a shotgun with some thirty people down range, at least 29 of which were innocent of throwing the bottle. The result is that he shot two people, most likely both were innocent, one was a 14 year old child. Yes that is mindlessly opening fire on people whether it was intended or not.


Respectfully,

jkelly

Old Dog
August 16, 2005, 10:11 AM
The result is that he shot two people, most likely both were innocent, one was a 14 year old child. Two persons were struck by fragments from ricochets. He did not shoot two people. And the "child" was a 15, not 14, year old girl who happened to be standing outside a nightclub at 3:00 a.m.

There is some more to the story (from a Navy Times article):
Lawrence Chief of Police John Romero said that Cotnoir had complained in the past about the late-night crowds, including one instance in which stray bullets struck his home.
“He had a running thing with those two clubs,” Romero said. “In fact shells had been cut out of the walls of his home.

Reading the entire news stories, as lacking in facts and eyewitness accounts as they are, one still -- if one actually comprehended the news stories -- can see that Hawkmoon's post pretty much sums it up:it would appear that he did NOT "mindlessly open fire on people" but intentionally fired ONE SHOT where he did NOT think he would hit anyone. Poor judgment and overreaction, no doubt, but a far cry from "mindlessly opening fire on people."

As I tried to point out before, jdkelly, it appears that Cotnoir's year in Iraq may have been a contributing factor to his (over)reaction in this case. Not that it justifies his actions, just possibly makes his actions understandable. I'm not sure why you seem to have such a problem putting a little perspective on the story and seem so zealous in your instant condemnation of this man ...

BostonGeorge
August 16, 2005, 07:02 PM
Two persons were struck by fragments from ricochets. He did not shoot two people. And the "child" was a 15, not 14, year old girl who happened to be standing outside a nightclub at 3:00 a.m.

So he should be rewarded for missing? Also, it has been reported that the girl was exiting a restaurant in the area.

Gunsnrovers
August 16, 2005, 08:19 PM
With the caveat that I have never served, to try to qualify his action by discussing his time in Iraq is like qualifing a child molester or wife beater because he was abused as a child. We don't accept the behavior from one. Why do we allow it from the other?

As for the 15 year old girl being out at 3AM, blaming her for being a victim is pathetic.

I hope he gets the help he needs. I hope he gets the punishment he deserves.

Sean Cloherty
August 16, 2005, 09:33 PM
I don't care to justify nor defend what he did (nor condemn him without ALL the facts) . . .

Regarding the "Intent to Murder" charge, that is easily explained by this being mASSachusetts. If you are a citizen with a firearm, the presumption is that you are just one fender bender or disagreement with the wife away from going on a rampage. :barf: Plus there are plenty of ADAs who care not for the law but for the results of the next election cycle.

Given the attitude of the powers that be in this Commonwealth, it is surprising that he is not being charged with some sort of terrorism charge for deploying a weapon of mASS destruction - to wit - a single shotgun shell (filled with a frightening number of projectiles which must seem like MIRVs to the pants-wetting denizens of our fine state).

No, I probably would not have done the same thing in similar circumstances. Then again the rumor mill seems to indicate that there is MUCH more to the story which the MSM hasn't cared to investigate . . .

http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2005/08/quite-weekend.html

Hawkmoon
August 16, 2005, 11:17 PM
With the caveat that I have never served, to try to qualify his action by discussing his time in Iraq is like qualifing a child molester or wife beater because he was abused as a child. We don't accept the behavior from one. Why do we allow it from the other?

As for the 15 year old girl being out at 3AM, blaming her for being a victim is pathetic.

I hope he gets the help he needs. I hope he gets the punishment he deserves.
I also hope that he gets the help ... and the punishment ... that he deserves. And I do NOT think he "deserves" to be charged with attempted murder, since it appears rather plain that it was not his intention to murder anyone.

Now ... since you acknowledge that you have never served, may I respectfully remind you that you know less than nothing about post-traumatic stress disorder and that, therefore, you should refrain from commenting on how YOU think people who suffer from it *should* behave. You obviously do not have a single clue regarding how debilitating PTSD is, nor do you appear to care that this is a man who was in harm's way on YOUR behalf in the process of acquiring PTSD.

What's it really like? I don't have a clue, either. I served a full tour in Vietnam and I was NOT diagnosed as having PTSD. Even so, I can tell you that more than a year after I was released from active duty, if a car backfired within a block of me walking the streets of West Philadelphia, you would find me diving for cover into the nearest doorway. I was not able to do volunteer peer counseling for other Vietnam vets, because I wasn't enough of a basket case. They wouldn't accept me as a "peer," even though I spent nearly a year in-country.

Please check your judgmental attitude at the door. The man did something stupid, and I think we all agree on that. What he did NOT do is commit "assault with intent to murder."

And how the heck do they spin ONE shot into TWO counts?

Prosecutorial overreaching. There's a word for people who do things like that, but Art's grammaw would wash my keyboard out with brown soap if I typed it.

gunsmith
August 17, 2005, 12:14 AM
in San Francisco's North Beach I must say I understand his fustration.
He needs better tactics, I asked the buxom bimbo stripper girl to stop screaming out her car winbow and all she did was scream for biff the bouncer.
So I used the same technology every late 40's guy remembers from his youth-water balloons!
They tried calling the police but the local cops just laughed at them, Biff tried to get in the apt building (angry for getting all wet) but the manager on duty knew enough to keep him at bay, knowing I had a .30 M1 carbine loaded for jerk as well as other stuff.
I taught them real quick to stay away from my window :evil:

too bad for the Marine, I wished he hadn't gotten caught.

Moto
August 17, 2005, 01:40 AM
I live pretty damn close to where that happened like maybe 5 or 10 miles. Where the guy lives is above an inner city funeral home and is not generally considered a great place to live, but it is in an area that is full of late night clubs and the such. It is a rough area and I have been through there many times but its not that bad. I think that it is a situation that got out of control, there aren't drunken mobs hanging around outside that I am aware of as I have never seen one and I have been in the area alot. It is a craphole of a city and I would prefer not to hang out there at 3am. The media has seemed to blow this thing way up, the way I understood it, was that the marine is suffering from some type of stress disorder, and was living in a High stress type area and he snapped after repeaded conflicts with the patrons to the clubs in his neighborhood. I am in no way saying what he did was right, because shooting out your window, be it warning shot or not, in a very crowded city is never an acceptable thing to do. The neighborhood is known to be crappy but the police are aware of this and from my experiance spend ALOT of time just hanging out and around the whole club area especially around that time to avoid situations such as that. It is unfortunate that the situation has come to that.

BostonGeorge
August 17, 2005, 04:03 AM
I also hope that he gets the help ... and the punishment ... that he deserves. And I do NOT think he "deserves" to be charged with attempted murder, since it appears rather plain that it was not his intention to murder anyone.

It's not that clear to me, and how it is to you, I can not comprehend.

c_yeager
August 17, 2005, 04:45 AM
Please check your judgmental attitude at the door. The man did something stupid, and I think we all agree on that. What he did NOT do is commit "assault with intent to murder."

He fired a shotgun into a croud of people. That is reckless disregard for human life no matter how you want to frame his intent. A marine who spent his entire career working on fallen men cannot possibly claim to be unaware of the deadly nature of a firearm.

And how the heck do they spin ONE shot into TWO counts?

Two people got shot. Why dont you tell us which one of those people isnt illegal to shoot; the 15 year old girl or the 20 year old man? Yeah, lets also bear in mind that one of the people shot by our hero was a child.

And for the people trying to justify this due to the thrown bottle, let me say this. Even the shooter drew NO CONNECTION between the people that he shot and the person who threw the bottle. The people who were shot happened to be in the general viscinity of someone that supposedly threw an empty bottle through his window, and thats it.

Gunsnrovers
August 17, 2005, 05:20 AM
Hawkmoon, you're the one being judgemental. I never stated what punishment he deserves. That's something that will come out when the case is tried and the facts are stated. The facts not being media reports and diatribes on the internet. I have know idea at this point what he deserves in terms of help or punishment. I do know that his actions resulted in two people being shot.

As for his service and his profession, I have the tremendous respect for it. That does not mean it's or those who are in it are perfect.

Tory
August 17, 2005, 05:55 AM
"Regarding the "Intent to Murder" charge, that is easily explained by this being mASSachusetts."

Drivel. It is "easily explained" by the fact that he deliberately discharged a shotgun into a crowd. I happen to think it is overcharging, as it appears to have been intended as a warning shot, but it is a texbook case of reckless endangerment. That's murder, not manslaughter.

"... Plus there are plenty of ADAs who care not for the law but for the results of the next election cycle."

More drivel. ADA's are NOT elected. District Attorneys are, however, and they generally give ZERO leeway to their subordinates in firearms cases. And the facts, such as we know them, support the law as applied.

"I don't even see it as assault. "Threatening," I can go along with. I may be old-fashioned, but my limited intellect has always believed that in order to "assault" someone you had to at least try to hit them or harm them in some way."

And what does your "limited intellect" think firing a shotgun out a window towards a crowd is? Under even a "limited" analysis, that is an act designed to "try to hit them or harm them in some way." He ceased to be merely threatening when he pulled the trigger. Even under Texas law. :rolleyes:

"...all I am saying is figure PTSD into the mix before you charge and sentance. [sic]"

PTSD would be an affirmative defense, which does not even come into play until:

1. Charges are brought; and

2. It has been proven at trial.

It can be a defense against the charges and, possibly, used as a mitigating circumstance. It is NOT a factor "before you charge;" only when you "sentance." :scrutiny:

beerslurpy
August 17, 2005, 06:50 AM
Actually I have to wonder why he didnt hook up the garden hose and just let loose on them from across the street. If they attack him, yay for self defense. More likely they just go elsewhere to be an annoyance, or better yet home to sleep it off.

jondar
August 17, 2005, 08:27 AM
"Perhaps those folks who've not spent a year in Iraq should not rush to judgment about this Marine's action."


Right on.


"I can't get over these people who talk war and don't have the faintest idea of what hell it is! The only ones who know are the ones who were there."
Evan Regal, Marine flamethower.

jdkelly
August 17, 2005, 10:14 AM
As I tried to point out before, jdkelly, it appears that Cotnoir's year in Iraq may have been a contributing factor to his (over)reaction in this case.---Old Dog

What you posted and what I responded to was:

-- but perhaps those folks who've not spent a year in Iraq should not rush to judgement about this Marine's actions ...---Old Dog
No, I don't think that you need to have been in Iraq to judge whether the shooters actions were proper.

Nor do you need to have been in Iraq to understand that the shooter has "issues".
---jdkelly

My point is that having been in Iraq for a year is not necessary to have a valid opinion on the actions of the shooter. To suggest so, dismisses out of hand, the opinions of large number of people.


jdkelly

Hawkmoon
August 17, 2005, 10:27 AM
Drivel. It is "easily explained" by the fact that he deliberately discharged a shotgun into a crowd. I happen to think it is overcharging, as it appears to have been intended as a warning shot, but it is a texbook case of reckless endangerment. That's murder, not manslaughter.
No, it is NOT murder. Murder requires the intention to kill. Even if he aimed a gun directly at a specific individual and pulled the trigger, if his intention was to wound rather than to kill, it still would not be murder. It would be negligent homicide. Of course, in today's world it would be charged as murder, but that's my problem ... police and prosecutors who routinely slap on charges that are vastly more draconian than the facts of a case support under the law.

Which makes it small wonder to me that few people have any lingering respect for the law and those who enforce it.

In this case, so far all reports we have seen indicate that he did NOT "shoot into a crowd of people," he fired one shot in a direction where he thought nobody would he hit. Those of you screaming about shooting into crowds, please give me a link to what you are citing as evidence, because I haven't seen anything to support that fantasy.

Which leaves us with negligent discharge of a firearm within 500 feet of a building as the appropriate charge, and perhaps threatening.

Of course, since there was more than one person in the crowd, once they get to the threatening I have no doubt that an over-zealous prosecutor will raise it it "terroristic" threatening.

NHBB
August 17, 2005, 11:03 AM
lawrence is an absolute dump... a lot of crime in NH in my observations has been committed by those traced back to "lawtown" as the thuggish types proudly refer to their shanty.

I believe this was the same general area as well with that thread about that marine that returned some time ago and had an altercation in some dunkin donuts parking lot where some guy tried to kill him but he took him down with just a grazing as the bullet skimmed off his head. life is pretty cheap down there.

Tory
August 17, 2005, 12:40 PM
" Murder requires the intention to kill."

WRONG. As in, 'Not even close."

FIRST Degree murder requires intent to kill. PERIOD.

Your self-deluding tirades are irrelevant; homicide law across the country deems both intent to do harm AND reckless endangerment (a/k/a reckless disregard) grounds for Second Degree murder charges. Firing a shotgun out a window and hitting two people in the crowd qualifies, your unqualified opinion notwithstanding.

Grasp the concept and try to keep up. :scrutiny:

Gunsnrovers
August 17, 2005, 01:48 PM
"Perhaps those folks who've not spent a year in Iraq should not rush to judgment about this Marine's action."

BS.

Sergeant Bob
August 17, 2005, 04:04 PM
Gunsnrovers BS
Agreed.
It doesn't matter what he did in Iraq, or Vietnam, or the moon. What he did was not done in any of those places.

Using that logic I suppose we can not judge what John Kerry has done, post Vietnam, unless we were in Vietnam.

BostonGeorge
August 17, 2005, 04:18 PM
No, it is NOT murder. Murder requires the intention to kill. Even if he aimed a gun directly at a specific individual and pulled the trigger, if his intention was to wound rather than to kill, it still would not be murder.

So you're telling me that in all his years as a coroner in the armed forces, during wartime no less, he hadn't learned that gunshot wounds bring with them a high probability of death? If you shoot somebody, you are trying to kill them, point blank. If you want to injure someone there are plenty of ways to do so with a much slimmer chance of them dying.

In this case, so far all reports we have seen indicate that he did NOT "shoot into a crowd of people," he fired one shot in a direction where he thought nobody would he hit. Those of you screaming about shooting into crowds, please give me a link to what you are citing as evidence, because I haven't seen anything to support that fantasy.

I'm still waiting for the evidence of it being a "warning shot." Quite simply, there is no evidence of either assertion, but I would fall into the "knowingly shoot a gun in the direction of human life and you're trying to do harm" catagory.

Hawkmoon
August 17, 2005, 04:44 PM
WRONG. As in, 'Not even close."

FIRST Degree murder requires intent to kill. PERIOD.
No, you are wrong.

Not all jurisdictions differentiate between first degree murder and second degree murder. Not being from MA I do not know if they do or not.

Where there is such a distinction, first degree murder requires both the intent to kill AND premeditation. Second degree murder also requires an intent to kill, but does not require premeditation. Manslaughter/negligent homicide applies when the intention is to harm rather than to kill, but death results as an unforeseen consequence.

Sorry, but I do not think I am categorically WRONG, as your post implies. I think you need to do your homework before engaging your keyboard so forcefully on topics you do not understand.

From the legal definitions available on www.findlaw.com
Murder: First Degree

In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor's front door. When Victor comes out of the house, Dan shoots and kills him.

Most states also adhere to a legal concept known as the "felony murder rule," under which a person commits first-degree murder if any death (even an accidental one) results from the commission of certain violent felonies -- usually arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery.

For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store, but as they are fleeing, Victor shoots and kills Dan. Under the felony murder rule, Connie can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's death.

Murder: Second degree

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.

Manslaughter: Voluntary

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.

Manslaughter: Involuntary

Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.
In the case of the Marine-of-the-year, so far there has been nothing to prove that he DID fire into the crowd, and there is his (or his attorney's) statement that his intention was to fire a warning shot. The article we are all reading did, I believe, state that the two individuals who were wounded were injured by ricocheting particles rather than directly by gunfire, supporting the statement that the shot was intended as a warning shot.

Combine the facts as we currently have them with the definitions from Findlaw, and even if one of the people had been killed it sure looks to me as though "criminally negligent homicide" strikes a lot closer to the facts of the case than "assault with intent to murder."

Tory
August 17, 2005, 08:36 PM
"Not all jurisdictions differentiate between first degree murder and second degree murder."

Let's see you cite ONE that does not. By actual statute; not "findlaw," which is Wikipedia for wanna-bees. It is inferior to Lexis and Lois; even CaseBase is better.

"Where there is such a distinction, first degree murder requires both the intent to kill AND premeditation."

Here's a clue: Premeditation is PROOF of the intent.

"Second degree murder also requires an intent to kill, but does not require premeditation."

Wrong again. Second degree murder, as I already explained to you, requires only intent to HARM. When death results from the harmful act, you go from assault and battery (for example) to Second Degree murder.

"Manslaughter/negligent homicide applies when the intention is to harm rather than to kill, but death results as an unforeseen consequence."

Utter nonsense. Negligent homicide results from - SURPRISE! - negligence . There is NO "intention to harm rather than kill;" there is carelessness. Grasp the distinction. :rolleyes:

Here are REAL definitions, if you're up to them:

Murder : The killing of a human being WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.

Felony Murder : Murder that occurs during the commission of a dangerous felony .

[B]First-degree murder : Murder that is willful, deliberate or premeditated, or that committed during the course of a dangerous felony [see above].... All types of murder NOT involving willful, deliberate and premeditated killing are usually considered Second-degree murder.

Black's Law Dictionary (8th Ed.) (2004) at Page1043.

Call and raise... :scrutiny:

WT
August 18, 2005, 11:27 AM
Some background info on this Marine. A link to the Marine Corps Times.


http://www.militarycity.com/promos/smoy05/moyone05.php?loc=mc


CITATION:
Sergeant Daniel Cotnoir
Ordnance Maintenance Company
4th Maintenance Battalion
Devens, MA

Sergeant Daniel Cotnoir is a natural leader who epitomizes the Marine commitment to fellow Marines. He is an example of the essential role our Reserve forces have today. But it is the special, unsung role he has played, honoring and caring for our fallen heroes, that calls us to honor him tonight.

For Sgt. Cotnoir was called upon to do what no other Marine really wants to do, but what must be done: take charge of bringing fallen Marines home to their final resting place, from the battlefield. This he has done with a tremendous sense of honor and dignity befitting the memory, sacrifice and integrity of those who have given their lives for our country. He has seen first-hand the sacrifices that many of us back home see only in abstract terms.

An armorer by military specialty, Sgt. Cotnoir, during his deployment to Iraq, found himself assigned to a new area. The Marines had no mortuary affairs specialists, and desperately needed his funerary skills from civilian life. He volunteered for this particularly difficult, traumatic and often thankless battlefield assignment, because he knew he could handle it, and he knew how important it is to honor the fallen Marines. Sgt. Cotnoir pioneered a new mortuary affairs military occupational specialty for the Corps. He wrote the manual, and volunteered to train 40 Marines in mortuary and remains-recovery skills. He designed a special training package covering subjects including anatomy, blood-borne pathogens, and the conduct of search and recovery missions. His counsel, encouragement and compassion were an example to these Marines engaged in a very psychologically stressful mission.

His selflessness and dedication to fallen Marines, and to their families back home, is truly inspiring. This noble mission is always emotionally traumatic, and often dangerous – searching through blast areas, gathering remains and personal effects, often while under enemy fire. Sgt. Cotnoir’s efforts are responsible for returning 182 fallen heroes to their families. On one occasion, for instance, he crawled into a burned LAV-25 to recover a set of remains trapped in the dangerous wreckage. He did this in full knowledge that he would be exposed to large quantities of depleted uranium rounds.

Back home, Sergeant Cotnoir is an active volunteer in his community. A fellow Marine says, “He’s just an all-around example of an excellent Marine.” A resident of Lawrence, Massachusetts, Sergeant Cotnoir is married and has two daughters. It is truly our honor to recognize this outstanding, unsung hero. Please join in saluting Sergeant Daniel Cotnoir as 2005’s Marine Corps Times Marine of the Year. "

______________________

This Marine has done good for his Country.

Art Eatman
August 18, 2005, 11:47 AM
Tory, relax. Different states DO have slightly different definitions. Black's Dictionary is fine for generalizing, but it's not the actual legal definition on a state-by-state basis.

It's the old, old deal: No one size fits all.

;), Art

Tory
August 18, 2005, 02:33 PM
"Black's Dictionary is fine for generalizing, but it's not the actual legal definition on a state-by-state basis."

I never said it was a state definition. It IS, however, the generally accepted "legal definition" absent a superceding statute or decision. Black's is a standard reference work and is cited accordingly. Findlaw is not. :scrutiny:

And drivel remains drivel, regardless of repetition.

If you enjoyed reading about "Marine of the year arrested for shooting in MA." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!