[Drizzt]

Ranger College athlete indicted in fatal shooting
By Danny Robbins
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

The Ranger College football player who shot and killed a dormitory intruder in March has been indicted on a murder charge.

Devron Wadlington, 18, of Cadiz, Ky., was indicted May 29 by an Eastland County grand jury in connection with the death of D'Waylon Jones, 20, of Lancaster.

The charge, a first-degree felony, carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Wadlington was arrested March 30 after Jones bled to death from a gunshot wound in his leg after a shooting at Ranger Hall, a campus dormitory.

Jones and another Lancaster man, Brandon James, had entered Wadlington's room with an AK-74 assault rifle and tried to rob him, Ranger Police Chief Jerome Chaney said.

Wadlington gained control of the rifle, chased Jones outside the room and shot him, Chaney said.

Wadlington was released from the Eastland County Jail on Monday after posting $50,000 bail.

His bail was initially set at $500,000, but it was reduced at his indictment by state District Judge Steven Herod.

James has been indicted on a charge of aggravated robbery, also a first-degree felony. He was released from jail June 10 after posting $50,000 bail.

Wadlington was a high school football and basketball star in Kentucky and a freshman receiver on the Ranger football team last fall. James, 20, was one of Wadlington's dormitory suite-mates and was a quarterback on the Ranger football team. Jones did not attend the college. He and James had been teammates on the Lancaster High School football team in 2000.

Wadlington's attorney, Jim Parker of Comanche, said he questioned his client's indictment.

Parker said Jones and James were carrying a handgun as well as the assault rifle when they entered Wadlington's room. He said Wadlington was shot under his arm with the handgun before he gained control of the rifle.

"Self-defense, defense of property -- call it what you want," he said. "After he'd been shot, I would think the gloves would be off."

Parker was appointed Wadlington's attorney by the court May 20 after an attorney hired by Wadlington's family, Landon Thompson of Cisco, withdrew from the case, saying the family could not afford his services.

The shooting was the latest in a series of incidents at Ranger, a junior college 90 miles west of Fort Worth that relies heavily on athletes to boost enrollment. Some of the school's former coaches have criticized its philosophy, saying a combination of unusually large rosters and minimal supervisory personnel has created a dangerous campus environment.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/local/6114291.htm

[shooten]

That's just wrong. The guy was shot and he can't defend himself? Be careful out there all.

[bjengs]

No more hokum about what a free state Texas is...

[westex]

There's a whole lot more to this story than printed here. Don't feel too sorry for the deceased or too sorry for the assailant. From the local coverage over the past few weeks it looks like a fair outcome so far to bad situation in a place you wouldn't want to be near on a bet.

[TEX]

An indictment is one thing. A conviction is another. I think they wil have a tough time finding a jury that will convict.

[Standing Wolf]

ones and another Lancaster man, Brandon James, had entered Wadlington's room with an AK-74 assault rifle and tried to rob him, Ranger Police Chief Jerome Chaney said.

Personally, I blame the mean vicious nasty terrible awful horrible deadly assault rifle.

[GSB]

D'Waylon? :confused:

[El Tejon]

I know this is BS because no one ever gets in any trouble after they shoot a fellow human being in self-defense. Problem #2 does not exist.:rolleyes:

[Vic303]

Looks to me like the problem here is it was no longer a selfdefense situation. He pursued fleeing assailants and shot one who later bled out. If the shooting had occurred in his dormroom during a struggle to gain control of the rifle, I bet there'd have been no indictment...

[El Tejon]

Vic, you mean to tell us that there's a point where an action is no longer self-defense but becomes a crime of vengence?

What if you "hate crime" and want to seek personal vengence upon the eeevildoers just like they do on the Internet? What if you think owning a gun makes you Batman? What if I stayed up all night making the hood with the pointy little Bat ears?

[TheeBadOne]

An AK-74??? That would be very unusual. I'd like to know more, and will assume it's a typo and they meant AK-47. Can anyone confirm what was used? :confused:

[Sleeping Dog]

An AK-74??? That would be very unusual. I'd like to know more, and will assume it's a typo and they meant AK-47.

An AK74 is not as common as an AK47, but not all that unusual. AK74 is the updated AK47, chambered for 5.45x39 bullets instead of the AK47's 7.62x39. A common one around here is the Romanian SAR-2 which is semi-auto only, no selector for full auto.

So, maybe a typo, maybe not.

Regards.

[Mike Irwin]

"Vic, you mean to tell us that there's a point where an action is no longer self-defense but becomes a crime of vengence?"

In a word, exactly.

When your attacker flees, he's no longer your attacker.

When you chase him, you're no longer the victim.

Chasing someone who has stolen something from you and is in the process of fleeing is stupid, and potentially criminal.

Pointy batman ears or not.

[El Tejon]

But, Mike, I was rasied to hate crime. Besides, what about my honor? It's at stake. Can't I chase them down and shoot them like they do in the movies?

Afterall I personally know of no one who has been in trouble over Problem #2 so it must not happen, right. Besides, this is Texas and it could NEVER happen here.

[Jeeper]

The whole "no longer in danger" thing is what will need to be determined. DIdnt the guys still have another gun?. I cant imagine a conviction on this for murder. Maybe manslaughter. Since we dont know all the facts it will be hard to really comment intelligently.

[Mike Irwin]

Quite frankly, Tejon, the concept of honor is both highly overrated.

[Mike Irwin]

"Didn't the guys have another gun?"

Hard to tell from the write up. It just sort of disappears from the narrative.

I really think the chances of a conviction in Texas on something like this are pretty slim to none, and largely I believe it's rightly so.

But I also believe that chasing someone after he's attempted to rob you is NEVER a prudent move.

[El Tejon]

Mike, I agree, but I am too scarred and wounded and getting too old to think otherwise.:D Honor is for those who can still live forever.

[Blackhawk]

From the story, the indictment seems bogus. After being shot "under the arm", Wadlington gained control of the rifle. Seems like it's all part of the same attempted robbery. as the defense attorney said: "Self-defense, defense of property -- call it what you want," he said. "After he'd been shot, I would think the gloves would be off."

[Art Eatman]

If I have it clear, Jones had the rifle and James had the pistol. Wadlington got the rifle away from Jones, and shot Jones. At the time of that shot, Jones and James were fleeing.

Now: Texas law says that you may shoot a fleeing Bad Guy if you have reason to believe he would be an ongoing threat to the community. That's in the book.

It seems to me that if two BGs are fleeing and one has a gun of whatever sort, the two, together, still pose an ongoing threat to the community.

Be interesting to see what the Trial Jury sez.

Art

[Mike Irwin]

Now that factoid makes it just a little bit different, Art.

[El Tejon]

Art, if it was in the book for the coming petit jury it was in the book for the grand jury.

As to fear of "continuing danger" (check local listings for term in your area), true enough and that's where the tilecrawler will start pulling. I suspect D took 5 at gj, but will testify at trial to his horrific fear and reasonable fear of others being shot. Thus, the gj, not hearing this aspect, indicted him.

[nemesis]

Do not forget that Texas provides for the use of deadly force to protect your property. A thief departing from the scene may no longer present a threat to your person but you may use force to prevent them from escaping with your property.

[Art Eatman]

El Tejon, a skillful prosecutor can manipulate a Grand Jury. The jurors can ask questions, but if they don't know and aren't told of the specifics of the law, then what? I sure don't expect a college kid to know the specifics of the law, and he doesn't get legal counsel during the Grand Jury proceedings. (The lawyer can sit outside the room, and the accused can communicate with him via notes, back and forth.)

Manipulation: I was on a trial jury for a "second go 'round". A GJ had nolle prossed the accused, but the prosecutor got it brought up again to the next GJ--which indicted. (We found the accused to be not guilty.)

Art

[El Tejon]

Art, did the Defendant testify at the gj?!?!:eek: He didn't take 5?

[TarpleyG]

I remember a story a few years back in Texas where a guy chased down someone who had stolen something from his car and shot and killed him. He, too, was indicted but did not get convicted.

Not that I advocate this type of behavior but sometimes people emotions take over. I really sucks to work so hard for something and then here comes Mr. Low-life Crackhead and he wants what you got and he don't want to pay you for it. I have a temper (although it has gotten much better as I get older) and I could not fully say that I would never do something like this.

GT

[4v50 Gary]

Let's see, the kid's been shot before he disarmed his assailant. Seems to be that we have a crime of passion. Any normal person who was attacked and shot would be enraged and would also respond like this kid did. It would reduce this from a first degree to voluntary manslaughter. Notwithstanding that, Mike Irwin does make a good point about no-self defense since the assailants fled. Personally, I hope the jury throws it out as a self-defense case (in Calif, they may do that just because of the low IQ of the jury).

Gotta go back to the Common Law.

[Art Eatman]

El Tejon, I don't know what went on with the Grand Jury.

The guy went on trial for voluntary manslaughter, for shooting his ex son-in-law--in the presence of his daughter and grand-daughter--and he claimed self-defense. We found him not guilty on account of the daughter done it. :)

And the daughter never got charged with anything, which was as it should have been. Righteous shoot.

Art

[Sean Smith]

I'm hard-presed to imagine a situation where I've been shot, I have a gun, and the guy who shot me isn't going to die if I can catch him.

I don't offer that as advice for the right thing to do. And I don't say it to tell you how tough I am... I would hope that I would break contact once the immediate threat to my life is over (assuming the criminals weren't shooting random people or something). I just don't think that it is reasonable to expect a person to behave otherwise under the stated circumstances. It would be wise if they did act differently, but you can't impose a life-or-death situation on somebody like the armed robbers did, and then wonder why the would-be victim opts for your death if they can do it.