[12-34hom]

ATF agent - Jon Petersen - 42- went on trial in Warren county for an incident that occured on September 16 2002.

In opening statements from his attorney, several teens threatened him that evening and "he was scared" at the time of this alleged incident.

Mr. Petersen is charged with several counts of assualt, O.W.I., public intoxication, intimidation by displaying a dangerous weapon. [The last charge is a felony] At the time of his arrest his BAC was twice the legal limit here in Iowa. [at that time .10]

Agent Petersen had been in charge of the Des Moines office of the ATF but has riding a desk in K.C. since this incident took place. If convicted on all charges, a possible 20 year prison sentence could be imposed. His job status is also in doubt.

Yes, the wheels of justice turn slowly here in Iowa sometimes. But it makes no difference as to your job status.

Six men & women will render thier verdict after ALL the evidence is presented.

12-34hom.

[Kharn]

If convicted on all charges, a possible 20 year prison sentence could be imposed. His job status is also in doubt.
Well, I'd hope he wouldnt be gainfully employed while confined to prison...

Kharn

[Pilgrim]

I hope that is six men and six women. Only six jurors implies a misdemeanor trial and that means a maximum of one year in jail in most states.

Pilgrim

[tyme]

His job status is not in doubt. He's slime and he works for the slimiest agency in the country (DEA is a close second). And shortly he'll (hopefully) be unemployed and Bubba's best friend. I'm sure government agents are thought of quite highly in prison.

[rock jock]

He's slime
I hope you are not implying that he's slime simply because he works for the BATF?

[Balog]

I hope you are not implying that he's slime simply because he works for the BATF?

Interesting question. Should a good person (which this guy obviously isn't) bear the onus of the organization? Hmmmmm.

[Scottmkiv]

I don't see how a good person who was informed in the slightest could join such an organization, unless perhaps it was an appointment to the top to clean the place up.

[12-34hom]

Please refrain from name calling, if you've got something to add to educate, please = by all means.

Otherwise, don't bother.

12-34hom.

[Baba Louie]

In Vino Veritas?

Adios

[ARperson]

I hope the prosecution can do better than the post did at explaining the evidence. All I read were the charges. Not even the news story trying to explain the events.

Was he threatened?

I don't care how drunk he was, he has a right to defend himself.

And no matter my thoughts on his employer, he's not guilty just because he works for the alphabet agency.

[jimpeel]

Pursuant to the Rules of Conduct (http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html) we are only restricted from calling those who post here names. Outside interests are fair game.

Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[hammer4nc]

I exchanged a few emails with the reporter from the DM Register on this story, over the past year. I don't think its quite accurate to say that the wheels "grind slowly"; more accurate to say that Petersen's lawyer intentionally caused the delays by repeatedly deposing everyone remotely involved, apparently using former boss Bill Clinton's strategy "delay;delay;delay".

Secondly, most of the time since the incident, Petersen has enjoyed "paid leave" status (courtesy of taxpayers); the KC desk duty angle is a recent development.

Thirdly, I would question that the average suspect would have been released on own recognizance (bail = $0), for this type of charge, nor would have been afforded repeated continuances that Petersen has received. Quite a good deal if you're on open-ended paid leave.

Contrary to the conclusion of the thread starter, I'd say it looks like "job status" has a great deal to do with how one is treated by the system. Hopefully the jury can render an equitable decision.

[Mike Irwin]

If this is the one I THINK it is, and IIRC, it unfolded something like this...

He opened his front door to find some kids TPing his house.

They ran, and hopped in a car and fled. (Ok, there's fear...)

He hopped in his car and chased them. (Yep, a scared person does that...)

He managed to get them pulled over. (The fear must be powerful strong, now...)

He exits vehicle, screaming that he's an agent, and waving his gun in the kids faces (He did so out of utter, absolute, terror, obviously...)

Local police get involved, find out he's drunker than a skunk, and it gets back to his bosses... (Now the fear is real and substantial, obviously, not some BS lie told trying to save his keister...)

So yeah, he's in fear, alright.

[c_yeager]

The story that mike told sounds like the same one i was thinking of. This guy most certainly seems like scum regardless of his employer.

[12-34hom]

Hammer & Mike Irwin, thanks for the clarifcation.

12-34hom.

[Publicola]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think a person who does work for the BATF's firearms division is of low character. The alcohol & tobacco division people I just assume have poor judgement.

The BATF is a tax agency. Yes I know they got transfered to Justice - (proving once again that the government makes the best oxymorons available) but they'll always be tax boys with delusions of granduere to me. There main purpose is to enforce taxing measures pertaining to alcohol, tobacco & firearms. The NFA of 34? that's a taxing measure & the course of their biggest authority. The GCA of 68 impaled us with licenses should we sell firearms as a business & license fees are really not that different from taxes.

So if anyone would like to defend the character of those who work for this agency who is trying its best to make life hard for firearms owners, please give it your best efforts.

As to the guy in question, or his treatment in light of the charges - typical. I mean be honest, when have you ever seen a BATF agent subject himself to the things us peasants would be put away for if we didn't comply? So him stalling the trial while living off the taxpayer teat is not surprising. Disgusting yes, surprising no.

[ietrash]

Quote:
ATF agent goes on trial in Iowa.
ATF agent - Jon Petersen - 42- went on trial in Warren county for an incident that occured on September 16 2002.

In opening statements from his attorney, several teens threatened him that evening and "he was scared" at the time of this alleged incident.

Mr. Petersen is charged with several counts of assualt, O.W.I., public intoxication, intimidation by displaying a dangerous weapon. [The last charge is a felony] At the time of his arrest his BAC was twice the legal limit here in Iowa. [at that time .10]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets see, he works for The Bureau of Alcohol Tobbaco and Firearms , And he was drunk and brandishing a gun . I'm surprised he didn't try to sell these underage kids some cigarettes.:D

[Sergeant Bob]

I take it this was posted to show that BATFE agents are indeed subject to the same laws as ordinary folks?
A BATFE agent being charged (which he should be) for a crime committed (while off duty) just like the rest of us peons really means little to me.
Now show me some being charged for the crimes they commit while on duty and I'll be happy.

[MicroBalrog]

From the THR FAQ:


The BATFE is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Until recently, they were part of the Department of the Treasury, since their original mandate was handling tax stamps for firearms. Due to the War on Terror, they've been moved within the Department of Homeland Security. Their mission has become to investigate and enforce firearms, alcohol, tobacco, and explosives regulations and taxes. This means they are involved in enforcement of such laws as 18USC922(v), which prohibits placement of a folding stock on centerfire pistol-gripped rifles made after September 1994; they also enforce NFA regulations that prohibit ownership of metal tubes without a tax stamp.






I hope you are not implying that he's slime simply because he works for the BATF?

Now lessee, he seems to have assaulted a bunch of kids with a gun AND he works for the ATF voluntarily, enforcing "NFA regulations that prohibit ownership of metal tubes without a tax stamp.". And he's a nice guy?

[12-34hom]

11-07-03.

As of this date, the jury i now out considering all the facts and will render its verdict.

12-34hom.

[hammer4nc]

Agent Petersen took the stand in the last day of trial. Link: http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4788993/22700176.html

I found his defense perplexing in its seeming disconnection from reality, and lack of substance...bald-face denial of key facts and testimony in the case (i.e., wasn't drunk, despite bac twice legal limit; wasn't wobbly, contrary to arresting officer's report, etc.). Denied brandishing the gun, as he only pointed it at the ground and kept his finger off the trigger? I wonder if this claim would be upheld, if a suspect asserted it against leo's? Would be laughed out of court! The main point in his testimony, that he felt threatened, completely at odds with his decision to seek out and singlehandedly capture those who made the threats?

His lawyer even made a motion to dismiss...out of the blue...which was rejected. The boldness of this move almost leads one to think a backroom deal was expected, and fell through. Lawyers please weigh in on this.

All his legal maneuvers, and still he doesn't come up with something more convincing? Its hard to predict the decision, but from here it looks like a slam dunk conviction.

With all that was missing in the defense, one might suspect that this career federal leo has managed to install a fix in the penalty phase of the trial. That will be where the rubber meets the road. News reports said conviction could bring 20 year term. I could see a sympathetic judge/prosecutor letting him off with a fine/community service/full pension, though I'd love to be proved wrong.

"Job status", otherwise known as double standard, will be front and center in this case. We shall see.

[jfh]

I find it interesting that nobody else in this forum twigged to the conclusion that this guy is obviously an alcoholic. The BAC level is 'way past recreational drinking; his thinking and consequent behavior certainly reinforce that.

With that in mind, I'm surprised that he didn't pursue a version of the victim's argument and want treatment, etc., etc.

I'll be curious to see how it plays out.

[Redlg155]

With that in mind, I'm surprised that he didn't pursue a version of the victim's argument and want treatment, etc., etc.

No problem. Believe it or not many prisons have AA meetings. He should fit in nicely at a PM (Protective Management) unit.


Good Shooting
Red

[alan]

I had read something about this fiasco, the ATF agents actions that is, a while back, and frankly am surprised that this case ever got to trial, or anywhere near an actual court room. It remains to see whether or not, THE FIX IS IN. We shall see.

[labgrade]

Too, very curious how this plays out. Subscribed.

"I don't see how a good person who was informed in the slightest could join such an organization, unless perhaps it was an appointment to the top to clean the place up."

Ditto.

Is not the BATF(& now, E) be anything other than a tax agency? although, pethaps their investigative skill-set regards arson & the like.

Everything to do with the alcohol, tobacao & firearms was for tax purposes, which scaled out of hand into somewhat of an "enforcement group."

F-Troop, I b'lieve.

& now, God save us, they will put Estes Rocket out of business to fight terrorism.

There is no reason for this branch of "guvmint service" to exist in the first place.

Secondary to that, it appears (from the barest of accounts) that this gent over-extended his "citizenship & public safety-stuff" to be a threat to the community - albeit the story is way sketchy.

Wouldn't argue the point that his defense would be to "attack" everything "legal." The system sucks anyway.

But, just being employed by the BATF, personally, I'd hang 'im on that point alone.

After all, how many violations of US Code, bill of rights has this guy violated?

& to "merely" get tagged for just being a normal Joe ********* .... ?

[twoblink]

He was drunk and he's got a gun..

All he needed was a cigarette at the time and he would have had a BATF special :p

The guy isn't scum because he works for the BATF; he's scum because drunk people who wave guns at kids are scum..

[labgrade]

"The guy isn't scum because he works for the BATF; ... "

I'd disagree.

BATF is an illegal organisation.

On their face - they tax us for us having access to alcohol, tobaco & firearms - none of which is likely constitutional (but we'll just put that aside for now & focus on the facts).

These pukes at best invade your privacy to ensure "compliance to further illegal laws deciding who has what & ho0w you've tracked the purchase of a perfectly legal commodity - a firearm, a cigarette, a glass of wine.

They are, fer God's sake, a tax agency, but do, at many a time, kick in doors, shoot folks to death, violate rights to high heaven, in the name of what!? enforcing a "tax code?"

Where else do they get their authority - other than almost everything they enforce is a "felony?"

A felony. 10-20 in the Big House, & for what?

Because some ********* like Schumer, et ilk have voted to make it so? :barf:

But I disgress somewhat.

The (formally capitalized) bill of rights says that we have the absolute inalienable rights to certain things, some of which are the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th ... need I go on?

The BATF is set up to violate every of of these, in addition to the 9th & 10th.

So, one might "defend" another's position in an organisation that is set up intitially to violate, what?, at least 1/2 of the bill of rights?

Hardly a defensible position, methinks.

[Jeff White]

...apparantly they aquitted him.

Jury: ATF Agent Not Guilty On All Counts
A Warren County jury says ATF Agent Jon Petersen is not guilty of threatening
teenagers with his service revolver.
MORE DETAILS: http://treets.theiowachannel.com/svc/lnk.cfm?l=27511578&t=1

Jeff

[Don Galt]

And "justice" is done. I can see 12 sheep acquitting the guy because they think cops have the right to pull guns on people.

But the judge should have set aside the verdict and found him guilty.

He was guilty on the facts-- there is no dispute he pulled a gun on that kid, multiple witnesses, etc.

There is no dispute that he chased them. He became the aggressor (And the criminal) When he got in his car to chase these kids.

As I asked in another thread-- when you cannot count on the courts to follow the law, be answerable to logic and reason-- what recourse is there?

[Malone LaVeigh]

I hope there's a civil remedy. The parents of those kids should sue his pants off.

[labgrade]

]text here (http://www.theiowachannel.com/news/2625522/detail.html?treets=des&tml=des_break&ts=T&tmi=des_break_3663_03300111102003)

"Petersen Accused Of Threatening Teens With Gun

UPDATED: 3:33 p.m. CST November 10, 2003

INDIANOLA, Iowa -- A Warren County jury said Jon Petersen is not guilty on all counts.

Petersen (pictured, left), former head of the Iowa office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, was on trial in Indianola for assault, drunken driving and intimidation. He was accused of chasing down a pickup truck full of teens in September 2002 and waving his service revolver at them.

Petersen testified Thursday that he pulled his gun to protect himself and his family.

Petersen spent much of Thursday on the witness stand. He claims a group of teenagers threatened him at his home before he climbed into his government Jeep and pulled over the pickup truck packed with high school students.

Officer Tony Beminio testified Wednesday morning that Petersen appeared to be intoxicated. Beminio said Petersen had slurred speech and was rambling.

Beminio said Petersen slightly stumbled, and he had to hold on to him.

Petersen testified he had only two glasses of wine. He also said he pulled a handgun out to defend himself.

"You have to understand what was going through my mind, that if this vehicle that threatened me, that threatened my life, that had threatened my family, that threatened to come back to do great bodily harm, I thought I picked the weapon I needed at the time," Petersen said.

Petersen's defense lawyer said he was not drunk, but was carrying out his duty. According to court papers, it was homecoming week in Indianola and Petersen believed the teens intended to vandalize his house.

Petersen, who spent nearly a year on administrative leave, recently returned to a desk job in the ATF's Kansas City office.

Look for more on the Petersen verdict from NewsChannel 8's Geoff Greenwood at the Warren County Courthouse."

And ...

http://www.theiowachannel.com/news/2605973/detail.html

I"NDIANOLA, Iowa -- Teenagers took the stand Tuesday in the trial of a federal agent accused of confronting a group of Indianola high schoolers with a loaded gun last year.

Jon Petersen, of Indianola, is the former head of the Iowa Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives office. He faces a felony and 13 misdemeanors in the September 2002 confrontation.

Some of the students testified that Petersen stopped their pickup truck and ordered the driver out.

According to Warren County court records, Peterson believed the boys were going to vandalize his yard as part of a homecoming prank.

Prosecutors say Petersen was drunk at the time of the confrontation. Petersen's attorney said his client was just doing his job and pursuing an arrest if he believed a crime had been committed.

Petersen, who spent nearly a year on administrative leave, recently returned to a desk job in the ATF's Kansas City office.

Testimony resumes in Warren County Courthouse Wednesday morning. "

&

http://www.theiowachannel.com/news/1672397/detail.html

"INDIANOLA, Iowa -- An Iowa agent with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is now in a lot more trouble with the law in Warren County.

Warren County Attorney Kevin Parker filed 13 new charges Tuesday against Jon Petersen (pictured, left), including drunken driving, two simple assault charges and 10 aggravated assault charges.

Early last week, Indianola high school students involved in homecoming week reveling said Peterson pulled them over in his official vehicle and confronted them at gunpoint.

"He made me do tests, like bend over and search me. Then he pulled a gun on the people on my truck because they were loud," driver Ryan Kalitzki told KCCI NewsChannel 8 on Sept. 17.

Court papers accuse Petersen of shoving two students and threatening them. They also accuse him of pointing a loaded gun at nine students, including at one teen's head.

While the case trickles through the Warren County courthouse, Petersen remains on leave with the ATF. The bureau's internal investigation is still ongoing.

Petersen also faces one public intoxication charge from that night, which brings the total to 14 charges. If convicted on all charges, Petersen could face more than 21 years in prison. "

+ .....

http://www.theiowachannel.com/news/1685188/detail.html

"INDIANOLA, Iowa -- An Iowa agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was charged with public intoxication Monday night after he apparently pulled a gun on a group of teenagers.

Indianola police said the situation started with a fight at the home of agent Jon Carl Petersen (pictured, left), 41. Petersen apparently followed the teenagers to Emerson School.

Investigators said Petersen used the flashing lights in his car to stop the truck and order the driver to get out. The driver of the truck said Peterson drew his gun and ordered him to lift his shirt.

By the time officers arrived, the teens were out of the truck and Petersen was standing next to his Jeep. The teens told the officers the man had a gun.

The officers handcuffed Peterson and found the gun on the front seat of his Jeep. While talking to Petersen, officers concluded he was drunk.

A breath test showed Petersen had a blood alcohol level of 0.222, so he was charged with public intoxication.

Petersen is the ATF's resident agent in charge of the Iowa field office. His supervisor said Petersen will be allowed to carry a weapon and resume his duties while local and federal authorities investigate the allegations."

So.

We got an out of control "agent-head" of an out of control & illegal agency who was drunk (what's that about the A in the BATF&E? anyway - he paid his taxes anyway, so I guess that's OK .... )

But, from all appearances, this drunk guy, being "threatened for his life by homecoming toilet-papering high-schoolers," does the drunk-driving bit, points guns at heads of children, etc. has a paid leave (what's a likely GS10+ get for yearly pay? I wonder) - & & all the while is given the blessing of "carrying his weapon."

YeSiree!

Something you & I would be most accomodating to & would you be so well-treated?

Now I'm no fan of the published media, but from the accounts presented, this guy is a loose cannon & should have been hung out to dry - if nothing else to show some sort of "we do care" aspect of the department.

If nothig else, this guy violated everything we've all been taught about fleeing "felons." When the threat is gone, so is your "duty" to persue."

Sheese.

[rock jock]

BATF is an illegal organisation.
It is not illegal. It operates within U.S. law. Now, you may argue that its existence is unconstitutional and that argument may have some merit. However, if you were to take that approach, nearly every fed govt. organization would be considered illegal too. I don't suppose that you consider every fed employee scum, do you?

[ojibweindian]

With the exception of the military, and very few others, I do.

[BamBam]

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall in the jury room.

How'd the guy get off the DUI/public intoxication charges? Those didn't depend on the teenager's testimony; they were backed by officers accounts and a .222 BAC.

[labgrade]

rock jock's

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BATF is an illegal organisation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not illegal. It operates within U.S. law. Now, you may argue that its existence is unconstitutional and that argument may have some merit. However, if you were to take that approach, nearly every fed govt. organization would be considered illegal too. I don't suppose that you consider every fed employee scum, do you?"

Not every fed employee, rj, just most.

& very interesting that "it operates within US law" while still being unconstitutional.

That IS the whole point.

Isn't it?

Go think about that for some time, please.

As an aside (I can't help myself), what is it about that it is "legit," "according to law" that makes these guys OK?

Anything you see in the constitution that says they get to kill us for a tax on cigarettes, wine, or shall I dare ask, what doesn't one get about the second amendment stating our right to "keep and bear?"

& we've a fed agency that is allegedly a tax-thingy, but still can ninja-kick in your door with Nomex-clad/machine gun toters to enforce a $200 tax-thing.

If the IRS ever even to attempt it once, there'd be a riot, but when the BATF(&E) does it, somehow, it's OK?

PUL-LEEZE!

Whatever. & we won't solve anything here.

Back to the subject though.

By all (newsworthy) acounts, we've a high-level gun-totin' fed (who enforces gun-totin' crimes), driving drunk, persuing kids & stuffin' a gun to their head for their horrendous crime of hanging some paper on some trees in his yard.

If that's the new def of "fear for yer life," there wouldn't be a kid alive in Texas. ;)

[F4GIB]

Proving once again that it's nearly impossible to convict a bad cop. Juries believe anything said by a man with a badge.

But we should remember that, in modern America, a typical jury is the 12 people who COULDN'T get out of jury duty.

[alan]

In my brief post, I questioned whether, re this trial, the fix might be in. Looks like it was.

As for the accused, he is back at work, this time, flying a desk. Given his demonstrated tendencies, ATF management would be very well advised to keep him there, lest next he blows some citizen away, quite possibly having some citizen witness return the favor. In the last analysis, problems of this sort, and they go back to the shooting of Kenyon Ballew, are, were and remain in the laps of AGENCY MANAGEMENT, TOP MANAGEMENT.

It is up to people at that level to make certain that everyone understands that this sort of ???? simply will not float. It's a lesson that must be taught, for some people, by example. Plainly, the necessary example has yet to be made, and it wasn't made here, that's for sure.

[12-34hom]

Don't cry conspircy - when stupidity will do.

12-34hom

[alan]

12-34hom

Old saying runs more or less as follows. Never look to conspiricy, when human stupidity is even a remote possibility.

Sounds good, but how far can the possibility of human stupidity carry, that far, I wouldn't think so, but then I have been wrong before, a couple of times anyhow, perhaps again here.

It still strikes one as really strange.

[Don Galt]

I do believe the Supreme court has ruled that anything that is unconstitutional becomes illegal the moment it is created. (Marbury V. Madison?)

Therefore the ATF is illegal, as are many agencies of the government, as well as unconstitutional. You cannot be unconstitutional and yet legal.

Furthermore, any federal employee who violates the constitution as part of their duties, I believe under US Code, is a criminal, and can be punished by both significant jail time and fines.

Unfortunately, I think this fact makes almost the entirety of the government criminal.

This is such a serious, and shocking situation that I don't think people can accept it. Its too large a reality to enforce. Hell, there's not enough people who don't belong in jail left to put the ones who do in jail! (as virtually every police organization takes drug cases, all of which are unconstitutional.)

Thus, its much easier for the masses of people to ignore this fact, and pretend the constitution is not being violated, and acquit this guy who, on the facts, pursued people and committed assault.

[tyme]

I suspect it's impossible to successfully prosecute for civil rights violations if the agent(s) were acting under bureau policy, because that turns into the question of whether the law/policy being followed is constitutional.

There's a gigantic step between a law being null and void and enforcers of that law being held liable for previously enforcing it.

Maybe if there were a clear case of a bureaucratic agency promulgating rules clearly outside their congressional mandate, there would be a case for agency liability for past enforcement. I don't think that applies to the BATFE. They may be overstepping the law a little bit with their interpretations, but only a little bit. Most of the problem is with the law itself.

Does any lawyer out there happen to know of any relevant case cites? I.e. cases involving civil rights suits for federal enforcement of laws later ruled to be unconstitutional?

The case would be something like Lopez suing the federal government for false arrest, imprisonment, and denial of his RKBA based on the events leading to U.S. v Lopez. And that would probably be thrown out because he could have been arrested for violating State law as well. But it seems to me that would be the general outline of such a case, if there is one.

[gun-fucious]

seems like Jon Peterson needs a restraining order so he can be Lautenburged

[cordex]

But the judge should have set aside the verdict and found him guilty
I can't believe you said that, Don. You want to nullify the whole jury process? You support giving full authority to define guilt or innocence to a judge?
No thanks!
Right or wrong, the jury is a necessary balance.
But we should remember that, in modern America, a typical jury is the 12 people who COULDN'T get out of jury duty.
F4GIB,
I resent the implication.
A few months ago I served on a jury in a criminal trial (domestic battery, six jurors). The people I served with chose to stay of their own volition. As did I.

It seems to me that you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

[Don Galt]

No, I don't want to nullify the jury process.

But the judges job is to make sure the jury decides based on the facts of the case here.

Clearly, they did not.

But I see your point.

[mrapathy2000]

federal agent was cleared of all charges. he was acquited monday of charges of intimidation and assault, drunken driving and public intoxication. jury found him innocent of all charges. I just dont freaking believe this. no way should that jury of gone the way they did. what sickens me even more is this guy might still have his a job at atf. though no longer head of iowa office of us atf.

:barf: