Federal Agent threatens school bully....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Autolycus

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
5,456
Location
In the land of make believe.
If anyone of us did this, do you think we would see the light of day ever again or get off with a slap on the wrist?

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/400739p-339441c.html

Bully-mad dad aims
gun at boy, 10



BY ERIN EINHORN and ALISON GENDAR
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS


Antione Hodges, 10, standing by his house in Queens, was threatened at gunpoint by the father of a school mate.

Jamming the barrel of a handgun into a fifth-grader's belly, an enraged Queens parent threatened to shoot the boy in his school playground yesterday - all because he had punched the man's son - the boy and witnesses said.
"I started to cry. I was thinking he was going to shoot me," the terrified student, Antoine Hodges, 10, told the Daily News.

Antoine said he was walking through the schoolyard of Public School 50 in Jamaica at about 8:15 a.m. when Carlos Ugarte, a federal immigration officer, ran up and grabbed him by the collar.

"Were you messing with my son?" Ugarte asked Antoine, according to the boy.

"Yeah," Antoine responded.

His one-word response allegedly prompted Ugarte - a criminal investigator with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement - to brandish his weapon and press it against the boy's stomach, Antoine said.

When Antoine started to cry, Ugarte barked, "Don't cry now. Don't cry now," the boy said.

Stunned students and their horrified parents gathered around Antoine and Ugarte. When several people began screaming, Ugarte bolted, witnesses said.

Some parents, seeing the gun but not knowing what was happening, believed Antoine was being kidnapped, said Jason Croome, who witnessed the bizarre scene while dropping off his 7-year-old daughter.

Alerted by school officials and parents, cops began searching for Ugarte and he soon turned himself in at the 103rd Precinct stationhouse. He was only charged with menacing, a misdemeanor, police said.

It wasn't immediately known if the gun was loaded.

Federal authorities put Ugarte on administrative duty and stripped him of his gun and badge pending an investigation, an ICE spokesman said.

Antoine told The News that he had tattled on Ugarte's son, Carlos Jr., when he spoke out of turn in class on Thursday.

When the boys were standing in line at dismissal later in the day, Carlos shoved Antoine and then Antoine slugged him, Antoine said.

An assistant principal pulled the boys apart and said the squabble would be dealt with the next day.

But Ugarte apparently wasn't willing to wait for school officials to settle the dispute. After confronting Antoine outside the school yesterday, Ugarte made him and his son shake hands and agree not to fight, police sources said.

Ugarte, an Army reservist who served in Iraq, then pulled his weapon and warned: "I'll arrest you if you mess with my kid again," police sources said.

Antoine's parents, Denise and Detrich Odom, were furious yesterday.

"I'm shocked. I don't understand how some tit-for-tat between the boys could turn into something like this," said Denise Odom, 36.

Antoine's parents said he told them he never wanted to go back to school, but they have convinced him he'll be okay.

"I should be safe in my environment from lunatics like this," the boy said.

With Oren Yaniv
 
Yeah, if any of us ordinary citizens did that, it would, without a doubt, be a felony. And if any of us ordinary citizens did that to, say, a federal law enforcement officer, we would be going away for a long long time. In fact, if I even said (outside the context of my argument here) "I'm going to hold a gun up to the president's stomach", without even having the means or intent to do that, just saying that would be a felony. So much for "we're all citizens". As George Orwell put it, some animals are more equal than others.

To be clear, I think that anyone who acts as was described in this article should have a felony charge, regardless of who he is threatening, whether it's a 10-year-old boy or the president or anyone else.
 
He was only charged with menacing, a misdemeanor, police said.
That's a crock.

His one-word response allegedly prompted Ugarte - a criminal investigator with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement - to brandish his weapon and press it against the boy's stomach, Antoine said.
Looks like assault with DW and battery to me.

TC

edit to add: who in this story is the real bully?
 
Well, if the criminal justice system doesn't do the job there is a great civil case here. One way or another, I suspect that the ICE man's life is not going to be pleasant any time soon.
 
At least

"Looks like assault with DW and battery to me."

And quite possibly intentional infliction of emotional distress at the civil trial.

I hope the boy's parent's end up driving ICEman's car, living in his house and cashing his paycheck. He took protective parenting WAY over the edge. :what:
 
If things went down as written, IMHO the ICE man deserves to spend the next several years in the Graybar Motel following his felony conviction(s). Let's see . . . Assault with a Deadly Weapon, making a terroristic threat, endangering a child . . . I'm sure a motivated DA could find more legitimate charges to tack on.
I hope the boy's parent's end up driving ICEman's car, living in his house and cashing his paycheck.
Plus collecting his pension.
 
I would assume this is the section he was charged under:

Section 120.14 Menacing in the second degree

A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:

1. He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or

2. He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or

3. He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight of the family court act or section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law, or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued.

Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

It seems to fit the crime precisely. 1st degree menacing (a felony) would recquire a previous conviction (menacing) in the past 10 years. Assault under the code would require physical injury to the victim.

Despite your assumptions to the contrary, I can't see how he was let off easy by virtue of his being an LEO.
 
Guns are allowed on school property in NYC? Usually there is an exemption for officers there on duty, and security guards, but I somehow doubt this man's official business consists of threatening to waste 10 year olds.
 
It's also a class A misdemeanor. As is child endangerment. I agree that the act was in no way a part of his duty, regardless, it looks like they chose the most appropriate charge.
 
None of us were there during the incident, so shouldn't we at least give this officer the same rights we grant our common criminals...namely innocent until proven guilty? Wait for the investigation to be complete before acting as judge, jury, and executioner, for heavens sakes. Surely from what was reported, the officer felt threatened; he had only a split second to decide if the suspect was making a furtive motion toward his waistband...was that a gameboy, or a glock40? He reacted according to his training. Walk a mile in our shoes, instead of mmqb'ing, ok? The little brat probably needed a "life lesson", anyway. Surely, the officer will probably lose his take-home vehicle over this, a perk worth thousands of $$$, so he's already being punished much more than any "civilian" would. Oh, and for those who like to bash, bash, bash...don't call 911 the next time your wife is being raped, OK?





















/glocktalk:coptalk mode:neener:
 
Isn't there a separate class of crimes for those that act under cover of a badge or some such wording.

If true the guy used his badge and position to threaten and intimidate a child, over a minor personal matter, with death or incarceration.

And by the way
threatened to shoot the boy in his school playground
Is that some kind of euphemism
 
None of us were there during the incident, so shouldn't we at least give this officer the same rights we grant our common criminals...namely innocent until proven guilty? Wait for the investigation to be complete before acting as judge, jury, and executioner, for heavens sakes. Surely from what was reported, the officer felt threatened; he had only a split second to decide if the suspect was making a furtive motion toward his waistband...was that a gameboy, or a glock40? He reacted according to his training. Walk a mile in our shoes, instead of mmqb'ing, ok? The little brat probably needed a "life lesson", anyway. Surely, the officer will probably lose his take-home vehicle over this, a perk worth thousands of $$$, so he's already being punished much more than any "civilian" would. Oh, and for those who like to bash, bash, bash...don't call 911 the next time your wife is being raped, OK?

MUHAHAHAHA!
 
Title 18 USC 242, a statute making it a crime to deprive any person of their rights "under color of law."

That is of course a federal statute and the local police could not place charges under that statute. Neither was the suspect acting under color of law. I think they did the right thing in this case.
 
Neither was the suspect acting under color of law.
Depends on how fine you want to split the hair
Ugarte, an Army reservist who served in Iraq, then pulled his weapon and warned: "I'll arrest you if you mess with my kid again," police sources said.

shouldn't we at least give this officer the same rights we grant our common criminals...namely innocent until proven guilty?
That is a limitation placed on the courts not private citizens.
 
gmarshall...

Just taking the single fact of the officer drawing a gun on the kid and pointing it at him, do you really think that Joe Average would get a misdemeanor menacing charge in the same circumstances?

If you do, i'd like to talk to you about some property i have for sale...
 
Just taking the single fact of the officer drawing a gun on the kid and pointing it at him, do you really think that Joe Average would get a misdemeanor menacing charge in the same circumstances?
In a word: no.
 
...he's already being punished much more than any "civilian" would.
A police force is not a military organization. Don't you mean "any other civilian"?

This is so out there that I have to believe that as stellar a job as I normally think the newspeople do of telling stories, something must have been left out. I agree that if this came down the way the article says it did, then the guy deserves to get what any other citizen would get.

If one of us lower cast citizens that had a CCW were caught holding a 10 year old at gunpoint and making threats, who here thinks they'd simply lose the company car? Can I get a count of hands?

Anyone want to bet you'd lose your CCW license, just for starters?
 
If one of us lower cast citizens that had a CCW were caught holding a 10 year old at gunpoint and making threats, who here thinks they'd simply lose the company car? Can I get a count of hands?

Anyone want to bet you'd lose your CCW license, just for starters?

There is a double standard. If you can't see it here, go look at the CopTalk forum at www.glocktalk.com.
 
Just taking the single fact of the officer drawing a gun on the kid and pointing it at him, do you really think that Joe Average would get a misdemeanor menacing charge in the same circumstances?

What would you have him charged with? The answer has to be an existing law in New York.
 
this isn't any different than the california cop shooting the airman. If a civilian had shot the airman, it would be attempted murder, but because its a cop, they charged him with attempted voluntary manslaughter, a lesser crime, AND as far as I know thats ALL they are charging him with.

This case isn't any different, because he's a fed agent, he's being charged with a misdemeanor instead of a felony AND this is probably the only charge he will face whereas a civilian would be facing a multitude of counts.

One other thing, if it were any of us average joes, we'd be sitting in a jail cell or bonded out whereas the 'law' or 'fed' is on administrative duty still collecting a paycheck.

As far as charges goes, he should have the following added:

Section 120.25 Reckless endangerment in the first degree - class E felony
Section 260.10 Endangering the welfare of a child - class A misdemeanor
Section 265.35 Prohibited use of weapons - class A misdemeanor

And thats just what I could look up. I'm sure there are others for inventive lawyers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top