A Marine needs your help!

[MarcusWendt]

Tough call based on ALL the info presented here. If in fact he was involved in a physical altercation with the suspect and the suspect could immediately summon friends to over power the alleged federal agent then I'd say he should be freed and receive and apology.... but.

is he a federal employee or a federal LE agent? Does he posses police/arrest powers beyond what an average citizen would have?

Did the suspect REALLY challenge him in a physical manner? Would a reasonable person feel their life was in immediate danger?

I can't help but wonder why the dept of energy hasn't commented on this.

I can feel bad for him and be happy that a two time loser bit the dust, but the law is the law. I can't imagine the attorney wouldn't have raised these questions already.

 

[MarcusWendt]

I find it interesting that in none of the articles I read does it refer to this guy as a Federal Agent.

I sympathize with this guy, but it appears that he broke the law and he's got to pay.

 

[mwpslp]

I agree there are too many facts unknown. I also am not sure of the laws in his state. In Texas it is a justifiable shooting if someone is trying to steal your personal property but just not sure about the chasing him down part. Anyone have any insight on the laws in New Mexico?

 

[hso]

Dept. of Energy NM couriers only have authority related to protecting special nuclear materials and weapons related components. They have no authority outside of that. The fact that it happened at his home and therefore outside his official duties makes his status as a courier irrelevant.

The fact that he's a former Marine gives him no special status.

That he pursued the intruder from his home to detain him does bear on the legality of the shooting and whether the BG had anything in his hands and what the BG did with them bears on the legality of the shooting. What the BG did or didn't have and what he did or didn't do with what he had are what makes the difference in a good or bad shooting.

90% of THR members would not have pursued the BG once they were out of their home. Any review of THR will show you that the overwhelming number of members here aren't vigilantes or mistake themselves for law enforcement officers.

 

[Browning]

I'm in agreement that the perpetrator brought this on himself as well.

Rebailey :The perpetrator brought it on himself. If he had not broken into the Marine's home he would still alive. It was 100% his fault. FREE THE MARINE. He has done nothing that 90%of us would not have done in the same situation. This was a civic betterment killing.

I have to agree with you and you can speak for me as well, the carjacker won't ever end up car jacking anyone, burglarizing a home or victimizing anyone else ever again, as far as I'm concerned this incident had a happy ending except for the fact that the home owner got two years in prison out of it.

 

[NG VI]

It doesn't seem legal at all, but like some others I don't thnik the perpetrator will be missed, and I think it's a sham to make someone pay the family for shooting a two-time felon and clearly recidivist offender, even if he did leave his property doing it. What does he owe the "victim's" family for anyway? Does this mean that he now has to take up a second job as a crackhead and burglar? you know, so he can truly repay them the same way that the felon would have provided for them?

 

[rbernie]

It doesn't seem legal at all, but like some others I don't thnik the perpetrator will be missed, and I think it's a sham to make someone pay the family for shooting a two-time felon and clearly recidivist offender, even if he did leave his property doing it.

The bad guy may have really been A Very Bad Guy. Probably was. I will not defend him.

But that has nothing to do with the legality of the shoot. 'Some folk just need killing' may be true in your mind, but the law has very well defined parameters within which deadly force can be used and that yardstick ain't part of it.

Sadly for Richard, it sounds like he was judged to have used deadly force outside of those boundaries.

That he pursued the intruder from his home to detain him does bear on the legality of the shooting and whether the BG had anything in his hands and what the BG did with them bears on the legality of the shooting.

Exactly so.

Texas it is a justifiable shooting if someone is trying to steal your personal property

Only if you can convince a jury of your peers that you had no other viable option of recovering the stolen propety by any other means. Texas law does not give a blank check to shooting over property; it simply acknowledges that sometimes it may be justified.

Most states do not even give that presumption.

 

[El Tejon]

1. Remember Problem #2. I did not just make it up in some post on THR. Using/threatening to use your firearm carries an enormous cost.

2. Having a pistol does not make you Batman. Do not chase down evildoers with fast karahtee chops. You are not the Caped Crusader of Justice, even if you stayed up all night sewing the Bat Ears correctly.

3. Your actions will be subject to endless Monday morning quarterback by people who have plenty of time and power to put you in prison. Always cancel a fight you can avoid.

4. The fellow human being that you use deadly force against may be a Very Bad Man, but he will be someone's baby and a "victim" to the prosecution.

5. The best indicator of quality training is never having to use it.

 

[Robert Hairless]

HSO:

Any review of THR will show you that the overwhelming number of members here aren't vigilantes or mistake themselves for law enforcement officers.

El Tejon:

5. The best indicator of quality training is never having to use it.

Yup. Decent people who own guns don't think of themselves as a portable judge, jury, and executioner.

That's what the other guys do, the guys none of us want to be like. So let's not be like them or even talk like them.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

who was his lawyer?
he made a second mistake if he didn't have a good one

 

[RP88]

Why does he get an easy way out? The fact that he was a marine would show that he should have handled the situation better than any of us when you consider how high their standards are. Obviously he didnt, because he chased the guy and shot him while he was apparently cornered. Hope it works out, but he was obviously in the wrong here for what he did.

 

[jaholder1971]

This criminal coddling on here makes me sick! Have some of you forgotten the difference between good and evil???

I have no problem with killing a fleeing felon after said felon committed a crime against you. Had I been on the jury I'd have hung the verdict with no problem.

It's about time the criminals start fearing for their lives instead of the other way around. That begins with killing them in the commission or in flight. The only time they should be protected is upon surrender.

But then again I don't OJ committed any crime in Vegas, either. Removing your own stolen property from theives by force is never a crime IMHO.

 

[Treo]

Object Lesson For The "Sheepdogs"

The one thing I can't get past in all of this is that no matter what the bad guy did in the second confrontation, Richard put himself in danger by chasing the guy down. He wasn't a cop, and he sure as Hell wasn't a sheepdog. I think the sentence was totally justified

 

[El Tejon]

jaholder, we live by the rule of law, not the law of what we hope it to be. If you chase after and shoot down criminals, not in self-defense, then you have crossed the line from law-abiding gun owner exercising his right to defend himself to one acting beyond the law.

The fact that you legally carry a pistol confers no extralegal powers. It is the essence of The High Road to point out this man's mistakes and encourage others to learn from them.

 

[rbernie]

This criminal coddling on here makes me sick! Have some of you forgotten the difference between good and evil???

No - we just understand the difference between legally allowable use of deadly force and, well, everything else.

I have no problem with killing a fleeing felon after said felon committed a crime against you.

Easy to say, and frankly I doubt that you'd prove half as eager to dispense your brand of social justice when actually placed into the fray. Let's hope that you never have to make that decision.

I suggest to you that you re-read El Tejon's advice in post #35. He has a great deal of legal experience in these areas and his advice is worth taking to heart.

2. Having a pistol does not make you Batman. Do not chase down evildoers with fast karahtee chops. You are not the Caped Crusader of Justice, even if you stayed up all night sewing the Bat Ears correctly.

3. Your actions will be subject to endless Monday morning quarterback by people who have plenty of time and power to put you in prison. Always cancel a fight you can avoid.

4. The fellow human being that you use deadly force against may be a Very Bad Man, but he will be someone's baby and a "victim" to the prosecution.

You may feel morally justified in chasing down and killing a thief, but the law will disagree with you. More importantly to you, the law will do its best to ensure that you have plenty of time to discuss these sorts of things with Bubba, your new roommate and personal proctologist.

The individual in the referenced report is fixin' to spend two years of his life behind bars because he chased a car thief with the intent to detain him, and shot him when the thief turned to confront his pursuer. Had the defendant simply called the police directly or at least avoided contact distance with the thief, he would still be a free man. For the next two years, his wife will be without a husband and his infant will be without a father.

More to the point, the defendant is now unable to legally own a firearm or vote. He has lost the use of two of the most important tools at his disposal in securing the future of his family. And all that over feeling the need to catch a car thief red-handed instead of letting the police do the work.

It's about time the criminals start fearing for their lives instead of the other way around. That begins with killing them in the commission or in flight. The only time they should be protected is upon surrender.

The law does not agree with you, and I suspect that nor do the majority of the folk on this board.

 

[jaholder1971]

Then it's time to start changing the laws, beginning with jury nullification.

 

[El Tejon]

jaholder, very well, that is our right, but until this is accomplished and law of self-defense permits the initiation of aggressive acts, it is best to tell our fellow gun owners the potential dangers that they may find themselves in so our friends can avoid these pitfalls.

 

[Harpo]

I have no problem with killing a fleeing felon after said felon committed a crime against you. Had I been on the jury I'd have hung the verdict with no problem.

It's about time the criminals start fearing for their lives instead of the other way around. That begins with killing them in the commission or in flight. The only time they should be protected is upon surrender.

But then again I don't OJ committed any crime in Vegas, either. Removing your own stolen property from theives by force is never a crime IMHO.

This is the same rationalization process that most criminals follow; you don't care what the law says, you're going to do it YOUR way. Follow this self-defined law, and guess what - you're a criminal too!

As much as you may proclaim them, I doubt you will express these views when you attempt to get a CCW permit. Or do you just ignore that law too?

Harpo

 

[El Tejon]

Harpo, many people I talked to through glass reinforced with chicken-wire tells me "I just didn't care (at the time)." Oddly, they seem to care later.

I've told my brother if my nephews ever utter the phrase "I don't care" I will come and beat them with a cricket bat as I know that is a precondition to women weeping and late night phone calls.

 

[KC&97TA]

:The perpetrator brought it on himself. If he had not broken into the Marine's home he would still alive. It was 100% his fault. FREE THE MARINE. He has done nothing that 90%of us would not have done in the same situation. This was a civic betterment killing.

Some of you have to be [*] kidding me :banghead: for the first time I'm going to say it, this was not the High Road Aproach!

You can't chase people down the street and shoot them in America... ooh aah, he had a badge and a gun... but he wasn't a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER... HE WASN'T A MARINE IN IRAQ KILLING INSERGENTS and just so everybody knows, we can't chase down insurgents and shoot them, unless they're shooting back at us... so this wouldn't have flown in Iraq either.

So what did Billy Bad Badge do in the Marine Corps... to make him deserve my respect to want him to get off on a murder charge? I've done things that I'll never talk about, with out it being one of the men who was beside me... presented the chance to commit a justifiable homicide on American soil, oh I'd love to, chase someone down in the street, hell no, I'll keep the killing contained inside my dwelling, were I'm scared for my life and not agressing the situation.

2 years, he got off easy on it. Some one Please Edit the title to this thread, it's putting a stain to my MARINE CORPS... we're all ready in the news as puppy tossers as of lately!

BTW: You can take a look at my signature, I've had it for quite some time now.

*Don't do that again...

 

[conw]

I agree with KC&97TA. This crap just isn't high road, this thread ought to be deleted so no one stumbled across it on google. I'd hate to have people think this is the opinion of most gun-owners.

First off, there is a reason there are 12 people on a jury. One person can make a mistake very easily. There can always be variables you don't know or understand. In your blood lust you may even kill the wrong guy if you try to pull a stunt like this "poor marine" did.

If you think the guy was 100% justified, go watch a movie and put down your guns, please.

 

[ilbob]

the jury had a chance to look at the whole situation and decided to convict him.

if the governor wants to grant executive clemency, that is up to the governor. if you think he should do so, feel free to contact the governor and say so.

Executive clemency might just eliminate the jail time, and not the conviction.

IMO, he showed pretty piss poor judgment in chasing the BG down and shooting him. But that is another matter.

being a (former) marine is not relevant.

 

[Treo]

A Little Concerned

QUOTE: " justifiable homicide on American soil, oh I'd love to

BTW: You can take a look at my signature, I've had it for quite some time now.

"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." -- Ernest Hemingway
END QUOTE

I think this is probably the attitude that got our original Marine in trouble.

Killing another human being in time of war or in self defense is never a game. and fact that someone would brag on the internet about their desire to do so ( in addition to being the type of thing that D.A.s love to show juries at homicide trials) gives me cause to doubt either that person's sanity or their veracity.

Serial killers enjoy killing people sane people do not.

 

[george29]

I remember when the story broke and I remember thinking "This guy is SOL for pursuing the BG." Actually, the guy was given plenty of breaks, if I remember correctly, the cops didn't arrest him immediately or at all, and from the first news report it was revealed that the BG was unarmed. The fact that he got 2 years (and not 10-20) is in itself miraculous. Too bad, just another case of a bad judgement call, but two years ain't the end of the world and even if Richardson doesn't commute, he will be out in 15 months, that's the half full side of the cup.
Pablo, I sympathize, but saying he is innocent isn't being real, but he is no doubt a stand-up guy. IM me if you think emailing Richardson would help.

 

[JohnBT]

"I'd hate to have people think this is the opinion of most gun-owners."

I'd hate to think it's the opinion of any gun owners.

Okay, I've been around long enough to know that the world has a goodly assortment of computer-owning chest-thumping clueless people. I just don't want to believe it.

John