Marine of the year arrested for shooting in MA.

[BostonGeorge]

I don't see where you're getting "drunken mob" from, he shot a 15 year old girl.

 

[jdkelly]

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]

Thankful he's in Alaska...

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

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

Maybe people shouldnt get drunk and throw things through people's bedroom windows at 3am.

 

[Firethorn]

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.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

the threat is assault, when you carry out the threat you batter them.

 

[BostonGeorge]

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

 

[jdkelly]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

having lived near several noisey night clubs

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

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

 

[Moto]

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]

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]

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]

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]

More misinformation

"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.

"...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."

 

[beerslurpy]

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]

"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]

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

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.