New Mexico State Park LEO shoots man

Status
Not open for further replies.

Harve Curry

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Messages
1,756
Location
Black Range of New Mexico
Here's text of article:
Free Republic

Parks officer shoots, kills man at Elephant Butte (NM State Park)
El Paso Times ^ | August 25, 2005 | Heath Haussamen


Posted on 08/26/2005 1:17:42 PM PDT by Rio


A state parks officer fatally shot a man Tuesday night at Elephant Butte Lake State Park during a confrontation over the man's refusal to pay camping fees.

It was the first fatal shooting by an officer at one of New Mexico's 32 state parks in at least 30 years -- since the creation of a formal parks law-enforcement program -- Parks Director Dave Simon said. The New Mexico State Police are investigating the shooting.

The slain man was described as an Anglo in his mid-50s whose truck and trailer had Montana license plates. Police would not release other information until his next of kin were notified.

The officer, Clyde Woods, a three-year veteran of the parks force, is on paid administrative leave pending the conclusion of the investigation, Simon said.

A spokeswoman for the parks division, Erica Asmus-Otero, said the shooting was, "as far as we know, in self-defense."

"The officer was doing his job, what he was trained to do," she said.

State police Lt. Jimmy Glascock would not confirm that, saying the investigation continues. When completed, it will be forwarded to the 7th Judicial District Attorney's Office in Socorro for a decision on whether charges are warranted.

The confrontation began just after 8 p.m. Tuesday at Lion's Beach, a busy area near the lake's visitors center, after the man became belligerent with a parks volunteer over a $14 camping fee he refused to pay, Asmus-Otero said.

The volunteer called for an officer, and the man was also belligerent after Woods arrived.

Woods attempted to apprehend the man for trespassing, Asmus-Otero said. The man placed his hands in his pockets and refused to remove them despite Woods' requests. At that point, she said, the man "acted in a manner that our officer is trained to respond to," but would not provide more details, other than to say he was "aggressive" and "verbally abusive."

Glascock said police did not find "a firearm or knife" on or near the man's body after he was shot.

State Parks officers are fully certified law enforcement officers who attend the state police academy for training. Simon said officers are trained to focus on education and interaction with the public, rather than confrontation.

He said the "vast majority" of parks users "comply willingly with parks fees," which generate almost two-thirds of the state parks division's budget.

"Deadly force is always a last resort," Simon said. "The choice to use it is based on the risk the officer sees of imminent injury or death to the officer or to the public. ... Failure to pay fees would not have been a reason for this officer to do what he did."

Sun-News photographer Norm Dettlaff contributed to this report.


Also the Las Cruses Sun-News had an article online but I cannot find it now.
It stated the man was walking away with his hands in his pockets.

Other details surfacing locally are:
There was a scuffle with officer Woods and the man/camper. The man got up and walked away from officer Woods, that angered Woods.
Woods fired and the man was shot twice in the back .
A 3rd shot went wild.
The man kept a video camera and it was recording at least audio, in his camper during this incident.

Locally the news has been quite about this shooting and printing alot about other shootings and murders.
 
Um, ok...

First, the vic (or perp,) gets in a scuffle with the officer, he then disengages and walks away..... Now, isn't using lethal force, especially to his back, a bit on the wrong side here? If he had a weapon, I could understand that (but then again, if he'da had a weapon, he would have either used it on the LEO, or, possibly not, )

Can't really see this as a good shoot, but maybe other details will come out.
:banghead:
 
Again, Why does the public not trust LEO's? This is a bad shoot.


Woods attempted to apprehend the man for trespassing, Asmus-Otero said. The man placed his hands in his pockets and refused to remove them despite Woods' requests. At that point, she said, the man "acted in a manner that our officer is trained to respond to," but would not provide more details, other than to say he was "aggressive" and "verbally abusive."


Are they saying putting your hands in your pockets, refuse to remove them justifies deadly force???:scrutiny: :confused:
 
The slain man was described as an Anglo in his mid-50s whose truck and trailer had Montana license plates.
Well, it wasn't me! :p

I'm still sitting here (when I'm not out building fences). Gas is too high to drive anywhere anyway.

Sounds like a high degree of stupidity on both sides... :rolleyes:
 
Hmm, at the Butte, wonder if alcohol was a factor...

Personally I am suprised this is the first shooting in thirty years by a state park enforcement officer, Elephant Butte gets extremely bad at Labor Day and July 4th, thousands of drunk idiots doing unbelieveable stuff.

On the other hand it also would not suprise me to find that the officer's level of training was not up to the task.

As a matter of fact I could see both parties having a hand in this outcome...

But we will have to wait and see.
 
You can't know that; not at this point. Heresay evidence that the guy was shot in the back is not admissable in the TFL Court.


Information from the article that we have:


Glascock said police did not find "a firearm or knife" on or near the man's body after he was shot.


Woods attempted to apprehend the man for trespassing, Asmus-Otero said. The man placed his hands in his pockets and refused to remove them despite Woods' requests. At that point, she said, the man "acted in a manner that our officer is trained to respond to," but would not provide more details, other than to say he was "aggressive" and "verbally abusive.


So, As it stands, with the info we have, Its a bad shoot.
 
I remember my one encounter with a park LEO. As he had me handcuffed over the hood of his car with his gun still pointed at me I wondered if it was going to end like this.

And I was as nice and as calm as could be. It just pissed him off even more.

This POS was probably just your typical short fuse cop who crossed the line, and then came up with some BS story.

Dan
 
So, As it stands, with the info we have, Its a bad shoot.

No. It's just a shoot. We don't know if it's good or bad. Let the system work, Rev. Sharpton, and the truth will come out in the end.

I would be suspicious of any police administrator or prosecutor who came down on one side or the other this early in the investigation. There hasn't been time to gather all the evidence and analyze it thoroughly.

Since we wouldn't expect them to come down on one side yet, we shouldn't either.
 
I'm betting that PLEO is really happy with himself for shooting a man in the back over $14. :rolleyes:
Then again, he probably thinks the bastard deserved it, walking away from a confrontation like that- 'what nerve, doesn't he know I'm THE LAW?'

Two in the back = bad shoot, no matter how you slice it. The boy's probably going to walk, though. Can't have parks officers suddenly afraid to dish out force after a person turns his back, we have fees, er I mean, trees to protect, man!
 
longeyes said:
Probably one of those whacked-out troublemakers who keeps citing the Constitution...:evil:

The article does give give credence to that idea... It's the most likely scenario to fit the circumstance, though.



NMshooter said:
On the other hand it also would not suprise me to find that the officer's level of training was not up to the task.

It is becoming all too obvious to me that their training actually encourages incidents like this. Personnel selection, training, and macho/bully indoctrination through standardized cult tactics.
 
Two in the back = bad shoot, no matter how you slice it.

Do we have the autopsy results yet? Do we know scientifically that it was 2 in the back? Do we know the intimate details of what happened right before the officer fired? No, no, and no.

Without this and other information, we cannot make a judgement.

I am not defending an officer. I am defending the right of every person, LEO or not, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, whether it's shoplifting, or a self-defense shooting.

If any of you shot anyone in self-defense, you would want the same defense.
 
Posted: 8/31/2005 11:30:00 AM

Family says ranger shot man in back
Source: AP

ELEPHANT BUTTE STATE PARK, N.M. -- The family of a man who was fatally shot by a State Parks officer at Elephant Butte State Park allege the shots were fired into the man's back.

That according to a copyright story in today's Albuquerque Journal.

Bruce Teschner, 58, was killed August 23rd during a confrontation with State Parks Officer Clyde Woods.

Authorities say Woods shot Teschner after he refused to pay a $14--a-night camping fee and refused to leave the park.

Authorities say Woods apparently was unarmed.

An affidavit says Woods told the belligerent Teschner that he would be arrested and got Teschner prone on the ground. But Teschner did not comply, got up and moved away with his hands apparently in his pockets.


http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=11801
 
It is becoming all too obvious to me that their training actually encourages incidents like this. Personnel selection, training, and macho/bully indoctrination through standardized cult tactics.

Based on what? My training did not tell me to shoot an unarmed man in the back. But I'm glad it's obvious to you.

This looks to be a really really bad shoot. That being said, I mean just that: "looks." There was mention in the article in the OP about a recording device? That might tell the tale. No weapons found is a bad start, though I can kill you without a weapon. Walking away from a fight = disengaging. That's also a mark against the LEO. Looks bad to me, thus far. However, I will reserve judgement until all facts are presented. If it cannot be proved that the officer is guilty, then guess what, he's innocent, just like anyone else.
 
The indoctrination might be an offensive word, but to use an example there are many extensively documented cases where reporters sympathetic to DEA agent's causes were allowed 'inside'. Briefings and training have as much in common with a bawdy night at the bar as with consumate professionals enforcing the law.

And you must ask yourself 'what are the two logical outcomes from the 'use of force continum'.

I do not see it as taking superior intellect to decipher, when it is taught to use physical force against non-physical resistance you will have enshrined the basic principles of 'bullying'. Just technicaly, I mean.

And, by the powers vested in the continuum, this shoot as described could be 'good'. Look at the situation, the 'perp' was breaking the law, he then began to resist verbally. This must be responded to at the next highest level, so the officer moved to physical confrontation. The 'perp' resisted physically, apparantly acquitting himself well enough to get up. Thus the officer moved up yet another notch or three, and used his firearm.

Should he have shot? Yes, his safety was threatened. The man was non-compliant, and had resisted physically. The man was concealing his hands, which could be reaching for weapons, and he was moving towards a location at which he could have had weapons. If he was out of Tazer range, and spray would be diffused and hit only his back, then what was left but to use a firearm?



So you see, with fancy wording and expansive definitions you can justfiy shooting an unarmed man in the back as he walks away from you, because he didn't want to pay $14 to camp in a park in the middle of nowhere.

I see this as a basic societal problem which is not being corrected, but expanded.
 
I'll reserve judgement too, but what seems most likely to me at this early hour is that the man removed his hands from his pockets in a way (intentional or not) that made it seem he was drawing a weapon, and that, combined with his confrontational attitude, made the officer fear for his safety: shoot.
 
We will not know what truly happened until this goes to a grand jury, which Im sure it will.

I will say that there are cases where a LEO is justified in shooting a man in the back. Look up Tennessee v. Garner. This case says that while it is illegal to shoot a fleeing violator in most circumstances, it is legal and justified to ahoot a violent, fleeing felon if there are articulable facts which lead one to beleive that said person is a danger to the officer or others if allowed to escape.

I am not saying that this is a good shoot, as it is rare that shooting someone in the back is justified. I am simply saying that there are circumstances which would allow an officer to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top