New Mexico State Park LEO shoots man

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread is a kin to a gang of 5 year olds finding out Santa Clause doesn't exist and sitting there in disbelief or creating excuses in denial.


Guys, face up to it. Even in our great nation, authorities from park rangers, to the feds CAN and DO commit evil brutal acts. They are humans too, and they are corrupted by power.

That being said,

We're all victims of government-run education, media, and nationalistic propaganda that makes us out to be the good-guys, our society is the best, we do no wrong, our leaders are good, our officers are honest...


Instead, we should take notes from our founding fathers, who understood all too well the nature of government, and the nature of authority to naturally want to expand and grow. They knew back then that authority always corrupts. Instead of taking it personally, or instead of denying that it happens to our society and our way of life also - it should be understood that this is the nature of mankind, and we are no different.


Hence, this is precisely why the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment, it is that Amendment that brings us all to this site in the first place.
 
I think the key is understanding the text we're reading.

I've quoted plenty above, I won't waste more space.

The officer didn't know the guy was wanted on warrants at the time. As far as the officer was concerned, here was somebody who owed $14. The potential BG has a vehicle, but apparently no tag check was run, or the warrant or arrests would have appeared, wouldn't they?

Sounds to me the LEO put himself in harms way for no reason. It also tells me he had no idea this person was doing anything "wrong" more significant than spending a couple nights sleeping in a truck, without paying for the privilege. Ok, so there's a "crime".

Somehow (and I'd like more detail on this, as we all probably would) the officer gets the guy on the ground. That implies that the officer tried to arrest or wrestle him down... over $14? Without running his plates or knowing who he was dealing with? Sounds like a snap decision... Either that, or he was ordered to the ground, complied, then thought "better" of it.

Minutes later we have "BG camper" with 2 bullet holes, in the back, and officer's superiors claiming he behaved according to training, and an investigation is pending.

Nowhere do I see mentioned that "BG camper" pummeled officer or used physical force against him.

Sans any new info, I'll stick with my hypothesis. If details indicate otherwise, I'll change it.

Anybody thinking my POV is a stretch obviously didn't read a previous hypothesis about "suicide by cop"...
 
I guess the crux of disagreement in this thread is whether he was shot in the back. No reliable evidence of that has been presented. Only the charges from the man's (biased) family that he was shot in the back. No corroboration.

Until the investigations are complete, I don't think we should go off half-cocked like The Rev. Sharpton, and pronounce the officer guilty.

The officer didn't know the guy was wanted on warrants at the time.

That's been reported by the media? Please waste the space and repost it.

but apparently no tag check was run, or the warrant or arrests would have appeared, wouldn't they?

Not necessarily. Not all warrant entries include associated vehicle information, and criminal history is not included in a vehicle return.
 
Here is an interesting take on the incident:

http://www.tidepool.org/original_content.cfm?articleid=175579

What can cause a ranger to kill?
Public agency zealousness in pursuit of user fees goes fatally awry
by JIM STILES | posted 10.04.05

|


this article is from
HCN.org Writers on the Range___________


_______
When Chief Ranger Jerry Epperson hired me to be a seasonal ranger at Arches National Park in Utah so many years ago, I wasn't sure what my duties were supposed to be. So it seemed like a good idea to ask.

Epperson smiled wryly and said, "A ranger should range."

So while all of us endured Park Service chores like collecting fees and working the information desk and cleaning toilets and admonishing the tourists for their often almost unbearable ignorance, we still preferred to range. We headed for the backcountry any time opportunity allowed.

To get to know a piece of land -- for no other reason than the intimacy between you that it provided -- was the greatest reward of all. We didn't range for profit; we did it for our hearts and our souls.

Collecting fees was always the least pleasant of my duties. Its only advantage was the opportunity it occasionally provided for beautiful single women camping alone who were in desperate need of a bath, and who found my invitation for a hot shower almost irresistible. I was no chick magnet, but my hot water was.

But fast-forward 20 years, and employees of the various federal agencies collecting land-use fees are showing a zealousness for their work that is almost incomprehensible to me. I continue to read stories of park and forest rangers and BLM staffers who spend most of their day looking for fee violators, even to the point of searching once-empty dirt roads, watching for visitors without the necessary proof of payment taped to their windshields or stapled to their foreheads.

The almost fanatical quest for fees turned to tragedy in New Mexico a few weeks ago at Elephant Butte State Park, when a state park ranger shot a tourist during a dispute over a camping fee. According to a story in the Las Cruces Sun-News, the victim, a tourist in his 50s from Montana, became belligerent and refused to pay a $14 camping fee.

The ranger attempted to arrest the camper for trespassing, but the tourist put his hands in his pockets and refused to remove them. According to a spokeswoman for the state parks division, the man was verbally abusive and "acted in a manner that our officer is trained to respond to." So Ranger Woods shot him dead. The dead man had not been carrying a firearm or a knife.

After the shooting, Parks Director Dave Simon said, "Deadly force is always a last resort." He added that the "vast majority of park users comply willingly with park fees."

I have my own deadly force story. One evening when the Arches campground was full, a couple of young men arrived after dark and tried to camp illegally in the picnic area. My first encounter with them was civil enough, and I told them they needed to leave. Twenty minutes later, I caught them again, when paid campers complained that they'd moved into their site. This time I was firmer, and their attitude was icier. A few minutes later, I could see their headlights creeping down the Salt Valley Road in search of an illegal campsite.

My self-righteous indignation has always been a quality I needed to work on, and on this evening it was in full bloom: How dare these jerks defy the order of a ranger! I found their vehicle tracks; it was 11 p.m., I was out of radio contact but determined to cite these violators. I walked into the darkness with my maglite and service revolver snapped firmly in its holster. A hundred yards down the dry wash, the illegal campers were already wrapped in their sleeping bags.

When I advised them loudly that they had to leave immediately and that I was also issuing them a federal citation, the two men came unglued, leaping up from their bags, screaming. They called me every unkind word imaginable and in such a hysterical manner that I wondered if I was about to lose control of a situation that was barely 30 seconds old. One was particularly rabid and moved toward me in a way that felt threatening.

I was scared to death. I took a step backward and placed my thumb on the keeper of my gun holster. The young man saw the move and stopped. Then he screamed at me, "You take that gun out and you're a dead man!" We stared at each other for five long seconds.

I reflected on his words, and I decided that, in fact, he was absolutely right. If I took my gun from the holster I knew I'd be the one shot dead.

"OK," I said, taking a deep breath. "I'm going back to my patrol cruiser. I want both of you out of here in 30 minutes." I backed off slowly, turned and walked back to the road. Had they been running up behind me, I would never have heard them; the sound of my heart pounding in my ears was deafening.

I sat in my patrol car for 20 long minutes, still shaken but happy to have my body intact. Finally, incredibly, here they came, packed up and in their car. One of them had calmed appreciably, and I handed him the citation. He even thanked me. His friend, however, was still out of control and kept slamming his fists into the roof of their vehicle.

Had I been a coward or a wise man? I decided that for once, I'd been the latter. I never again came even close to a confrontation like that.

I don't know all the facts in the New Mexico shooting, but I would guess that fear and adrenaline and the rapid way events can unfold were the causes of the shooting. But a tragedy resulted that didn't need to happen: A $14 fee can't be worth a death.

Jim Stiles is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). He is the publisher of the Canyon Country Zephyr in Moab, Utah.
 
deanf, thanks for posting that.

After the shooting, Parks Director Dave Simon said, "Deadly force is always a last resort." He added that the "vast majority of park users comply willingly with park fees."

Are you telling me that's just an ANOTHER unfortunate choice of words?
 
He didn't have his ID, and thus no contact information?
License plate number? Works for parking tickets.


Though I must admit I don't feel too sorry for the deceased after reading his record. I have to wonder if he was somehow connected to my recent ex-neighbor who is now in fed prison for selling hard-core violent pornography...?

Why are criminals so stupid, anyway? Why do they always attract attention to themselves by speeding or refusing to pay a campground fee?
 
There seems to be a trend among many members to suggest that if someone doesn't want to comply with an officer's instructions, pay the camping fee, sign the ticket etc. etc. that at that point the officer should just shrug his/her shoulders, disengage and tell the law braker to have a nice day. I have to ask, at what point do you think that the officer should escalate? And don't you think that kind of policy would effectively remove those laws from the books?

Don't huff and puff at Lawdog's theory that it might have been suicide by cop. People who are facing the perceived ruination of their lives by things like the man was wanted for do often commit suicide and if they don't have the nerve to take their own life, they often set up a confrontation with the police so that the police will do it for them.

I also have to ask how many would be wanting to wait for all the facts to come in if the dead man had been shot by the campground host after a confrontation over paying the fee and the campground host was a CCW holder?

Finally, I'd like to post this incident as a reminder to everyone that even the most routine call can become a deadly force encounter. This incident happened in the St Louis area:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...47D7CD3C5E29A856862570AE001D1636?OpenDocument
Police seek man accused of beating Hazelwood officer during traffic stop
By Heather Ratcliffe
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
11/03/2005

HAZELWOOD


Authorities were searching for a man who they said seriously beat a Hazelwood officer in the face during a traffic stop Tuesday evening.

Police said Officer Brian Hale managed to keep his attacker from taking his pistol but was unable to get to the remote control button he carried that would have released his police dog from the patrol car.

It happened about 11:30 p.m., after Hale stopped a driver near Hanley and Pershall roads. The officer and motorist talked for several minutes outside their vehicles. Unexpectedly, the driver struck the officer in the face, officials said. Hale fell to the ground and the driver kicked him several times in the head and face, they said.

The driver tried to pull the officer's weapon from its holster, but Hale held onto it, police said. The dog remained in the police car.

A passing motorist stopped to help the officer, and the attacker jumped into a white Dodge pickup and drove off. The passer-by used Hale's radio to call for help. The truck was later found in St. Louis.

Officials did not offer an explanation for the attack. They were looking for a particular suspect.

Hale, an 11-year veteran of the force, was listed in serious condition at a hospital with head and face injuries.

He had been shot in the face in 1998 and suffered shattered facial bones and massive soft tissue injury.

In that case, Hale was attempting to arrest a driver whose car had stalled on Interstate 270. A passenger gave a fake name and then opened fire, wounding both Hale and a Florissant officer.

You can't take any situation at face value, and the man who starts a confrontation over a $14.00 camp site fee, and won't calm down and remove his hands from his pockets so that you can see he's unarmed, may really mean you harm. Until they come up with an injection that gives me enough ESP or intuition to tell the guy who just means to walk away and sulk from the one who may be opening a reactive distance to attack me, I will continue to view him as a threat. And I won't judge anyone, not a brother officer or a private citizen in a similar situation until there are enough facts available to make a judgement.

Jeff
 
Don't huff and puff at Lawdog's theory that it might have been suicide by cop.

Jeff, then don't huff and puff at other's un-substantiated theories either. Fair enough?;)
 
As an LEO, it does aggravate me if I tell someone to do something that is well within my authority to do, such as "get out of the car" "take your hands out of your pockets" etc. and they just ignore me. I have been granted the authority to make these decisions and others are bound by law (assuming a legal order) to comply. I guess I'm just corrupted by my power:rolleyes: I'm more concerned with my safety than whether a person agrees with me on my job.

Now, that being said, there's obviously no sense in shooting someone just because they don't comply. That's just plain stupid. I still want the officer's story, which we obviously won't get for a while. But from the get-go, this sounds like a bad shoot. I can think of a couple of ways this could have played out that MIGHT justify a shooting, but the info we've been given, it's just not looking that way. Lots of ways to handle this and de-escalation is always the preferred method. If that fails, I'm thinking of several less-than-lethal options that I have. My particular force continuum suggests OC pepper spray, then the baton, and finally the firearm. Sounds like this guy skipped a few steps.
 
I am simply amazed by how many people here seem to think that shot placement determines guilt or that it indicates a bad shoot. That is an incorrect assumption. Feel free to prove me wrong by finding laws here in the US that state shot placement determines guilt or innocense or that particular locations of being shot determines guilt or innocense. My guess is that you won't find anything. I have done several searches and not found anything like that. Just because a person is facing away from you does not mean they are not a threat.

I am also amazed at the number of folks who think this shooting was over $14. The issue of the nonpayment of the $14 camp was simply the circumstance that brought the officer together with the shootee. It was not the reason for the shooting. Since the man refused the fee and would not leave, the officer attempted to put the man under arrest for trespassing and the guy resisted arrest. Forget the crap about the $14 being why the guy was shot.

Several of you are under the impression that lethal force cannot be used by an officer unless the bad guy was armed, threatening, or in the commission of a felony. The shootee may very well have been threatening the officer. With his hands in his pockets, not following the officer's commands, and quite likely made a gesture or movement that the officer considered furtive. At that point, the officer would be in fear for his life and lethal force a legal response.

I am surprised that Stiles, as a park ranger, was apparently unable to comprehend the fact that the shooting was not over $14. When he went to cite some campers for their infraction, they jumped up, closed on him, and threatened to kill him if he attempted to draw his gun. So what did he do? He allowed himself to be intimidated into not issuing the citations or attempting to arrest two guys threatening his life. Last I recall, threatening a LEO in such a manner is a crime, but he let it slide. The strange part was that once the campers advanced on him and threatened him, the issue of the infractions and citations wasn't significant. His life was threatened and that is significant.
 
There seems to be a trend among many members to suggest that if someone doesn't want to comply with an officer's instructions, pay the camping fee, sign the ticket etc. etc. that at that point the officer should just shrug his/her shoulders, disengage and tell the law braker to have a nice day.

All I am saying is: This is a glorified parking ticket. No different than not feeding a meter, then refusing to leave. You shouldn't dump 2 rounds into somebody (or start an altercation leading to that) over a glorified parking ticket. Let the postman deliver it.

I also have to ask how many would be wanting to wait for all the facts to come in if the dead man had been shot by the campground host after a confrontation over paying the fee and the campground host was a CCW holder?

If you're implying that I would change my tune if a civilian killed another civilian (or killed an LEO) over $14... well.. ya got me wrong stranger. I'm not THAT jaded.

I said I believed (with my only basis the text of the current stories) that this was a simple case of good-old-Central-American "Silver? or Lead?". I didn't say that I condoned that.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
Several of you are under the impression that lethal force cannot be used by an officer unless the bad guy was armed, threatening, or in the commission of a felony. The shootee may very well have been threatening the officer. With his hands in his pockets, not following the officer's commands, and quite likely made a gesture or movement that the officer considered furtive. At that point, the officer would be in fear for his life and lethal force a legal response.

Lethal force would be a legal option, not necessarily the appropriate response. He might have been entitled to draw the weapon, but pulling the trigger is a whole other matter. At this stage, those engaged in providing justifications for the action are at the same level as those denigrating it: acting on their own speculation rather than facts. As it stands, there as much material to damn the ranger as exonerate him.
 
buzz, I only have one problem with your statement, and that is if you are justified in drawing a weapon, you are justified in using it. Now, that does not mean or imply that if you draw you must fire, but threatening lethal force and using lethal force are the same on the force continuum.
 
jcoiii said:
buzz, I only have one problem with your statement, and that is if you are justified in drawing a weapon, you are justified in using it. Now, that does not mean or imply that if you draw you must fire, but threatening lethal force and using lethal force are the same on the force continuum.

Except that officers routinely draw weapons when they feel there is the possibility of needing them, rather than when it's time to fire. Pulling a weapon only when authorized to use it is for civilians, not officers.
 
Now, that being said, there's obviously no sense in shooting someone just because they don't comply. That's just plain stupid.

Simple and clearly put. Thank you!

Although on behalf of the officer in question, since we don't know all the facts, the 'non-compliance' in this case may have been of such a nature as to really and truly make him fear for his life. There is some information in the reports we have seen that seem to indicate that there was some kind of altercation, the nature of which is not yet clear.
 
Pulling a weapon only when authorized to use it is for civilians, not officers.

It is? The general rule is that one can use the same level of force that is used or threatened against them. I'm not aware of any special dispensations for the police. Could you be more specific?

I find all this pulling of guns by officers anytime they think something might happen (felony stops) to be highly illegal. It's just that no one calls them on it.
 
Seems we've shifted the topic a bit. There are many laws, and an even greater amount of court decisions that empower officers to use their firearms in a number of ways that greatly exceeds simple self defense.


It reminds me of the AWB and the .50BMG ban-debate. Gun-controllers would say "assault weapons with high capacity magazines only purpose is to kill large amounts of people"...Really? Then why does the police stockpile so many of them? Like the .50BMG, it is used by terrorists, it pierces thick armor, it can hit someone a mile and a half away...really? Why then, do police dept's have them too?


What law-enforcement use does a .50BMG or a fully automatic rifle have? It really doesn't have a law-enforcement use, at least from the perspective of lethal force as a DEFENSIVE tactic. But, as Dean points out, LE uses firearms in an offensive manner to enforce the law. That's pretty frightening.



No one calls it on them, because it has been legalized by law, and by courts.



This thread boils down to people in denial not able to accept that (sometimes) LE's use their firearms as tools for compliance, rather than tools for self defense.
 
deanf said;
Quote:
Pulling a weapon only when authorized to use it is for civilians, not officers.

It is? The general rule is that one can use the same level of force that is used or threatened against them. I'm not aware of any special dispensations for the police.

No, the general rule is that you can use whatever level of force a reasonable man would deem necessary. You are never limited to the same level of force that is being used against you. Real life isn't like a movie where the good guy throws down his weapon and goes hand to hand with badguy.

You also aren't required to step on every rung of the force continuum ladder. You don't have to go from presence, to verbal commands, to soft empty hand, to hard empty hand, to intermediate force (be it chemical, impact or electronic) to firearm. If you are attempting to arrest a suspect and the suspect picks up a ball bat, you don't have to go to your impact weapon, you can and should go directly to your firearm.

These rules apply for police officers and citizens in a self defense situation.

I find all this pulling of guns by officers anytime they think something might happen (felony stops) to be highly illegal.

Could you show me the statute that makes it illegal?

Jeff
 
Could you show me the statute that makes it illegal?

Well I would offer this:
RCW 9.41.230
Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.

(1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:

(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;

(b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are authorized to be lawfully discharged; or

(c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,

although no injury results, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

(2) If an injury results from a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person violating subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to the applicable provisions of chapters 9A.32 and 9A.36 RCW.

You will counter with this:
RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force -- When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction; . . . . .

So now somebody needs to decide when it's "necessary". I'm sure the courts have dealt with it, and I'm sure they've come down on the side of the po-po more often than not. I just don't happen to agree with them.

Is it necessary to point guns at someone (absent other threats) who will ultimately only be charged with possession of stolen property? (the occupied, stolen vehicle felony stop situation.) Yes I know there are a thousand bad things that could happen, but the same holds true for the garden variety traffic stop. Why not point guns there? Yes I know that one is a felony and one is an infraction, but why concern yourself with what a person may ultimately be charged with when deciding what force to use? Shouldn't you only concern yourself with the threat that they present?
 
deanf said:
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.

True, but it doesn't look good. What troubles me is the very different standard applied to LEO's in situations like this than ordinary citizens. The DA's are SUPPOSED to be completely independent from law enforcement agencies and to indict LEO's for murder just the same as anyone else, but in reality it almost never works that way. Administrative sanctions or termination are about the worst most LEO's can expect from actions which would earn a non-LEO hard time for manslaughter. That ain't right.

BTW, RCW 9A.16.020 is addressing FORCE IN GENERAL, not DEADLY FORCE. Those are two very different things. LEO's are not authorized to use deadly force whenever they see fit, at least that's not supposed to be the way things are.
 
This thread brings up a major pet peeve of mine.

A POLICE OFFICER *IS* A CIVILIAN!!

Uniformed LEO's who are not actively in the military as MP's are CIVILIANS. They are not troops or soldiers. The same laws are supposed to apply to them as the rest of us. They are given somewhat more freedom to use force, but under no code in the nation are they allowed to blow holes in someone's back because he's refusing to comply or making a "furtive gesture." They are only supposed to use deadly force in self defense. Some states have an old exception, much criticized and now moribund, allowing officers to kill any felon who flees. I don't know ANY department in the nation that still gives a thumbs-up to shooting unarmed fleeing felons anymore. I'd have to do a survey to see if any states even allow it anymore in the homicide codes.

Deadly force is only supposed to be used to defend the officer or others. A fleeing ARMED suspect, for example, can be shot because they pose an imminent risk of deadly harm to others and probably to the officer as well. But a drunk man who mouths off and walks away is not supposed to get burned down for it. That's manslaughter at the very least, or should be.
 
Update:

Looks like the authorities in NM are taking a dim view of this shooting. Going to a jury I guess.

http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=23236&cat=NMTOPSTORIES

State Parks officer arrested for fatal shooting
Clyde Woods
Last Update: 12/13/2005 8:03:37 AM
By: Associated Press

TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES, N.M. (AP) - A State Parks officer who fatally shot a man following a dispute over a camping fee at Elephant Butte State Park is facing a second-degree murder charge.

State police say Clyde Woods turned himself in Monday after an arrest warrant was issued. He’s being held at the Sierra County jail on a $100,000 bond.

Woods shot 58-year-old Bruce Teschner on August 23rd during a confrontation in which Teschner had refused to pay a $14-a-night camping fee and refused to leave the park.

State Parks director Dave Simon says criminal charges constitute an extremely serious situation and the division is following the matter closely.

Simon says Woods’ law enforcement powers have been suspended and he remains on paid leave until the division can review the findings of a state police investigation and conduct its own review.



(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
 
Wow, that's some quality JBT'ism right there.


If you or I murder someone in cold blood, the police will come with their no-knock approach and bring you in. If you're lucky, you'll just get tasered about 25 times. If you're not not so lucky, they'll shoot you on the spot and claim you looked at them in a threatening manner. You will get no bail, unless you're rich or famous, or a servant of the State (one of the boyz).



I don't know what do say. "Dim view" of it? C'mon, the guy shot someone over a $14 park fee! It is an outrage that he's being given so much slack compared to how they treat us peasants.


If you wear a badge of some sort, you're morally superior. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top