The Court of Public Opinion

[Duke of Doubt]

akodo: "A trial has nothing to do with the average person rushing to judgement. A trial exists to stop the GOVERNMENT from rushing to judgement. A trail exists to make sure the GOVERNMENT has all it's ducks in a row. There will be times when a person is found not-guilty at trial, but every reasonable person will know the suspect did it. It is just fine for those reasonable people to act on that knowledge."

They have the right to their belief, but most often their information is woefully incomplete and inaccurate. Moreover, outsiders will tend to apply the wrong criteria. I spent years explaining to laymen just exactly why OJ survived his incompetent prosecution and got off, and why I fully supported that verdict even though I believe he committed the homicides for which he was charged.

That said, a man's reputation casts a longer shadow in his community than does his record over at the courthouse. That cuts both ways, of course. There are worse things than being reputed to have "gotten away with" a shocking if sympathetic crime -- even though that repute be erroneously informed. But not everyone will share the same values and sensibilities. Boo Radley was a lonely fellow.

(example, if you are an attractive blonde woman, do not date O.J. Simpson)

I didn't find here all that attractive. Not that I summarily would kick her out of the sack, but I prefer petite brunettes.

 

[SHvar]

I guess if you took a look at statistics in hunting accidents, and game warden encounters with hunters you might reconsider that sometimes game wardens are threatened by hunters, very openly because their presence may cause some hunters to bring home only whats legal, or not bring home anything at all. Some hunters take that very seriously. Im all for hunting legally, but Im not going to conclude either was wrong until we find out more info and not opinions on the situation.

"Unless you believe that game wardens honestly do not believe that hunters know the difference between hunting animals and killing of a human being"

Every year deer season is held in many states (PA is a big one), hundreds of cows, horses, dogs, cats, people, houses, cars, trucks, other objects are accidentally shot by deer hunters, also a few game wardens are shot at. But no, we wont assume that being a game warden is dangerous during hunting seasons everywhere, especially when dealing with someone who may have been breaking the laws on their own private property.

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

Jaysus! I had a post on the 'hunting' page that evidently rubbed some sore.
the old man was on his own property for God's sake. posted too. no 'bait' has been discovered!
myself I hope for good for his folks and the State too when the truth comes out.

 

[JohnBT]

"The family does not believe Officer Minton’s account

“He’s minding his own business sitting in a tree stand. He hadn’t been there long. My dad had a gun, he was turkey hunting! But my dad’s gun never fired. And ther was only two of them there, and my dad’s gone. He can’t tell his side,” said Clyde’s daughter Debbie Robbins.

Fox 8

The unofficial story as best as I can gather it is as follows;

Officer Minton had reason to believe that the area this incident took place was illegally baited and he went on to the posted private land to catch someone hunting over the bait. Officer Minton found Mr. Coffey hunting out of a treestand and confronted him. Mr. Coffey was hard of hearing that could of made communication difficult and some reports that officer Minton was dressed in Camo clothing that day and not the traditional uniform. Or at least his uniform was covered up. At some point Mr. Coffey did something that put Officer Minton’s life in danger and he shot Mr. Coffey with his service weapon one time in the chest killing him.

Mr. Coffey’s family report that this type of behavior is out of character for him and they question what happened. As far as I can tell there were no witnesses to the confrontation so the SBI investigation will have to focus on the physical evidence to piece this together."

http://skinnymoose.com/moosedroppings/

__________

I believe that NC is pretty much like Virginia, the game wardens can go where they like. Period. John

 

[conw]

the old man was on his own property for God's sake. posted too. no 'bait' has been discovered!

"Posted" land doesn't mean law enforcement can't go there if they suspect something. In NC walking into someone's back yard and breaking down the door of their house are not synonymous. Also, whether the guy had a ton of corn or none at all seems to be irrelevant; it doesn't have any bearing on whether the shoot was "good" as they say.

 

[ilbob]

Official statement in writing today claims it was self-defense

Its not like the shooter is going to admit to a crime.

Chances are this being a LEO, the investigation will lean heavily toward accepting his version of what happened, especially as there appear to be no other living witnesses. Its even possible his statement is true. It is not likely we will ever really know for sure what happened. One guy knows what happened, and he has a personal agenda which makes any statement coming from him suspect.

It would be nice if the criminal justice system treated everyone the same, but it does not, and it never will, so learn to live with it.

 

[lesterg3]

Officer Minton is a seasoned officer with 12 years working with the Wildlife Commission so it is reasonable to assume he has the experience and skills to exhaust all other avenues before he used deadly force.

I don't think that is reasonable at all.

Let's hear from some folks who have had run ins with this Officer in the past.

If your out there speak up, if you know someone, ask them to speak up.

As this is obviously going to be one sided, I think what the Officer has done in the past to be critical to how he handled this situation. I have met some real winners that are Wardens, they didn't know the law or how to interact with civilians.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

yea how many different wardens have you had trouble with? how many times? in how many states?
of course its a given all of them were outa line and you were doing good

 

[lesterg3]

Only one.

Met, one in California real nice guy answered a lot of question for a real young guy new to hunting, met a few in Michigan no problems, met two in SC, one was a real a__.

Kinda like "I know it all and I am gonna make sure you know who's in charge here", I got a ticket. Went to court, I won, the Warden got a reprimand.

 

[noob_shooter]

Every year deer season is held in many states (PA is a big one), hundreds of cows, horses, dogs, cats, people, houses, cars, trucks, other objects are accidentally shot by deer hunters, also a few game wardens are shot at. But no, we wont assume that being a game warden is dangerous during hunting seasons everywhere, especially when dealing with someone who may have been breaking the laws on their own private property.

Man, those people really need to stop smoking that good shiet before heading out to the woods. Cows, dogs.. are bad enough already.. Houses? trucks? omg...

 

[scythefwd]

noob shooter,
There are "hunters" out there that shoot at movement and noise. They don't always verify what they are shooting at. That is why I don't walk through brush when on a wildlife management area but in the open areas wearing more than the required amount of orange. They aren't smoking the good stuff, they are just irresponsible and don't care if they kill someone accidentally (some don't even go and check if they hit until much later). Hell, I had a guy tell me he would shoot me if I came within range of his stand because that was his area (on public lands). I wasn't hunting in that area, and I am sure his bow vs. my shotgun would be interesting. I left after he said that.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

I am not about to weigh in on this particular case, but it has always been my information that game animals are property of the state, on private property or not,to be harvested under their[the states] terms. So if the LEO suspected illegal activity under game laws,he had every right to enter the land in Question posted or not.

 

[TheVirginian]

I can't imagine an officer shooting someone unless they felt it was necessary, I mean nothing can be gained by doing that. It could have been an accident of some proportion too but he must have felt a need to draw his weapon. It isn't appropriate to assume in any case. People do some strange things and that includes LEOs, so we will see when the dust settles.

I also understand that there have been some poor judgement calls when it comes to when is an appropriate time to shoot a suspect. In my opinion (for what that's worth...), an officer should never discharge his weapon unless he is protecting himself or others. Perhaps an associated time would be when trying to apprehend an identified and known violent criminal who refuses to stop (it would seem an act of protecting the public to shoot a killer, rapist, etc who could otherwise not be brought into custody). That doesn't stop some officers from shooting at fleeing suspects regardless of the cause. We had a local cop who was being questioned about a shooting of a kid running from his orders to halt here not too long ago. I don't know what became of that but I don't recall hearing anything about the officer knowing the suspect or about them being anything more than petty thieves, local mischief makers (poor teenagers with low morals). So it can go either way but it is the rare case that an officer, who should be at least fairly well educated, would rush to such a decision that would put his career and liberty at risk.

Game wardens do face an unusually dangerous threat. They are often faced with hunters with long guns and as others have pointed out, many of those hunters will face prosecution if they cannot escape. Unfortunately for the warden, this creates a situation where the hunter may decide that there are no witnesses and that for whatever reason his liberty is more important than the welfare or life of the warden. This is not in response to the particular case being addressed here but by the replies which would doubt that the game warden has a more dangerous job than the average cop. Now if that cop is in Camden NJ, all bets are off...

On another topic brought up here, a trial is in fact more than just a way to protect individuals on trial from the abuses of a government. It also serves to protect an individual from the public should a lynching or other form of mob rule punishment be inflicted upon a suspect. I live in the south and it wasn't that long ago that some horrible acts were committed against other Americans. Although there are more tales of it in the south, it isn't limited geographically either, so it's the law of the land. It serves the people's and the suspect's interests to have a fair trial. Many an innocent man has been questioned about wrong doings. So too have many otherwise innocent men turned themselves into criminals by taking the law into their own hands against someone simply over hearsay.
-Bill

 

[conw]

if anyone was following this, the verdict was self-defense on Minton's part. Civil suit will probably follow, but that was obvious from the way the family was showboating.

 

[Phatty]

Thanks for the update, conwict.

Based on you saying there was a "verdict," I'm assuming there was a trial. I'm a bit surprised that a case was actually brought against the officer. Did any further interesting information come out during the trial?

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

If I was on the jury, after hearing all the evidence, if it was still ambiguous, I'd have to give the benefit of the doubt to the officer/defendant, and find him not guilty of murder, for a variety of reasons.

1. Only one living eyewitness to the story. Sad but true; just the "way it is" in 2-person-involved shootings; horrible if the guy's guilty, but the stark reality is dead men cannot tell their story, and so they lose out.

2. Absent evidence of other similar bad acts, where's there's testimony that this officer had brandished deadly force unreasonably in the past, I'd have to think that more likely than not, he's gonna make the right judgment call after 12 years at that job, and not use deadly force unless it's appropriate, particularly if that's what he SAYS on the stand, but even if he remains silent and doesn't testify.

3. Unlike your rank and file city street police officers, who might be tempted to illegally shoot anyone with a gun, whether threatening or not, if not well-trained, and/or an anti-gun city boy or girl, game wardens deal with armed people all the time; they KNOW full well that just because you're carrying a gun doesn't necessarily mean it's a threat. I don't think a seasoned reasonable game warden is going to shoot unless the old man pointed his shotgun at the officer, which would obviously justify deadly force, again, particularly if that's his testimony, that the man pointed his shotgun at him after whatever words or confrontation happened.

4. This last one may not be fair, but as has been pointed out, old men (and women) can get downright hostile and cantakerous, due to Alzheimers or other reasons (being in pain; whatever), and not having nearly as much to lose (not much time left here on earth), might just want to finally do something they'd "always wanted to do", that being give Johnny law a little bit o' payback (to their way of thinking perhaps). I know I've got a checklist of things to do when I get old that I won't do now, like run some a-holes off the road who've got it coming. Hopefully I'll reform before I follow through on my checklist. Again, this is an unfair presumption put upon the dead man, but absent his testimony (see #1), I have to assume that it's a possibility, and combined with the other things, it WOULD enter into my calculations.


As for negligent manslaughter, that's a much tougher issues, but the officer would still get the benefit of the doubt, and I'd probably acquit. But to acquit on this count, I'd have to hear the officer testify that the old man pointed his weapon directly at him. To acquit for murder, he could remain silent.

The fact that it was the man's property is a non-issue, because a warden has a right to come onto property if there's reasonable suspicion of a crime, which I believe he had here (sounds like there was information that illegal baiting was possibly going on). Just being on some land you own is different from your home/castle, where probable cause (a higher level) of a crime in progress is required to enter (or a warrant based on PC). At least that is my understanding. Now if the guy was hunting within the curtilage of his homestead, that might possibly be different, but it doesn't sound like he was within the curtilage.

So to the extent that *I* am guilty of putting him on trial in the court of public opinion (and I am a bit), it's in favor of the officer, not the other way around.

Edit: Oops and now I see this:

if anyone was following this, the verdict was self-defense on Minton's part. Civil suit will probably follow, but that was obvious from the way the family was showboating.

Well I guess it's all over but the shoutin (and civil suit) now. For the reasons mentioned, I don't have a problem with the verdict.

Game wardens do face an unusually dangerous threat. They are often faced with hunters with long guns and as others have pointed out, many of those hunters will face prosecution if they cannot escape. Unfortunately for the warden, this creates a situation where the hunter may decide that there are no witnesses and that for whatever reason his liberty is more important than the welfare or life of the warden. This is not in response to the particular case being addressed here but by the replies which would doubt that the game warden has a more dangerous job than the average cop. Now if that cop is in Camden NJ, all bets are off...

Hear, hear!!

 

[Flyboy]

If I was on the jury, after hearing all the evidence, if it was still ambiguous, I'd have to give the benefit of the doubt to the officer/defendant, and find him not guilty of murder, for a variety of reasons.

You forgot 5), the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt (presumption of innocence) until proven guilty. Clearly, the proof was lacking.

 

[conw]

Sorry, it wasn't a "verdict" but I suppose a "finding" by the investigation board of the SBI.

http://12403wc.blogspot.com/

No Charges In Wilkes Turkey Hunter Fatal
No charges will be filed against a N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission law enforcement officer who was involved in the fatal shooting of a Wilkes County turkey hunter on April 11, according to a July 2 release by the commission.

According to a press release issued by District Attorney Tom E. Horner of Wilkesboro earlier today, Officer Mark Minton’s actions “were reasonable and appropriate in response to the perceived use or imminent use of deadly physical force . . .” and no criminal prosecution is warranted.

The Commission was notified this afternoon of the findings by the State Bureau of Investigation and the Wilkes County District Attorney’s Office.

“We appreciate the work of both agencies to resolve this issue,” said Gordon Myers, the executive director of the Commission. “An internal investigation is ongoing and until the investigation is complete, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to comment further.”

 

[Art Eatman]

"Court of public opinion" can affect the bias of potential jurors, sure. That's why some cases are tried in some other jurisdiction on change of venue.

In this case, a recent news article stated that the warden had found bait on that property. Further, that the deceased had approached with some amount of hostility, and was armed.

Enough...