Posted on 10/19/2007 7:13:59 PM PDT by elkfersupper
A former ranger at Elephant Butte State Park will spend a year on electronic monitoring for fatally shooting a man who refused to pay his permit fee.
District Attorney Scot Key says that Clyde Woods was sentenced Wednesday in state district court in Truth or Consequences to six years for voluntary manslaughter and given a seventh year for because of a firearm enhancement.
Key says, though, that all but one year was suspended. Woods will spend the remaining year under house arrest with an ankle bracelet and GPS locator.
Woods was charged with shooting Bruce Teschner on the evening of August 23, 2005, at a camp area at Elephant Butte State Park when Teschner refused to pay his camping fee.
No weapons were found on Teschner. Teschner’s family says that he was shot in the back.
By all reports most don't spend any more time shooting than their departments require. Which is usually very little. SWAT team would be exceptions of course.
Those are the ones that scare me. The militarization of law enforcement is not a Good Thing. Nor are "knock softly, whisper "police search warrant" and smash the door down a second afterwords" actions.
This Park Ranger was about as far from that sort of thing as you can get, unless you are an armed private security guard, with no law enforcement responsibility or any more authority than any other citizen.
http://rangergord.blogspot.com/2006/10/incident-at-elephant-butte-lake.html
This is a more complete version of the night in question.
But the most fascinating part was the trailer park owner where he had been “kicked out” of for nonpayment:
>>Truth or Consequences trailer court owner William Martin said some of his last words to departing tenant Bruce Teschner on Tuesday (August 23, 2005) were that someone was likely to shoot him. “Everybody here was pretty much afraid of him. And I was constantly watching him,” said Martin, an owner of the Artesian Bath House and Trailer Court. He said Teschner hadn’t paid for his month long stay at the court and pulled out early Tuesday evening after being asked to leave on Monday.<<
How many people do you know that people tell “Someone is likely to shoot you?”
He was a bad guy. A bully, a thief. I have no doubt.
He didn’t deserve to be shot for that. Maybe with a court order...sorry.
DK
Which was an appropriate charge, rather than murder, which some are saying should have been the charge.
What are we missing from your comments?
Was he not found guilty?
Actually he pleaded guilty, rather than being found guilty.
Shooting him in the back of the neck shows something is wrong here.
Not necessarily, although the witnesses quoted by the reporter say the man was running away. As you've likely noticed, reporters don't always report the whole story.
Anyone wearing the uniform is held to a higher standard of trust than us regular citizens. They have authority they can abuse that we don’t.
And they are put in situations that us "regular citizens" are not, or at least are more likely to be put in them. But once they are in them, the legal standard for their behavior is the same as ours would be in a similar situation.
What you are missing, or not acknowledging is that the $14 fee and the drunk and disorderly camper only set the stage. Absent the fee part, it could just as well have been another camper that got crosswise with the belligerent drunk. If it had been, then the same "reasonable man" standard would apply, or at least it should.
As I pointed out before, just because the guy was shot in the back of the neck, by itself does not indicate a "bad shoot". In this case we can presume it was a degree of bad shoot, but not one with malice aforethought, which is what is required to make it a murder charge.
Yea, the Ranger screwed up, but the justice system (The Judge has to accept the plea) determined that it was voluntary manslaughter, not murder.
Because the ranger had a good reputatation in the community, and no previous criminal record, the judge gave him supervised probation, rather than jail time. It's still probation, and if he violates the terms, he'll go to jail and do the full 7 years.
From the Law Dictionary:
Manslaughter The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection. Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed. At common law, as well as under current statutes, the offense can be either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The main difference between the two is that voluntary manslaughter requires an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm while involuntary manslaughter does not. Premeditation or deliberation, however, are elements of murder and not of manslaughter. Some states have abandoned the use of adjectives to describe different forms of the offense and, instead, simply divide the offense into varying degrees. Voluntary Manslaughter In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice. If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction: (1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person; (2) the defendant must have actually been provoked; (3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and (4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period. Provocation is justifiable if areasonable person under similar circumstances would be induced to act in the same manner as the defendant. It must be found that the degree of provocation was such that a reasonable person would lose self-control. In actual practice, there is no precise formula for determining reasonableness. It is a matter that is determined by the trier of fact, either the jury or the judge in a nonjury trial, after a full consideration of the evidence.
Certain forms of provocation that frequently arise have traditionally been considered reasonable or unreasonable by the courts. A killing that results from anger that is induced by a violent blow with a fist or weapon might constitute sufficient provocation, provided the accused did not incite the victim. It is not reasonable, however, to respond similarly to a light blow. A killing that results from mutual combat is often considered manslaughter, provided it was caused by the heat of passion aroused by the combat. An illegal arrest of one who knows of or believes in his or her innocence may provoke a reasonable person, although cases are in dispute on the issue of whether such an arrest would justify a killing. An attempt to make a legal arrest in an unlawful manner by the use of unnecessary violence might also constitute a heat of passion killing that will mitigate an intentional killing. Some cases have held that a reasonable belief that one's spouse is committing adultery will suffice. An injury to persons in a close relationship to the accused, such as a spouse, child, or parent, is often held to constitute reasonable provocation, particularly when the injury occurs in the accused's presence.
Mere words or gestures, although extremely offensive and insulting, have traditionally been viewed as insufficient provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter. There is, however, a modern trend in some courts to hold that words alone will suffice under certain circumstances, such as instances in which a present intent and ability to cause harm is demonstrated.
The reasonable person standard is generally applied in a purely objective manner. Unusual mental or physical characteristics are not taken into consideration. The fact that a defendant was more susceptible to provocation than an average person because he or she had a previous head injury is not relevant to a determination of whether the person's conduct was reasonable. There has, however, been a recent trend in some cases that indicates a willingness to consider some subjective factors.
If a reasonable period of time passed between the provocation and the killing so that the defendant had sufficient time to cool off, a homicide will not be reduced to manslaughter. Most courts will reduce the charge if a reasonable person would not have cooled off. Some, however, look solely at the defendant's temperament and make a subjective decision as to whether the person had sufficient time to regain self-control.
In some states, there is a case-law trend in which a killing that is committed under a mistaken belief that one is justified constitutes voluntary manslaughter. It is reasoned that although the crime is not justifiable, it is not serious enough to be murder.
a It is a general rule that a defendant who acts in self-defense may only use force that is reasonably calculated to prevent harm to himself or herself. If the person honestly, but unreasonably, believes deadly force is necessary and, therefore, causes another's death, some courts will consider the crime voluntary manslaughter. Similarly when a defendant acts under an honest but unreasonable belief that he or she has a right to kill another to prevent a felony, some courts will find the person guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Although it is generally considered a crime to kill another in order to save oneself, the justification of coercion or necessity may, likewise, reduce murder to manslaughter in some jurisdictions.
Apparently the guideline punishment for voluntary manslaughter is a maximum of 10 years, but NM is not a guidline state and I could not determine what the maximum penalty is there.
You’re still pretending this was about the $14 dollar fee. It wasn’t. It was about a drunken person behaving in a threatening manner, and there is every reason to think that the outcome would have been the same if he had already paid the $14 fee and got hot under the collar about something else. And yes, if I’m camping overnight in the wilderness, I very much hope the rangers on duty have the attitude that they are supposed to be protecting the “turf” from criminals. I don’t want belligerent drunks roaming around picking fights with whoever they happen to run into, while I and my camping group (possibly including children) are trying to have a safe and peaceful night’s sleep.
Defining “due process” is a nightmare that even the Supreme Court has a lot of trouble with. But due process is not required in a self-defense situation. The ranger probably (not definitely) made an incorrect assessment of the level of danger this uncooperative drunk posed, but it is quite possible that the drunk’s behavior met the test of making a reasonable person fear physical injury or death, justifying firing in self-defense. Looks the same to me as a homeowner firing on somebody who breaks into their house in the middle of the night — maybe the intruder was just very drunk and at the wrong house, and didn’t intend to do anything violent, but I don’t expect the homeowner to wait and find out, because if the intruder turned out to be bent on violence, abducting a child, or some such thing, it may be too late to stop him by the time the homeowner has been able to ascertain his true intentions — and it is reasonable of the homeower to fear that a complete stranger roaming around in the house in the middle of the night is a criminal who is likely to employ violence if he becomes aware that he’s been seen. The fear may turn out to have been unfounded, but it was reasonable, and IMO a situation in which a self-defense shooting is justified.
The victim was probably a white Christian Evangelical heterosexual male, otherwise this incident would have been all over the MSM for a least a month. Can you imagine the stink that would have been aroused had he smoked an illegal alien?
It's everyting I imagined it would be, .... and more!
FYI and NO /S
Have compassion for the guys in green and grey. We try, though the thugs are over-running “our” wilderness too:
http://starbulletin.com/2006/10/13/news/story02.html
Makuakane-Jarrell was killed Sunday at Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park in Kona. ...
Drifter is ruled insane in Kaloko-Honokohau killing.
“A Federal Bureau of Prisons psychologist testified for the defense that Boyce suffered from paranoia and schizophrenia, and could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his acts due to his psychotic state, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ken Sorenson said.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21203159/
JARBO GAP — A Department of Fish and Game warden shot and killed an unidentified man outside a home off Bardees Bar Road about 2:55 p.m. Monday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21314344/
After Brennan served the citation and left property Pitts was occupying on Bardees Bar Road, the warden ran the man for warrants.
He learned Pitts was wanted in Hawaii for alleged methamphetamine sales.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Ya, one thing that angers me...Is bad talking our LE without researching and actually “seeing” what these people go through. The way I read these posts, ya’all sound like a bunch of damn fern feelin democrats.
Read the articles and weep for your fellow citizens/criminals.
Aloha kakou.
Periodically on these threads, I have tried to explain the difference between regulatory "law enforcement" and the duty to "uphold the Constitution"
There are several aspects to the split in the Republican community over the role of the patrol officer in our society.
One aspect is the homogenization of training. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the Mayor of New Orleans ordered CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICERS (far outside their legal jurisdiction)to mug an old lady in her home IN FRONT of CAMERAS.
Even (or especially)the Military shrank from such duty, because, believe it or not, their command officers have more extensive training in the Constitution.
Another aspect is fitness training. There is evidence that some of the more gung ho officers may be abusing controlled substances such as anabolic steriods.
So you now have a bizarre environment where criminal drug abusers arrest and imprison other criminal drug abusers-- and treat everyone as though they are criminals, drug abuse or not.
A third aspect is cultural. There are a few hundred thousand laws currently on the books with more added every day. EVERYBODY is guilty of something, including you. Patrol Officers have put themselves in a position where they essentially agree to escalate to deadly force during any crime investigation.
The time is not far off when someone like Martha Stewart will be shot during arrest or die in custody. This nightmare is straight out of George Orwell's book "1984"- a Kafaesque fantasy no longer.
At a certain point the number and volume of anamolous "isolated" incidents must be considered a trend.
The Founding Fathers had good reason to impose a standard of "innocent until proven guilty" on government agents.
They personally experienced the result when such standards did not exist.
We, the people, rediscover this standard in the 21st Century.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Hmmm... more blather from the no-conscience group.
More justification of a criminal act.
You want me to address your points when you ignore my points? Forget it.
I no longer care about your personal drivel... I mean opinions.
... except to state that said opinions make it abundantly clear to the rest of us you know nothing of the Constitution... and if you wear a badge and gun... the Constitution you swore to uphold.
You and your ilk are truly dangerous people.
Why don’t you and “GovernmentShrinker” just move to Russia and join the KGB.
Your and his mentalities would fit right in.
Sorry JMack, my comment was meant for El Gato.
The comment addressed to GovernmentShrinker was meant for El Gato... but it applies equally to GS also.
He ain’t a cop. He’s a frigging park ranger.
The ranger in this story was exceeding his Constitutional authority. He was attempting to enforce a camping fee when he had no Consitutional authority for doing so.
Since he was acting outside his Constitutional authority, he was the aggressor, the true criminal.
What he was doing was no different than a street thug robbing someone. When he pulled his gun on the citizen, he committed a felony. When he killed the guy, that was murder.
Looks to me like the ranger screwed up. Looks like the court agreed as he was convicted. It also looks to me like you think you can read minds, and,IMHO, you don’t know dick about deadly force situations. You don’t always wait until you see a weapon to pull a weapon as you have stated. You are a day late and a dollar short by then. You want to get hired as a cop and wait until some guy sticks a gun up your ass before you do something, go right on ahead.
Drunk and belligerent matters a great deal. Makes situations much more unpredictable, and therefore, dangerous.
You sound like the type of person who asks why the cop had to kill the armed robber when he should have just shot the gun out of his hand.
For some reason, I feel dirty now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.