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.
I’d guess 90% of all gun-toting cops view the people... the citizens... with disgust, like we’re some lower form of life.
Only those who have developed the “Us vs. them” mentality. The most obvious symptom is the use of the term “civilian” to refer to anyone who isn’t a cop. Even my Webster’s defines “civilian” as “a person not in military or naval service.”
When I retired from the Army I went back to school. I had several police science courses. I was over 40 and rode a Harley to class, showed numerous tattoos, had a beard and longish hair. The other students were young cops - short hair, clean shaven, no visible tattoos and not a Harley rider in the bunch. We got along fine until a cop would refer to “the civilians”. That riled me every time. After hearing me ask if the were in the military enough times they quit using the term in class.
Judge Sweazea is familiar with Clyde Woods. Sweazea was the judge in the repeated "deadbeat dad" actions against Woods who flatly refused to pay child support during the entire time he was working as a cop. In fact this was one of Sweazea's first cases after being appointed to the bench in 2001.
Ranger Rick had some issues to say the least. As we know the law only applys to the serfs.
I guess it depands on if you are just a taxpayer or the guy that gets shot.
I think the tree fuzz was (likely) badly trained and lacked any kind of backup system. A screwed up situation all around.
Here (AK) so many drunks ARE armed, you really have to watch things.
Im not a drunk and I carry as well....
Our critical reaction is unrelated to anti-police sentiments. Our concern is based on the whole situation surrounding the death of one of our fellow Americans. That he died while pursuing his happiness in the wilderness, as was his right, is the first irony. The second irony is that he died while on Federal land. Say that to yourselves a couple of times. What does the phrase 'Federal land' mean? It means the people's forest. Not the king's forest. Not the Senate's forest, or the corporation's forest, but the people's forest. The entire notion of federal land is flawed in America, however. Homesteading died in 1968, blocking off entire areas of the country that were arable and habitable from settlement. For whom have these lands truly been reserved? That's a good question, because the environmentalists are closing off more and more of these areas from anyone entering at all. Are our interests being served here? I do not believe so, although I am in favor of maintaining most of the wild lands we have. If they can't be enjoyed by Americans because of endangered species and other specious reasons, who benefits from protecting them? Not we the people. Of course Agenda 21, the United Nations plan for 'sustainable' development is served by these regulations, and therefore our sovereignty suffers.
To make a long story short, the ranger who shot one of our fellow Americans to death because he refused to pay his fee was officially defending our lawfully managed wild lands. However, in this killing, we see the injustice of the natural preserves — preserved for no one in particular, and specifically a globalist agenda, peeking out. The Sherrif of Nottingham claims to represent us, but in doing so, we are revolted by the outcome of his actions. It's a direct result of the collectivization of our natural habitats. They could be preserved without resorting to nationalization, but in the name of preserving America, we have socialized our natural environment. It's all part of the plan. That people are shot for violating the rules, well Robin Hood's liberty couldn't last indefinitely, now could it?
one percent of the cops have hemroids,the other 99% are perfect a$$holes.
Since you like to deal in hypotheticals, let me propose one:
1) If the ranger were a private citizen demanding $14 owed to him, the camper became “beligerant and hostile”, the private citizen attemped a citizen’s arrest, the camper resisted, and the private citizen pulled out a gun and shot the guy, what do you think would happen?
2) If you answer “the private citizen would be prosectuted for murder”, then why should it be any different for the ranger?
Some of the biggest a-holes wearing badges and guns I’ve ever met were game wardens. Ever had a game warden patting his Glock while he asks for your fishing license? What a tool.
The private citizen had no legal right to arrest someone for not repaying a $14 loan. But if the debtor became belligerent and hostile just from the request, giving the requestor reasonable grounds to fear physical harm, then a self-defense shooting is justified. What we just don’t really know here is whether the drunken camper’s actions provided grounds for a reasonable fear of physical harm on the part of the ranger. We also don’t know if the ranger deliberately shot the man in the back, or if the man was moving around unpredictably, and the ranger made the decision to fire when the man was facing him, and wasn’t able to stop when the man turned. I can only hope the jury heard all the available info and testimony, and made the right call.
If the ranger genuinely believed he was in danger of not making it home to his family if he didn’t shoot, I’m fine with his punishment being one year of electronic monitoring and ineligibility for future employment as an armed law enforcement officer. Since it seems to be agreed that the camper was not in fact armed, the ranger made an incorrect decision based on the belief that he was. However, there are many situations where a law enforcement officer is confronted with someone whose behavior is consistent with that of a violent criminal, sees the person reach into a pocket, and the person does in fact pull out a gun or knife. Sometimes waiting to see that it really is a weapon costs an innocent law enforcement officer his (or her) life, and costs the officer’s family a parent, spouse, adult child, etc. I don’t think it’s a good policy to give the benefit of the doubt to a drunken person who is refusing to pay a legally required fee to be in the place he’s in, over a ranger who was apparently just trying to do his job when the drunken non-paying person’s behavior turned in a direction that caused the officer to panic and fear for his life.
Your response is absolutely frigtening.
You clearly have no clue about the things you are talking about.
If you wear a badge and gun, your are menace to society.
Please turn them both in, and take some time off work to go study the consititution you swore to uphold.
I submit that most law enforcement people have the mentality of an occupying military force. “We’re here to protect this turf from criminals (the enemy).”
There are six major problems with that mentality:
1) They don’t see themselves as protecting the rights of the people, even though the declaration of independence, the federal constitution, and every state constitution, says the purpose of govenment is to protect the rights of the people.
2) They see themselves as enforcers of law, even though many of the laws they enforce are violations of people’s constitutional rights.
3) They couldn’t care less about people’s rights. Most law enforcement people know little or nothing about people’s rights.
I challenge any and every law enforcement person out there to cite five major rights citizens have, explain what those rights mean, and cite constituional authority for said rights. Ther are many more than five. I’m just asking for five. NONE of you can even come up with five.
I challenge any and every law enforcement person out there to tell me what due process is. NONE of you can do it.
4) Their defintion of “criminal”. Most consider one to be a criminal for violating the least and most trivial law... as in this case... a $14 camping fee.
5) Their conclusion of one being a “criminal” is made before any court appearance. Most law enforcement people assume someone has done something unlawful from the first moment of encounter. They are playing judge and jury, before a real judge and jury has even heard the case.
6) Their actions are based on that premature assumption of ciminality. Having already concluded in their own mind that someone is a criminal justifies any action up to and including killing... as in this case. They are playing executioner as well.
I guarantee that most law enforcement people think this way. They are trained and conditioned to think this way.
This is the mentality of an occupying military force, who views the people as the enemy.
It is very much an “us vs them” mentality,
... rather than an “us serving them” mentality as it should be.
I guarantee that most law enforcement people don’t view themselves as serving the people nor protecting their rights.
“GovernmentShrinker” is a clear example.
None of his comments even acknowlege the horrible criminal act the ranger committed on the citizen.
Every single one of his comments attempts to justify that criminal act.
I guarantee that most law enforcement people view themselves as doing what their self-decreed label clearly says: Simply enforcing laws, with little or no regard for the people or their rights.
One final point.
Most law enforcement people spend far more time studying guns and shooting and killing, than they spend stuyding the Constitution they swore to uphold.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem with law enforcement people today.
Here is another open challenge to any and every law enforcemnt person out there:
Tell me what the requirements of a crime are, as ruled time after time by the United States Supreme Court.
Your opinions don’t count. Give me the actual Supreme Court citations.
Warning: Once you do this, some of you with a conscience will want to leave law enforcement.
You’ll suddenly realize you’ve been hired and trained not to uphold the Constitution, but to violate it.
You’ll suddenly realize you weren’t told the truth, because your money-crazed and power-crazed masters don’t want you to know the truth.
Those without a conscience won’t care. They’re quite happy to oppress their fellow citizens for a paycheck.
They’re quite happy to be hired mercenaries, thugs with guns, carrying out the wishes of their corrupt masters.
He should have just shot him in the butt and everything would have worked out okay.
I know that womens husband.
A charge of murder would have been, properly, thrown out. Unless you think the ranger set up the confrontation so he could kill the guy.
MURDER, SECOND DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of second degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated. Note that the elements are identical with those for 1st degree murder. The practical difference is the sentences are different. Which crime to charge is usually entirely up to the prosecutor¼s discretion. (From LectLaw
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.