Replies

I don't think this guy got shot just for refusing to pay the fee. From the link posted at #6 by Brad from Tennessee:

the August 2005 death of Bruce Teschner, 58. Teschner - who according to testimony was drunk and had a history of mental illness - refused to pay a $14-a-night camping fee and refused to leave the park.

The brother of the deceased said he "was obviously self-medicating with alcohol" at the time of his death. The ranger says he shot when he thought he saw Tescher reaching for a weapon.

This is not a case of a normal, peaceful citizen refusing to pay a $14 fee and promptly getting shot dead for that refusal. This is a case of a belligerent drunk resisting arrest and a law enforcement officer who was too quick to assume the worst (though if I knew exactly what happened, I might end up cutting the ranger even more slack than that). It's not clear to me what time of day/night this happened, how many other people were on the scene (I gather few if any), or what physical movement the deceased may have been engaging in (possibly in dimlight) that may have led the officer to decide to shoot while the target was facing him only to have the target quickly turn around, or to decide to shoot when he mistakenly thought the target was facing him, etc. Once you've made the decision to shoot someone, and raised the gun with your finger on the trigger, you're not necessarily going to be able to continue re-evaluating the quickly changing scenario without losing your opportunity for a clean double tap.

If I was an ordinary citizen and some belligerent drunk out in the woods in the middle of the night came at me following a verbal conflict -- even unarmed -- and I shot him, I wouldn't expect FReepers to be hollering about how inexcusable my actions were and how I ought to be locked up for many years. If we're having trouble recruiting high quality law enforcement personnel, part of the reason is that we insist on giving the criminals more rights than the law enforcement officers, and the law enforcement officers fewer rights than we 2A-respecting conservatives assert belong to every citizen, and this isn't a very attractive proposition to a young adult choosing a career.

Right on! When your internal decision tree says (In boldface) pull the trigger - its pretty much a done deal.

The guy was shot twice, I’ll assume that showed some restraint (vs 6 or 15 rounds to the now-dead citizen) - but in any case, I would hate to be put in that situation.

Which, of course, is why I am not tree fuzz.

Final note, we had a pol up here busted for taking a few bucs under the table, he got 5 years in a FedGov pen. Makes ya wonder about what is valued.

"... a belligerent drunk resisting arrest ..."

Since when is resisting arrest reason to pull a gun?

Wouldn't the prudent thing to do be to just back of, call for backup, return with two or three rangers, physically wrestle the guy down, cuff him, and stuff him?

This wasn't self-defense, it was EGO. "How dare this... this... citizen... resist my superiority! I'll gun his a** down!"

"... and I'll simply call it self-defense in court."

The guy's behavior isn't the real issue here.

The ranger's ATTITUDE is the real issue here.

Placing so little value on human life that taking a life is justified because someone merely resisted arrest (alledgedly) is the issue here.

That is a psychopathic mindset.

"... and a law enforcement officer who was too quick to assume the worst"

"... when he thought he saw Tescher reaching for a weapon..."

"... decide to shoot when he mistakenly thought the target was facing him ..."

"... and raised the gun with your finger on the trigger, you're not necessarily going to be able to continue re-evaluating the quickly changing scenario..."

THAT IS WHY YOU DON'T PULL A GUN UNTIL YOU SEE A GUN OR OTHER WEAPON.

UNTIL YOU SEE A GUN OR OTHER WEAPON, THEY ARE UNARMED.

DRUNK AND/OR BELIGERANT DOESN'T MATTER.

THE GUY WAS UNARMED. HE SHOWED NO GUN. HE SHOWED NO KNIFE. HE SHOWED NOTHING THAT COULD BE CALLED A WEAPON. THAT IS WHAT MATTERS.

THE RANGER SHOT AN UNARMED CITIZEN... TWICE.

THAT IS MURDER.

MURDER COMMITTED "IN THE LINE OF DUTY" IS STILL MURDER.

"Once you've made the decision to shoot someone ... without losing your opportunity for a clean double tap."

That decision should NEVER be made until you SEE A WEAPON and that weapon IS COMING AT YOU!

That decision is a last resort, to be made only when your life is threatened.

The ranger's life was clearly NOT being threatened.

Only his EGO was being threatened... and he took a life to satisfy his ego.

2 shots in the BACK of the neck is murder any way you try to sugar coat it. Refusing to pay a $14 fee and this ranger took it to the next level and then shot an unarmed man.

I used to have more respect for the police but the way they EXCUSE even the worst and most obvious cases such as this has made me rethink any immediate support I used to give.

Being drunk is also NOT supposed to be death penalty offense either.