P'burg Soldier wants new trial in BB shooting

BELVIDERE - A U.S. Army sergeant convicted last month of shooting a 15 year old girl with a BB gun is seeking a new trial. Jeffrey Mott, 30, shot the girl on Oct. 30, 1999, as she and her friends fled the scene of a mischief night prank in Phillipsburg. The incident began after someone threw something at Mott's front door and broke the screen, authorities said. A jury last month convicted Mott of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and aggravated assault. The jury aquitted him of a lesser aggravated assault charge. The weapons offense carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, while Mott faces up to five years in the aggravated assault offense. Mott would not be eligible for parole until he serves at least three years in prison under the state's so-called Grave's Act. That law deals with crimes involving guns and prosecutors are expected to ask the judge to apply the Grave's Act in this case. As the teens fled through a neighbors yard, Mott stepped onto his back porch at ** W++++ St. and repeatedly fired the gun toward them, authorities said. One BB stuck then 15 year old Kristeen Reed in the leg from a distance of about 130 feet, authorities said. Defense attorney Paul M. Aaroe II said his motion for a new trial is based on several arguments. Foremost is the argument Mott was convicted despite evidence that should have netted him an aquittal, Aaore said. The attorney said he will also argue issues such as how the police investigation and the trial itself were handled. He said trial errors led to MOtt's conviction. Authorities said the jury's aggravated assault conviction is tantamount to a landmark case. That particular conviction required jurors to conclude a BB gun is a deadly weapon that can cause serious bodily injury or death. In this case, the BB left a red mark on the victim's leg. Before the verdicts last month, Aaroe said Mott never fired a BB gun. The attorney said Mott merely used an air-powered rivet gun (a tool) that does not fire projectiles. An expert defense witness testified the mark on the girl's leg did not result from a BB. Aaroe said the teens didn't even report the incident to police right away. He also said the poloce failed to perform ballistics tests on the BB gun and merely took the teens word. The defense attorney said the teens were angry at Mott because he had yelled at them after his screen door was damaged. Mott said last month he has served in Desert Storm and was among those who responded to the World Trade Center attacks. Most recently stationed at a West Orange, NJ transportation depot, Mott has served in the Army for 12 years. Mott had turned down a previous plea bargain that might have netted him a probationary sentence. Mott, a husband and father of two, has been held in the Warren County jail since his conviction. The motion for a new trial is scheduled to be heard on July 12. His sentencing is tentatively scheduled for Aug. 9.

This is sick. A BB gun is now a deadly weapon?! I hope that when this is overturned on appeal that he sues Phillipsburgh and gets a sum of money so large that the citizens of this local have to suffer a property tax increase as incentive to vote this idiot judge out for not throwing out that verdict, since these robed thugs and Jerry Springer-shut-ins on juries can't be legally held accountable for wrecking a mans life in this manner.

As the teens fled through a neighbors yard, Mott stepped onto his back porch at ** W++++ St. and repeatedly fired the gun toward them, authorities said. One BB stuck then 15 year old Kristeen Reed in the leg from a distance of about 130 feet, authorities said. Defense attorney Paul M. Aaroe II said his motion for a new trial is based on several arguments. Foremost is the argument Mott was convicted despite evidence that should have netted him an aquittal, Aaore said. The attorney said he will also argue issues such as how the police investigation and the trial itself were handled. He said trial errors led to MOtt's conviction. Authorities said the jury's aggravated assault conviction is tantamount to a landmark case. That particular conviction required jurors to conclude a BB gun is a deadly weapon that can cause serious bodily injury or death. In this case, the BB left a red mark on the victim's leg. Before the verdicts last month, Aaroe said Mott never fired a BB gun.

This is pretty asinine. The prosecuting attorney should never have prosecuted this in the first place.

And that judge should is not too good letting this get outta hand like this.

And where's the story where these valdals are being sued by the neighborhood?

Call this the case of the Keystone Judicial System........

Yep, definitely ridiculous. Should be thrown out of court, at the very least. And the kids should pay for the screen door.
Where are the parents! My father would have had me over there apologizing to the Sarge's face. While he held me by the ear. And I would have had to clean it all up, too, and still pay for the door!

And also - A Seargent! she's lucky, real lucky he didn't chase them down and hog tie them.

This is sick. A BB gun is now a deadly weapon?!

Orangedog there is a huge difference between a B B gun and an air rifle. No a traditional BB gun isn't a deadly weapon. An air rifle indeed is. BB guns have a one pump only and shoot mechinism. Air rifles are capable at short range I would say under 500 ft of inflicting death to a human. I posted this on another thread I use an air rifle to shoot & kill problem possums. That is the toughest small game there is to kill. I've seen them take plenty of .22 shots.

But it seems the Sergent wasn't even using an air rifle but a nail gun. Again common sense say deadly with in a certain given area. 150 ft? I doubt it. But it seems the mans right to defense of property is being ignored in this. The teens parents need to thank the man for not shooting her by a more deadly means and spank their daughter for the offense against others property.

Ex Con: Sorry bout the misunderstanding.

But it seems the mans right to defense of property is being ignored in this. The teens parents need to thank the man for not shooting her by a more deadly means and spank their daughter for the offense against others property.

Remember the good old days when it wasn't too uncommon for a farmer or people in rual settings to keep a shotgun handy loaded with rock salt instead of slugs or bird or buck shot? Not deadly but hurts like hell. Even without the rock salt, the wadding in a shotgun shell will leave a pretty good welt on the back-side of a miscreant.

Personally, if I were having a problem with some of the young "parenting challenged" twerps, I'd keep a paint-ball gun handy. Again, not lethal, but anyone going home covered with welts and dye from these paint balls might have at the very least, have to deal with the embarrassment factor. But then again, there are too many procreating fools out there who go on the war path if someone dares to deter their little angels from making a menace of themselves.

Since when is a BB gun a deadly weapon?

Since the New Jersey state law, AKA Grave's Act, says it is. Any item or weapon that fires projectiles is considered a deadly weapon. The NRA had been contacted in this case, and this was there response:

NJ Statues 2C:39-1, paragraph f: "firearm" means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, automatic or semi-automatic rifle or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectable ball, slug, pellet, missle or bullet, or any gas, vapor, or other noxious thing, by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances. It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm which is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon in similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed air or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missle smaller than 3/8's of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person.

Which means anyone with an old-fashion slingshot, like we had when we were kids, now means you're in possession of a deadly weapon. Do you believe this?

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.