Posted on 08/02/2007 10:03:39 AM PDT by Serious Capitalist
BENTONVILLE -- The father of a 17-year-old girl found his daughter's boyfriend hiding inside her bedroom closet Tuesday, beat him bloody with a pool stick, then left the room to fetch a gun. The daughter and boyfriend blocked the door with a dresser, so the father shot through the closed door, hitting the boyfriend in the back and paralyzing him, police said.
George David Reed, 48, posted a $150,000 bond and was freed from jail Wednesday afternoon as Michael Austin Guzman, 19, underwent surgery to treat a bullet lodged in his spinal cord.
Three of Guzman's vertebrae are fractured and doctors don't expect him to regain feeling or mobility below his waist, according to a probable cause affidavit released Wednesday after Reed's bond hearing. He was still in surgery Wednesday evening in Joplin's Freeman Health System, according to an intensive care nurse.
Benton County Circuit Judge Xollie Duncan set the bond Wednesday based on a request from Chief Deputy Prosecutor Shane Wilkinson. Reed was arrested on suspicion of a felony terroristic act, the most serious type of felony aside from capital murder, punishable by up to life in prison. He was also arrested on a charge of felony first-degree battery.
Defense attorney W.H. Taylor, who spent the morning consulting with his client at the jail, did not object to the bond. Reed is to be arraigned Sept. 10 before Circuit Judge David Clinger.
Taylor said that Reed has three children and lives with his wife, Sharon, at 13569 Vaughn Road near Highfill. Reed has been in Northwest Arkansas since 1962, owns a farm and rental properties, and has operated a moving and storage business since 1983.
(Excerpt) Read more at nwaonline.com ...
In some people with paralysis the primary equipment can in fact work, just not as well as before, although Viagra can improve that. They don’t have feeling there, but stimulation elsewhere can cause a certain “swelling of pride.”
“As far as I am concerned, anyone who is in my house without my permission or without a warrant is an intruder.”
That’s fine, but the law everywhere I know of doesn’t agree with you.
Too bad he didn't kill him but at least he's not going to be infecting his daughter with sperm.
In the highly unlikely event that my wife or any of my children invite undesirables into my home my response won't necessarily be violent.
But I do not buy for one instant the legal theory that a homeowner has no ability to decide who is or isn't allowed into his home.
Oh. Well.
Read the whole article, not just the excerpt.
More than you wanted to know?
“Hmmm ... 17 yo daughter, 19 yo statutory rapist boyfriend.”
Not statutory rape in Arkansas, nor in many other states.
Age of consent in Arkansas: 17. Want to try again?
His statement is that he fired warning shots above and below the door, not “aimed” through the door.
That sort of evidence should be very clear and simple to present in court. No bullet hole in the door makes it an accidental shooting.
“Ugh..... it’s a vile world we live in.”
Oh, the daughter he tried to kill was 19, had moved out, and was going to business school (secretarial) to try to be something other than trailer trash. He didn’t like that, either.
So, say I had a teenage son who decided to invite some friends over my house without my permission and they were monopolizing my family room as they loudly played stupid videogames. Doing absolutely nothing illegal - just being nuisances.
You are honestly claiming that I would legally have to sit around and wait for them to decide to leave my home? That as long as they were invited in by a minor who resides in my home, I have no legal say in the matter?
Challenge.
No, just thought I’d seen a curious irony, a certain ‘fitness’ if you will (though I disapprove of the shooting). Memo to self: if you’re going to shoot someone, don’t merely wound them.
****
I have a real problem with this.
There are plenty of laws the guy broke, why would a terrorism statute apply?
I consider this to be abuse of the anti-terror laws, the very thing the moonbats have been shrieking about.
The Arkansas Code indicates that this language is just a bit of legalese unique to that state and pre-dates the "anti-terror" laws that we've heard so much about in recent years. Here 'tis, oddly worded though it seems to be:
5-13-310. Terroristic act.
(a) For the purposes of this section, a person commits a terroristic act if, while not in the commission of a lawful act, the person:
(1) Shoots at or in any manner projects an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by another person with the purpose to cause injury to another person or damage to property; or
(2) Shoots at an occupiable structure with the purpose to cause injury to a person or damage to property.
(b)(1) Any person who commits a terroristic act as defined in subsection (a) of this section is deemed guilty of a Class B felony.
(2) Any person who commits a terroristic act as defined in subsection (a) of this section is deemed guilty of a Class Y felony if the person with the purpose of causing physical injury to another person causes serious physical injury or death to any person.
(c) This section does not repeal any law or part of a law in conflict with this section, but is supplemental to the law or part of a law in conflict.
History. Acts 1975, No. 312, §§ 1-3; 1979, No. 428, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 41-1651, 41-1652, 41-1652n; Acts 1993, No. 544, § 1; 2005, No. 197, § 1.
If you are the homeowner and your spouse/child invites someone into your home, I believe you have the right to demand that person leave or be removed. That's a far cry from the right to shoot them, particularly when they are unarmed and previously were invited into the home.
I'm just wondering: to all the good-for-him posters, what the bullet had hit his daughter instead? Or, what if he had intentionally beaten up or shot at the daughter? Would you still be saying, good for him! That'll teach her! After all, she is his daughter, presumably he should have even more rights to act on her behavior, as her father. Doesn't she deserve the same punishment as the boyfriend? It was, after all, consensual sex, and the article seems to suggest that the girl was at least as active in plotting to sneak the guy into the house.
Count me among those disgusted by the responses on this thread.
LOL! I had been thinking about something similar for when mine grow up. My version would have waivers against the young punk man prosecuting or suing me should he need some "correction" after hurting my daughter.
Dear ol’ dad needs to go away for a long, long time.
“No bullet hole in the door makes it an accidental shooting.”
I guess that bullet just magically appeared in his spine, since the father SAID he shot above and below the door.
“No bullet hole in the door makes it an accidental shooting.”
The story said he aimed high and “toward the bottom of the door.” It didn’t say he didn’t fire through the door.
So, you don't beleive that your wife is a homeowner, too? How very Islamic of you.
And your children above a certain age (depends on state) CAN invite guests in. Or do you think you are allowed to declare open season on their friends and blow them away during, say, monopoly? ("Hi, Jimmy, nice to see Billy. Good game you got going. BLAM! Wow, look at that head shot! Too bad he was an intruder!") Now, you can revoke permission, but you can't say "Get out!," prevent exit, and shoot them. If you do, you will go to jail for a VERY long time.
And in the case of your spouse or a roomate, he/she has as much right to invite people into your house as you do. Again, that is unless you don't think wives have property rights...
Seriously, you aren't arguing this point, are you?!
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.