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 ...
A “terroristic act” is threatening to kill someone or do them grave harm, above and beyond merely threatening to assault them. In short, saying or doing something that makes another fear for their life. Waving a gun at someone in road-rage incident will usually be classified as a “terroristic act.” Such infractions predate the WOT.
In point of fact, she is a homeowner - because I put her name on the deed. I paid for my homes with my own money.
But as far as I am concerned everything I own is my wife's too.
I do not feel the same way about my children - my kids don't own my house or my cars and if they want to make a homeowner's decisions, they'll need to get a job and buy their own place.
How very Islamic of you.
Ah, so we're now past your rather lame arguments and are now started on lame personal insults.
Enjoy.
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.
Cute, but I can indeed say "get out" and if the person I evict decides to kick me rather than respect my decision and vacate the premises, I will defend myself as I see fit.
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...
Wives have property rights if they own property. Husbands also have property rights if they own property.
But this isn't an issue here, unless this guy's daughter's name was on the deed or the lease.
From the article ...
When he entered his daughter's bedroom, he saw Morgan adjusting her clothes and the bed messy. He assumed the teenagers had sex. He opened the closet door, yelled for Guzman to get out of the house, and Guzman began kicking him in the legs, he told Felton. He admitted hitting Guzman with the pool stick.
Invitation from person operating under authority of the property owner (the daughter) was revoked by the property owner. Kicking the property owner in the legs turns it into assault.
Now, I will admit to not knowing how it operates in Arkansas, but in Texas this would be a criminal trespasser on property AT NIGHT (big distinction in Texas) committing assault on the property owner, deadly force is authorized in that instance.
And to the guys that pointed out that it was not statutory rape because age of consent was 17. Fair enough, you were right.
Without claiming to know the specifics of Arkansas law, the common law answer/analysis would go something like this:
1. You and any adult living in the house (and probably children but that's less clear) have the authority to invite someone into the common dwelling (a 'license' to enter).
2. With respect permission granted by minors, and possibly by adults, you as head of household can revoke the license to enter. But, if you do so you have to give the person whose license is revoked a reasonable time to leave in a peaceful manner.
So you find little Guzzy in the bedroom with 17 year old Sweet Cakes on her invitation, you can certainly order him out. But if he agrees to go, and is simply getting his stuff together to do so, you have no right to attack him physically.
Unfortunately, the only criminal here is dear ol' Dad.
I didn't say they had committed trespass.
IF that is what happened, you might be right. HOWEVER, that's not what the article says. Your version does not even match up with what the father says. For example, barricaded in a room with the daughter is not a continuing physical assualt, so deadly force is NOT permissible (even with the castle doctrine, given the other facts). So far, you've brought up a complete straw man and are now making up your own facts. I think you know you were wrong in your original statement and just don't want to admit it. Pointless continuing the discussion...
I suspect in most cases it is not at issue because both spouses hold title to the property. In the case where the house is titled or rented in one spouse's name, might be different, I guess.
I didn't say that he had committed trespass.
I was trying to put my thoughts into words but you did it nicely. It's ironic how some of the guys who were the biggest skirt chasers when they were young end up having daughters.
So says the property owner - a person who has absolutely no motive to lie. /sarcasm. The truth is more likely somewhere in between. He probably kicked the owner while being beaten with the pool stick.
It is probable that the young man had no realistic avenue of escape. He was cornered by an enraged man who proved not to have the self-control to recognize that deadly force was not warranted in such a circumstance. Escape was not likely an option.
Read my comment again. The second italics is the story from the father. Considering that a kick to the legs is most likely going to leave a bruise. There's the evidence required.
Another thing is that the property owner trumps the daughter's authority. When Guzman refused to leave, he turned himself into a home intruder regardless of what the daughter wanted.
If you wish to read the actual article the mention of Guzman kicking him in the legs is near the end.
If I make it abundantly clear to someone in my home that they are not welcome in my home and their response is to kick me, they are indeed an intruder and they will be subject to any self-defense measures I undertake.
It’s ironic that the guys who were the biggest dogs in their youth end up being the most protective of their daughters. They look at the boys coming around and see a reflection of their old selves. I wonder how many of them look back on those days and think that they were wrong in trying to get into the pants of as many girls as they could? Not too many, I think.
You are also making up facts. The guy didn’t refuse to leave — he ASKED to leave. The guy may have started kicking first (according to the shooter, who just may be spinning the story, eh?), may have been kicking in self defense, or may have just been sitting there scared to death (daughter’s version). He then had no opportunity to leave, barricaded himself to keep from getting beaten more, and then was shot — even from the father’s version of the story.
Here’s a hint: If you have to make up the facts, even contrary to the shooter’s version, you may be on shakey ground...
PS Wow, some of you really don’t understand the law of invitees, trespass, and what constitutes justifiable use of deadly force. Scary. Not going to waste my time with this anymore after this.
I was actually referring to the part of the story where the daughter is quoted as saying Guzman began saying he would leave as soon as the dad found him and began clubbing him.
I think you better read my post again in it's entirety. If I am wrong about something (like the statutory rape) I admit it. Go fact check yourself before starting to throw an insult.
Here in Peachtree City, Georgia, a few years back, a divorced mom caught her teenaged daughter in a midnight tryst with a 16-year-old boyfriend she had warned away from the house many times. She called the police, and the young man was charged with the (still on the books) old crime of fornication. A judge sentenced him to write an essay on the harm his behavior caused. Instead, he got a sharp lawyer and went to the state supreme court to get his convication thrown out because his offense was, as he taunted the girlfriend's mom, "just having sex, like everybody does."
If the mother had subsequently taken a gun to the boy, I would have understood . . . and sympathized.
That’s the SHOOTER’s version only. The facts aren’t settled yet. Also, even he does not say who started hitting who first. That makes a difference. And the daughter’s story — you know, someone who probably doesn’t want to see Dad go to jail for life — is entirely different.
Cherry picking your “facts” — nice.
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.