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 ...
Even if he did kick him in the legs, that only execuses the beating with the stick. The gunfire is why this guy is going down.
Standard legal procedure is that the father is presumed innocent
______
Absolutely true. But I was not discussing his defense from a legal point of view, rather from moral point of view. There can be absolutely no moral defense for shooting your gun through a door behind which your daughter is standing.
How do you figure?
The crime has a definition. Shooting at an occupiable structure with intent to injure someone is a terroristic act unless you are doing it as part of an overall lawful act. What remains to be determined is whether trying to kill an unarmed trespasser who has communicated his intention and desire to retreat is a lawful act.
Arkansas code §5-13-310
Not according to the above statement from the dad.
__________
And the statement of the daughter contradicts that, wherein she says that the boy was telling him he would leave but dad have him blocked in the closet.
He said, she said. That’s fine that you want to get behind the guy who shoots his gun through a closed door behind which his daughter is standing, but as I said to another poster, his wanton and reckless behavior makes it impossible for me to get behind his version of the events. He was so clearly in a blood rage (how else can one explain the closed door shooting?), I cannot buy his version of the events. That is of course just my opinion.
Arkanas Code §5-2-608. A person may use nondeadly physical force to protect a premises.
Deadly physical force is only justified to:
(a) Protect another person from imminent harm, or
(b) To prevent a trepasser from committing arson or burglary.
This father doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Bears repeating. It would be most interesting if no intercourse even took place but mere petting. Who knows? Sad story and prayers for the young man.
Where is the evidence of this? The daughter and Guzman couldn't know, and he claims he shot high and low, not through the door into the room.
Its certainly idiotic to shoot a gun in your house when you don't need too, but there is more to this story obviously than is contained in the article.
D'oh!! Make that post *174*. I was close, though...
So with a dresser blocking the door, how did Guzman end up with a bullet in the back?
OK. Three people in the house. 2 behind a door. Dad on the other side. 4 shots fired through the bedroom door. Are you seriously suggesting that someone else fired the shots. Oh there is this little nugget of info that you seem to have missed as well "He [the dad] went to the bedroom and fired "warning shots up high." He then fired shots toward the bottom of the door."
so, in answer to your question about where the evidence for him firing through the door comes from, it would be from the dad's own mouth.
He shot warning shots, which means that he did not intend to harm anyone
__________
read the article more closely. At the link, not the excerpted portion.
From the article: “He went to the bedroom and fired “warning shots up high.” He then fired shots toward the bottom of the door.”
The first 2 shots were warning shots. That claim is not made for the last 2 shots.
But I’m with you. Drop the terrorism charge, and make it attempted 2nd degree murder and put the nutbag away for the maximum. Try to remember that the daughter was behind the door, as well as the guy.
how did Guzman end up with a bullet in the back?
_______
Perhaps we could get Arlen “Magic Bullet” Specter to provide an explanation.
His House
His Daughter
Good Shooting..
W.
“Her parents didn’t forbid her from dating Guzman but said he could only be in the house with a chaperone. He was allowed over Saturday night to watch a movie.”
—
Do you have a duaghter? I have two and as much as I know if they sin with someone its on them two I would rip the guy in half! This fater allowed her boyfriend into his home, spent time with him and let him know the rules.
The beating was called for though the Gun was too much. Assault with a deadly weapon at most..
Hopefully the judge will have a daughter then temporary insanity is open..
Its certainly idiotic to shoot a gun in your house when you don't need too, but there is more to this story obviously than is contained in the article.
It matters little where Reed pointed his gun, or where he *says* he pointed it. Shooting multiple times into the bedroom door certainly shows his intent - and his bullet hit Guzman's spine. At the time of the shooting, Guzman was unarmed and presenting no lethal threat to either Reed or his daughter. Reed knew this, too, which blows any defense that might've been offered by a "shoot the burglar" type law, if Arkansas even has one.
Yes, there may indeed be more to the story - but it's for the most part immaterial. Examining whether Guzman was technically trespassing is a dead-end; the county didn't charge Reed with shooting Guzman, but rather with firing into a structure known to be occupied. Guzman's injuries are what caused Reed's arrest, but the fact that Reed knew the room to be occupied when he fired will probably be sufficient to convict him.
His House
His Daughter
Good Shooting..
_____________
Gotcha. Thanks for your comment. We will put you with the rest of the folks who have suggested that it is perfectly OK to fire a weapon through a closed door, behind which one of your children is standing.
Personally, I think a little more highly of my children.
He was inside of a residence. A closed room is certainly part of an occupiable structure, if not an occupiable structure in its own right. I've seen similar charges brought when a crackhead unloaded his "Nine" through the door and wall of a *room* inside of a crack house, injuring or killing other crackheads (Jury duty in New Orleans during the 1980s - we sent the defendant up to Angola, where he still rots). Evidently the county prosecutor is satisfied that the legal definitions under Arkansas law are sufficient to proceed with that charge.
2) He shot warning shots, which means that he did not intend to harm anyone.
So Reed now says, but even a misdirected "warning shot" that hits someone means that the shooter is quite probably going to stand trial. Ask your local concealed-carry handgun course instructor; they *all* tell you to never, ever fire warning shots.
3) Even though the 19 year old said that he would leave, he (along with the girl, but dad didn't know it at the time) blocked the door instead of heading out the window/door.
Admittedly, this is the puzzling part. Regardless of why the teenagers blocked themselves *in* rather than running like Hell, Reed had no lawful reason to start blasting holes in the door. Up to that point, I think his actions were justified and would have not resulted in his arrest - despite his battery upon Guzman with a pool cue.
Even though I do not live there I can tell you why they created the law, it was to be applied against gang members that do driveby shootings.
The law originated in the early '70s, well before the crack cocaine explosion and the accompanying drug gang shootings. The revision dates are given at post 174; if you'd like to find out specifically what changes were made during the '80s and '90s, be my guest.
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.