Park ranger gets seven years for fatal shooting

KOB-TV-Albuquerque, NM ^ | 10/19/07 | KOB TV Staff

[elkfersupper]

A former ranger at Elephant Butte State Park will spend a year on electronic monitoring for fatally shooting a man who refused to pay his permit fee.

District Attorney Scot Key says that Clyde Woods was sentenced Wednesday in state district court in Truth or Consequences to six years for voluntary manslaughter and given a seventh year for because of a firearm enhancement.

Key says, though, that all but one year was suspended. Woods will spend the remaining year under house arrest with an ankle bracelet and GPS locator.

Woods was charged with shooting Bruce Teschner on the evening of August 23, 2005, at a camp area at Elephant Butte State Park when Teschner refused to pay his camping fee.

No weapons were found on Teschner. Teschner’s family says that he was shot in the back.

[gpk9]

This is an example of the total breakdown of due process here in Amerika.

Due process would have required that gun-toting psychopath cop to file a complaint in court against the guy, give the guy his day in court to make a defense, and if found guilty the COURT would order whatever punishment was justified.

In this case the gun-toting psychopath cop played judge, jury, and executioner.

It appears that "law enforcement" people are taught nothing about due process these days, yet due process is THE VERY THING that secures every right we have.

When due process breaks down, we basically have no more rights.

When "law enforcement" gets to play judge, jury, and executioner, and gets nothing more than a slap on the wrist, we have no more rights.

What good are rights when they are summarily ignored by "law enforcement" people... and judges?

The very term "law enforcement" reveals the true mindset of government these days. All government cares about anymore is enforcing their laws... against us.

It really is government against the people now.

We are viewed as the enemy.

Here is the dictionary defintion of "psychopath:"

n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

Does that not describe the attitude of most gun-toting "law enforcement" people these days?

... who apparently have no qualms about gunning down a citizen... over something as trifling as a $14 fee?

When laws become more important than people, liberty is dead, rights are dead, and freedom is dead.

The simple definition of liberty is "freedom from government oppression" or if you prefer "freedom from government tyranny."

How are the attitude and actions of that cop any different from the attitude and actions of British troops in the colonies?

Did we not fight a revolutionary war with Britian over this very same stuff?

[Travis McGee]

One set of laws for the lords, another for the peasants.

[editor-surveyor]

And these thugs worry about private citizens carrying?

[Copernicus]

Yeah, but the dude refused to pay his fee!

Pay your taxes or die!

Best regards,

[GovernmentShrinker]

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.

[Redbob]

Yeah, where is ol’ Lon Whore-Iuchi these days?

Witness protection program, flipping burgers somewhere?
Hopefully?

Or maybe a leading postger on MoreOn.Org?

[Redbob]

Yeah, where is ol’ Lon Whore-Iuchi these days?

Witness protection program, flipping burgers somewhere?
Hopefully?

Or maybe a leading poster on MoreOn.Org?

[El Gato]

Lon Horiuchi shot an unarmed woman off her own porch

Actually she was inside the house, holding an Assault Baby.

[El Gato]

Um, that's a city?

Sure is Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.

[ASOC]

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.

[traviskicks]

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[Cvengr]

IMHO, Barney Fife had better grounds for brandishing a weapon.

[El Gato]

This is cold blooded murder. How the cop didn’t get charged with 1st degree murder is unbelievable.

Everyone is treating this officer the way John Murtha and Harry Reid treat Marines. Guilty until proved innocent, and then "The Fix Was In".

I suspect the park ranger exercised extremely bad judgment, and witnesses indicated that the guy was shot in the back..But so what, people are legitimately shot in the back all the time. The deceased own brother admitted that he was 'Self medicating' with booze. and he very likely was belligerent. A drunk can shoot you just as dead as a gang banger... heck he might shoot better if he's a recreational shooter when he's sober.

If the guy made motions as if going for a gun, then the ranger, who is not trained for such things, probably reacted poorly, or maybe that lack of training helped in his misinterpretation of the guys actions.

But remember your attitude the next time some citizen shoots a punk, or other ner do well, in the back, and under a less than obvious threat to the shooter's well being. Y'all will then likely be on the side of the shooter. So will I, depending on those circumstances of course. But I don't judge such situations by whether the guy is wearing uniform of some sort or not, nor should anyone.

[gonzo]

"...when we give guns to Rangers, fish and game officers and petty @$$ holes like that, it gets to be too much..."

Yer not pissed-off enough yet, hawk, so here goes:

During the klintoon administration, '92 - '00, the IRS agents were all given handguns!

Office workers and the like. Nice set-up, huh? .......................... FRegards

[El Gato]

It's not clear to me what time of day/night this happened,

Story only says "evening" of August 23rd. That could be twilight or dark, but it could also be anytime after 6 PM.

Truth Or Consequences, NM (Sierra County)
N33° 14' 10" W107° 16' 15"
For Tue, Aug 23 2005 MST7MDT (GMT-6)
Sunset: 19:46
Civil Twilight End: 20:11
Naut Twilight End: 20:42
Astro Twilight End: 21:14

[skeptoid]

Would you put Goucho Glasses on that?

[matthew fuller]

"If the guy made motions as if going for a gun,"

Going for his gun with his back turned? HUH?

"heck he might shoot better if he's a recreational shooter when he's sober. "

With his head turned around backwards. Guess he was using the reflections off them trees.

[gpk9]

"... 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.

[matthew fuller]

"If the guy made motions as if going for a gun,"

Going for his gun with his back turned? HUH?

"heck he might shoot better if he's a recreational shooter when he's sober. "

With his head turned around backwards. Guess he was using the reflections off them trees to aim the gun that he didn't have.

[El Gato]

Going for his gun with his back turned? HUH?

Sure, lots of times a guy will start to walk away, then turn and fire. With a drunk, or under the influence of other recreational chemicals, you never know what they might do.

It's not even clear from the awful reporting whether the ranger has his gun drawn before he says he perceived the guy was going for his gun, or not. If not, if he'd waited until the guy turned around, if the guy did have gun, the ranger might be dead instead. Especially true if it was dusk or dark.