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 ...
Read my previous reply to E. Pluribus Unum somewhere upthread. It’s a cut n’ paste of the pertinent Arkansas statute. In short, the use of the word “terroristic” is a bit of state-specific legalese and predates the WOT by decades.
Bullets ricochet.
If the father didn’t shoot into the middle of the door, he obviously wasn’t “aiming” to hit a person in the other room.
_____________
Gotcha. So it wasn’t attempted murder. It was simply wanton disregard and contempt for the life and well being of both his daughter and the young man. OK. If that floats your boat.
I don’t think I’d like to rest my defense on the notion that “Bullets ricochet”.
Running to get a gun to use against an assailant/tresspasser doesn’t seem like planning prior to commission.
__________
OK. How about the situation as it actually happened? Running to get a gun to use against the boy you know your daughter invited into the house when you were gone, when you knew before you got there that the boy was in your house by your daughter’s own invitation does or does not sound like premeditation.
Try to remember that he was alerted to the situation ahead of time. From the linked story: “He said a friend called that morning to say Guzman’s car was parked down the road.”
Whether one agrees with the father or not, he’s going down and should. The kid was trespassing, wasn’t an intruder, etc... Dad will now spend the rest of his life in prison.
Bigbobber may be deliberately being dense, but to suggest that a kid who is being beaten in a closet with a pool cue, and kicks to try to get out of the closet is “clear and present danger” is major league hyperbole. If you are blocking the path of exit, how in God’s name is the young man supposed to do what you ask?
Bottom line for me is that the guy discharged his weapon into a room in which he knew his daughter was present. After the bullet hits something, he has no control over the path, as another poster has suggested “bullets ricochet”. I have nothing but contempt for a man who would so endanger his own daughter.
LOL. Nice to have the voice of experience speaking here. :-)
He wasn't assaulting anyone and wasn't trespassing if the daughter invited him in. The father could 'uninvite him' but in any case, isn't justified in shooting him.
While you don’t rejoice in the death of millions it appears that you do rejoice in the death of one.
Sure.
What difference does that make?
Actually, if your wife invites someone in and you don't want them there, there's not a damn thing you can (legally) do about it.
AND she doesn't need to be on the deed or lease. If she lives there she can invite anyone she wants in.
Now, the same may or may not apply to a 17 year old daughter, depending on what state you live in.
You have the result (kid paralyzed) and you have the intent (dad had already beat him near death with the pool cue).
Gonna be pretty dang hard to make this out to be anything near accidental. (Oh, ya know, I was opening my desk drawer and the gun fell out. It bounced up and down and fired four times...)
I guess he could plead whatever it is that men plead when they catch their wife in bed with another man and kill one or both of them. But then that just highlights my contention that this man is to freakin’ involved in his daughter’s sex life. I do believe he should teach her to be chaste until marriage, but he is acting like a spurned lover—which he may well be. This has the stink of an incestuous infatuation.
You're right it varies from state to state, but AFAIK, if you have a right of possession (as a resident does), you can invite others onto the property.
This came up when my uncle had a tenant that rented some warehouse space from him. The tenant had a non-exclusive right to use XXXX square feet of the warehouse. The tenant failed to pay rent and before the right-to-cure period expired, contracted to have movers come and get his stuff. My uncle asked the police if he could prohibit the movers from coming even though the tenant technically still had a right to be there. Their response: Nope, as long as the tenant has a right to be there, he can grant anyone else permission to be there, including the movers.
what is the age of consent in Arkansas?
16. No, I didn't know it. I had to look it up.
I agree. But that's not the point.
#1. She's not a woman -- she's 17.
#2. Who said anything about her father hitting her? (The mother should do it! LOL... just kidding.) But seriously, unless she was being raped (in which case the shooting is deserved,) daughters should be held responsible for their fair share of the action.
#3. What time on Tuesday did this take place? Someone mentioned the "middle of the night" , but the article does not say that.
#4. Were they dressed, undressed, or partially dressed/undressed?
There is a lot of information missing here, and many of us are just filling in those blanks.
I think the beating was probably deserved. The shooting was stupid. Not so much because he paralyzed the boy, but because you have to be a damn idiot to shoot through a CLOSED door when YOUR DAUGHTER is standing on the other side!! It's fools like him who give anti-gun nuts a leg to stand on.
Besides, if you're going to kill the boy, there are better ways to do it right, not hot-headed and half-assed.
PS - The boyfriend, who was 19, could have been charged with statutory rape. Instead, he is now the victim, and the dad is charged with a felony. Stupid.
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.