Hell, I’d join you in some skeet shooting. I wouldn’t mind in the least if it annoyed a large percentage of the folks down there, cause I think a large percentage of the camp down there took Sheehans silent vigel and are twisting it to their own means. If we kept it up for a few hours each day, maybe just the racket would annoy a bunch of them so they’d leave.
All I’m sayin is I’d go about it different.
Well, that, and that the SKS is a blast to shoot. 
Yeah, but it’ll travel a long way. We better stick to shotguns. I have Beretta O/U’s myself, plus a Model 870 Skeet gun, an 1100, and an assortment of various other shotguns, a little 20 Ga Browning Citori Super Lightning O/U that I just don’t really like, and a couple of SKS’s and a SS Mini 14. Plus rifles and handguns. I haven’t fired any of them in years. I hunt quail and pheasant with a Beretta BL-4, and dove with the 1100. Haven’t shot clay targets in 25 years.
You guess wrongly, as the language I quoted above from the Redfern decision should have made abundantly clear. (“It is the threat of harm–not the threat of a sterile act–that consitutes the offense. . . The threat need not be in any particular form or even words at all, but may be made by acts, innuendo, or suggestions. . . . The test is what is reasonably communicated to the victim.”)
Yes. Case law makes it quite clear that pretty much any act intended by the actor to cause fear of bodily harm constitutes assault. As noted above, there is abundant evidence that Mr. Mattledge intended to frighten the protestors by firing his shotgun nearby, and that he in fact accomplished that goal. Whether he actually intended to follow up on the threat is immaterial to the assault charge.
So you believe his excuse that the firing of the shotgun had nothing whatsoever to do with the presence of the nearby protestors, whose continued presence he vocally opposes? Really and truly and honestly, from the bottom of your heart?
Did the “victims” feel threatened?? Have they pressed charges??
Was he frighteneing them with a non-lethal loud noise, or threatening them? Can a loud noise cause bodily harm (and I’m talking about the context of a shotgun in the vicinity, not some weapon of noise)? Have charges been filed?
Why fuck no. All I meant was, would the protesters shit themselves if the guy actually went dove hunting in the vicinity. Would additional shotgun blasts be construed as threatening loud noise, a byproduct of an illegal activity, or assault??
Like I said, if I knew it bothered them, I’d be out there 24/7 shooting. And as I also stated, I support Sheehan’s position. But I also think Mattlage didn’t break any laws and he had/has every right to shoot his shotgun right by their camp.
And that should have been “the byproduct of a legal activity”.
If I walked up behind Sheehan and said, “BOOO!!”, do you think I should be prosectuted for the same things you claim Mattlage should be?? Is saying BOOO a crime?
I’m pretty sure the standard would be “reasonable doubt,” not “really and truly and honestly, from the bottom of your heart.”
Has there been any successful prosecutions of a person in Texas who acted in a similar manner to this guy? I find it hard to believe that he could be prosecuted, and that there’s any real evidence he intended harm. Hamming it up in front of reporters is just as plausible an explanation, if not more so.
minty: coulda. shoulda. woulda.
Your legalistic legerdemain is still potent. The fact that Mattledge wasn’t charged by the Secret Service or the County Sheriff’s Dept. means that on-site investigators, not news “journalists,” not message board instapundits, determined he wasn’t a threat, wasn’t threatening anyone, and didn’t break any law.
So no, minty, Mattledge could not “…plausibly be charged…” with your conjured offenses, because if he was guilty of them, being a next-door neighbor to the President and the locus of a blitz of national media coverage, he would have been charged had they been able to.
If these “peace protestors” don’t like the way Texas ranchers conduct themselves on their own property in unincorporated counties, then perhaps these “peace protestors” should get the fuck off of the rancher’s property.
What part was that? The part about Sheehan needing to basically cut the apron strings on her already grown son, who, as an adult, voluntarily enlisted in the U.S. Army? Or the part about the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch not being accountable to individual citizens for the repercussions of his executive decisions while in office?
Neither says a damned thing one-way-or-the-other about the war, or the United States, for or against. They’re statements of fact.
If they’re pitching tents on private property, presumably without consent of the property owners, why aren’t they being arrested?
No federal jurisdiction, as his actions in no way implicated the security or safety of the President or any other federal official.
The fact that they decided to let it slide hardly undercuts my point, which is that he could be charged (and convicted) under the statutes and case law.
Or, alternatively, the McLennan County Sherriff just decided it wasn’t that big a deal for a local good ol’ boy to put a little startle into them Saddam-lovin’ hippie protestors.
They’re not on his property. They’re across the road, remember? On the property of the Peace House or whatever the Saddam-lovin’ hippie no-goodniks are calling their shack, as I recall. If they’re intruding on someone else’s private property, then screw 'em, toss the whole lot of 'em in jail for trespassing.
Just a vibe that I got from your post, not somting to cause panty twisting. Sorry if you are actually against the war and hate America and I got it wrong. That was my bad.
Harry Truman: The buck stops here.
George W. Bush: I think it’s important for me to go on with my life.
Perhaps Mattledge was within his rights to fire a shotgun on his own property. Still, considering events of Sept 11, 2001 and terrorist activity in general, was this a wise thing to do especially when the President is literally your next door neighbor? If this was just a harmless bit of target practice for “dove” season, then why did the Secret Service bother to come over to the guy’s house? Still, this guy must be one Hell of a shot. To think that he only needs one shot for practice? Geez, duck hunters and skeet shooters must be ringing this guy’s phone off the hook.
As for the protestors? Well, if they are not on private property they must be on somebody’s property. I’m surprised the local authorities haven’t forced them to disband. How can anyone just plant themselves down and say “hey I’m going to live on your sidewalk” ? It’s public property - but it is not your property.
We do have freedom. But we don’t have the freedom to act irresponsibly.
As all of you probably know, I am a Bush-bashing, Yankee liberal but this has got to be the most conservative post I’ve ever made on the SDMB.
Demonstrations (some equally as lengthy as this) are allowed on sidewalks and in parks in cities. Why should public property in rural areas be exempt? And quite frankly, some demonstrations are allowed more latitude than others. I recollect the tractors tearing up the Mall in Washington. It appears that the local authorities have decided that a) this demonstration is fine, b) this demonstration is legal, or c) this demonstration should be allowed more latitude.
The point is moot, as another Mattlage has invited them to use his land, which is even closer to the President’s wild brush ranch. Looks like the Mattlage family is just as fractious as the Sheehans.
What? Two members of the same family apparently disagree on a political matter? Michael Moore must be behind this too. It’s the only explanation that makes any sense.
Not only that, but it pokes holes in those juicy “All Texans are…” generalizations being flung about.
If you wanted to see if your shotgun actually worked (the firing pin actually detonates a primer in a shotshell), the best way to find out is to shoot it. This is an area of “large” properties (mini ranches) in a rural Texas. Even with a President as a neighbor, I don’t suspect that occassional gunfire would be unusual.
There was a 911 call involving a complaint (probably from some city slicker, peacnik, anti-gun liberal) of a shot fired in the vicinity of Bush’s ranch while he was there. Seems perfectly logical for SS to show up with local LE.
We do have the freedom to act irresponsibly in many ways as long as we aren’t breaking any laws. Even if what he did was a little irresponsible, it wasn’t enough to cause Local or Federal LE to arrest the guy.
Unregistered Bull
Yeah, I can see your point too. Things seemed to have turned out okay. Mattledge didn’t hurt anyone and the demonstrators found some private property where they are probably a lot safer and much less of an annoyance to the neighbors.
Incidentally, even though I call myself a Yankee liberal I do hold what some people might consider conservative views. (Just a few mind you). For example, I am not “anti-gun” and yes I even own some firearms. I just thought this was worth mentioning in case anyone thought I was speaking out against Mattledge only because he was a gun owner.
Wow, it is funny that I usually have friendlier postings in the Pit than I do in other categories of the SDMB.