Paul Hackett chases down 3 men and holds them until police arrive

[Ian_rd]

You shall NOT fuck with Paul Hackett!

Hackett part of gun incident
Police: Ex-candidate chased 3 after they crashed fence

<snip>

The incident happened around 4:30 a.m. Nov. 19. Police were called to Hackett's Indian Hill house after Fee failed to make a curve and ran into a fence at the home on Given Road, according to the police report.

When White arrived at the house, Hackett's wife, Suzi, told him that her husband had called her to say he had stopped the men on Keller Road.

White called for backup. He arrived at a driveway in the 8700 block of Keller Road to find the three men lying face down near their small, black car and Hackett's pickup truck. With a flashlight, White saw a strap on Hackett's right shoulder and "what appeared to be an assault rifle hanging along his right side," White's report said.

White told Hackett to put away the rifle and "not take things into his own hands."

<snip>

Hackett said he had followed a trail of fluid left by the car, and the vehicle stopped in a driveway. Hackett told police that he hopped out of his truck and that he was armed.

"He told the boys to 'Get the ---- out of the car and get on the ground.' ... He said he did not touch the vehicle with the rifle and maintained his distance. 'I knew they saw I was armed,' he said. He said he had done this about 200 times in Iraq, but this time there was not a translation problem," the Indian Hill police report said.

Full Story

[wicket]

1. Paul Hackett can takle me any time he wants!

:D :P

[ronnykmarshall]

50. Same here!

[No Exit]

207. A guy who can catch criminals and bring them to bay-- and we wouldn't elect him?

What better talent to look for in a democrat? Someone who can stop criminals?? A perfect attribute for ANYONE who would have to fight republicans daily!

[11cents]

2. No, one shouldn't f**k with irrational. violent people

If Hackett's politics were different, you would have no problem identifying this kind of behavior for what it is.

[Ian_rd]

6. It was not my intention to identify it beyond a little joke. But if you insist ...

I think Hackett's reaction was waaaay over the top. He could've easily turned a busted fence into a widowed wife and fatherless kids with that kind of cowboy bullshit.

[smoogatz]

74. Theirs or his?

Hackett's a battle-hardened Marine, armed w/ a fully loaded semi-auto assault rifle, up against a couple of dumbass drunk kids. He's going to win that confrontation every time.

[Ian_rd]

164. Doesn't matter

1. Being a trained and armed veteran doesn't make anyone invulnerable. If it did, there wouldn't be over 3,000 dead Americans so far in Iraq.

2. No matter if Hackett or those drunks got killed, the result would be same: One or more deaths over nothing more than a damaged fence. A ... fence.

I can understand it if this were a knee-jerk reaction by Hackett. In Iraq if someone attacked him, they would logically chase them down, because otherwise the attackers would come back again and perhaps kill/injure more people. But he needs to readjust and realize that he is back home, and anyone who intrudes on his territory is not bent on jihad.

[smoogatz]

171. It's not an Iraq thing.

It's a hillbilly thing. People in Southern Ohio get very tweaked about property crime and such. It's a lot like Kentucky or West Virginia down there in that regard. By the local standard, Hackett's reaction was right and admirable. I know this because I grew up in SE Ohio, which is socio-economically pretty much the same as SW Ohio.

[Randy Ranger]

250. Not so fast

He may be a battle hardened marine as you say but he is not above the law! He should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. There is no way he can justify his actions!

[smoogatz]

278. Under Ohio law, what Hackett did was entirely legal.

From the Ohio Revised code:

Ohio § 2935.04: "When any person may arrest"

"When a felony has been committed, or there is reasonable ground to believe that a felony has been committed, any person without a warrant may arrest another whom he has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the offense, and detain him until a warrant can be obtained."

All y'all freeptard concern trolls should try to relax yourselves. Hackett's a war hero, for God's sake. Don't you people have any respect?

[sniffa]

310. respect for insane vigiLantes? nope

[zonkers]

330. I'm sure you know about Florida's "shoot first" law (enacted in 05). Anyone may

use deadly force if they feel threatened in a place they are lawfully allowed to be (home, the mall, public street)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

313. Assault with a deadly weapon?

Tough to charge him with assault when he didn't actually assault anybody. From the newspaper account, he kept his distance until the police arrived. He Hackett actually shot one of the men, it would be an entirely different matter and I would agree that he should be charged.

But as it was, this was more than a little foolhardy. If these had been genuine bad asses, Mrs. Hackett could be a widow right now.

[bearfan454]

320. Not really

It depends on the state. In Tx you can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if the threat is even there, especially in Williamson County. Believe me, I know this for a fact.

[ManWroteTheBible]

238. You're blaming Hackett...

for his "busted fence"? Had the two handjobs who BROKE THE LAW in the first place, been at home with said wife or kids this incident wouldn't have happened. I would laud Hackett's actions (especially since there were NO SHOTS FIRED) whether he were on the Left or Right. It's the passive attitude that gives us (Dems) the "whimp" label. Had Hackett chased them down with a hail of bullets, that would have been over the top. Hackett stood up for himself. If Dems had done this from the beginning, we might have been able to feel what we felt Nov. 8, 2006 (the day after this round of mid-terms - for the uninitiated) back in Nov. 2004. The "librul media" claims Dems are "waaaay over the top" anytime Dems do defend themselves. Why do you?

[Ian_rd]

252. ...

"You're blaming Hackett for his "busted fence"?"

I stopped there. Try again without the misrepresentation of my comment.

[ManWroteTheBible]

259. ...

I was trying to illustrate how that simple little issue of a the "busted fence" (possibly due to DUI/DWI) could have easily been an issue of the "widowed" Mrs. Hackett and the "fatherless" Hackett children because the vehicle could have plowed through more than just the fence. You conveniently glossed over the actions of those who caused the damage. Not to mention the fact that they tried to flee. Had Hackett fired at them, or violated their rights in any way, THAT would have been "waaaay over the top". He didn't. He subdued (without actual physical violence, mind you) and detained. It seems you would just "turn the other cheek" in this situation and start mending your fence. I will certainly say that might make you more evolved than Mr. Hackett or myself. But what happens the next time they plow through someone's yard?

[Ian_rd]

316. My statement was very simple

My point was very simply this: By choosing to grab a gun and chase after these men, Hackett could have been killed. He didn't know anything about these men. They could have been armed and willing and ready to fire on Hackett. If these guys had been drinking, and their judgement impaired, what do you think is a probable reaction they would have to seeing someone chase them down with an assault rifle? Well, they might have decided that they were in danger and needed to defend themselves.

Just in case you missed it again, I am not in anyway excusing these men from their hit and run on Hackett's property. And just because Hackett was right to nab these guys (and I think he was) doesn't mean it was a good idea. And you're right in your assumption about what I would do. If it were me, I would have gone outside, looked at the fence, saw the fluid trail, but would have considered what to do instead of running inside and grabbing a gun (which I own). And I would have certainly decided that a busted fence was far better than what might happen if I decided to chase the perpetrator(s) down. I would have thought not only about my own life, but about my wife and kids, and in the end I would just suck it up.

Edit: Welcome to DU

[ManWroteTheBible]

325. ...

I don't know that I would be as level-headed as you in the heat of the moment. But I do agree that cooler heads do usually prevail. My point was that Hackett's response was halfway between "cowboy" and Buddha/Jesus and that it never would have happened in the first place had the "perps" been doing something a little more constructive than destructive.

On a side note, and this is "tin-foil hat" time, what if this were staged by Hackett - to show how "tough" AND "fair" he can be. And isn't that what we want in a leader? Again, just a "tin-foil hat" thought that I had.

And thanks for the welcome! I really love this site!

[smoogatz]

279. Excellent response.

Welcome to DU.

[zonkers]

328. Now we know Hackett's a whacko.. All he had to do was take a license plate # and maybe snap a foto

off. What if they had a gun and fired back. They or he could have gotten killed.

[jobycom]

9. Yes and no.

There's a difference between some NRA-zombie keeping an assault rifle in his house and chasing kids so he can play soldier, and a soldier keeping an assault rifle in his house and using it as he was trained to use it when he perceives a threat to his home--even if the threat turns out to be less serious than he may have worried. As a public figure, he's no doubt received his share of death threats, and may have been a bit more on edge than other people.

I agree, he'd have been wiser to follow, get a tag number, and call the cops. He ahd no way of predicting how the kids would react when he showed up. What if they'd attacked him, or tried to flee? Would shots have followed?

[rocktivity]

26. They sound more like immature and possibly drunk people to me

...(The police officer)...arrived at a driveway...to find the three men lying face down...(He) saw a strap on Hackett's right shoulder and "what appeared to be an assault rifle hanging along his right side..." (He)...told Hackett to put away the rifle and "not take things into his own hands."

...Hackett told police...that he was carrying an AR-15..(with)...one round...in the chamber...He also told police that he did not point the weapon at the three men, the safety was on and he never put his finger on the trigger. (He)...followed a trail of fluid left by the car...

"He told the boys to 'Get the ---- out of the car and get on the ground.' ... He said he did not touch the vehicle with the rifle and maintained his distance. 'I knew they saw I was armed,' he said. He said he had done this about 200 times in Iraq...(He)..."attempted to bring the perpetrators to justice who had fled from the scene..."

I see nothing unreasonable in Hackett's actions, and given the late hour plus the age of the car's occupants, it's also not unreasonable to wonder if there had been some drinking going on. As for you, Paul, I know what you did last summer.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Clark2008]

248. Add in the fact that Hackett is actually professionally trained

in both the use of a weapon of this sort and in how to difuse potentially harmful situations through his time in the service, and I also see absolutely nothing wrong with what he did.

Hackett's not some basement warrior from the 101st keyboard brigade. He's a professionally trained soldier.

[smoogatz]

70. It's hillbilly justice.

The way they do things in SW Ohio, regardless of their politics. Kinda scary, huh?

[BoneDaddy]

305. Actually I wouldn't although

you are probably correct in that some people would. I see a man defending his home and being a good citizen, be he republican or democrat. He is a trained soldier and reacted based upon that training. Now if he shot them execution style in the head I would be more apt to agree.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. I wonder if he'd had death threats or anything of that nature that would

make him edgy enough to keep an assault rifle in the house?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

13. An assault rifle is simply a rifle that "looks" extra scary.

Not a big deal really.

[Deep13]

52. That's an "assault weapon" which is vaguely defined. nt

[uberllama42]

44. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

It's basically the same as a hunting rifle. It's semi-automatic. An assault rifle is automatic. I don't know a whole lot about guns, but I think an AR-15 is more like a toy. I think people who want self-defense use handguns.

[smoogatz]

48. An AR-15 is NOT a toy.

It's basically the commercial version of the M16. In its semi-auto configuration, it can still fire as many rounds as are loaded into the magazine as fast as you can pull the trigger. Ar-15s are currently outlawed in several cities, and in the state of California.

[daveskilt]

126. also easily convertible to fully auto

slight modification to the pin and presto M16 - though jamming can be a bigger problem with this weapon.

[fooie]

194. Slight modification

is illegal.

[daveskilt]

274. disclaimer - I would never advocate anything illegal

modification of the pin or slide or any other part of a gun's mechanisms for the purpose of creating an automatic firing weapon is illegal and should under no circumstances be attempted by anyone. My earlier comment was purely theoretical and an indication of the type of thing that could be done by a person of questionable character who did not intend to obey the law.

[benEzra]

307. Not true...

guns easily converted to full auto are treated as full auto under Federal law, even if not actually converted, under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986. Possession of one without government authorization (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony.

AR-15 receivers are designed from the ground up to be difficult to convert to full auto, and conversion is as difficult as it would be for any other civilian self-loader.

It is possible to rig up any self-loader (pistol, rifle, shotgun) to slamfire before the bolt is locked home by welding the firing pin forward--is that what you're thinking of? That might work with a pistol or pistol-caliber carbine, but if you try that with a rifle, your problem won't be jamming, it will be likely destruction of the rifle, loss of eyesight and/or loss of your hand. Working pressure of a typical rifle cartridge (even the little .223) is in the neighborhood of 55,000 to 65,000 psi...

[krispos42]

336. Or you can just make your own submachine gun

And call it a day! Some seamless tubing, a little brazing, a few springs...

[fooie]

190. Assault weapons ban was stupid

It's bad law. It's based on cosmetics.

[uberllama42]

301. It was really an "assualt rifles" ban

An AR is defined as a fully automatic weapon with a rifle stock. Full-auto weapons with pistol grips were still legal under federal law. An automatic pistol could be just as deadly, because at a certain point more rounds per minute are just superfluous.

[benEzra]

308. All automatic weapons are controlled by the National Firearms Act,

not the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch. The assault weapons ban covered only non-automatic civilian firearms.

[Deep13]

49. Assault rifle=short auto-fed rifle with large capacity magazine.

Assault rifles fire short rifle cartidges like 0.223 and 0.308. This is opposed to a regular auto-fed rifle like the Garand which holds eight rounds of .30-06 or a sub machine gun which shoots pistol ammunition. By any reasonable definition, an AR-15 is an assault rifle. In fact it and the AK-47 are the text book definitions of it. It is essentially a clone of the military M-16, except it does not shoot in "fully automatic" mode.

on edit: correction on capacity of Garand. I was thinking of the Mini-14 when I wrote 5.

[Billy Ruffian]

75. M-1 Garand holds eight rounds

'Assault weapon' just means 'scary looking black gun'

[Marie26]

77. This one held 30 rounds, had 28 rounds loaded. nt

[Deep13]

85. 30 is the Federal limit for civilians. Ohio has no limit on capacity.

[krispos42]

137. There is no federal limit for civilians

You can get a 90-round drum magazine for an AR-15 for Mini-14 if you want to deal with the bulk of it.

[Deep13]

142. Really? maybe I have it backwards or am thinking of another state.

Since nothing I have comes close to that capacity, I have never had to be sure about it.

[krispos42]

155. Oh, yeah. Depending on state

The Sportman's Guide has up to 40-round magazine for the Mini-14, and if really want to burn up your barrel...



http://www.arizonagunrunners.com/Products/mwgcompany/mini14-90roundmag/mini14-90roundmag.html

[jeanarrett]

128. Had 1 round loaded

28 possible.

Read the article.

[Marie26]

133. Reading the article

"During the investigation, Hackett told police Nov. 30 that he was carrying an AR-15. He said one round was in the chamber and that he usually has 28 rounds in the magazine."

I have NO IDEA how guns work, and don't want to, but it sounds like one round was in the chamber, & 27 more were in the magazine of the gun. No?

[krispos42]

143. Sound right

Often times people who keep guns ready for action, like Hackett, won't fully load the magazine. The fear is that the magazine spring might weaken during long-term storage, resulting in a jam if the gun has to be used. So they leave a few rounds out.

[-..__...]

329. That's a myth.

Loading 28 or 30 isn't going to put any more or less strain or weaken the spring.

The benefit of underloading the mag is that it's easier to insert with the bolt closed.

[benEzra]

309. You are correct. (n/t)

[Deep13]

79. Right on "weapon", but assault rifle is pretty well defined.

[daveskilt]

154. assualt weapon like the Kill-O-Zap gun

The Kill-O-Zap™ gun is a long, silver mean-looking device, the designers of which decided to make it totally clear that it had a right end, and a wrong end, and if that meant sticking blacked and evil-looking devices and prongs all over the wrong end, so be it.


Douglas Adams died too young

[chrisbur]

246. I'm certainly no expert

but I think you mean a Ruger Mini 30 when you said Mini 14. A Mini 14 fires a .223 just like the AR-15. Anyway, what I really wanted to say was that a .223 round is kind of small, fast and pokes holes. The bare minimum you would really want to shoot a deer with and be certain of death and kind of a bad round for law enforcement type activity. Now an AK has some concussion.

[Pierre.Suave]

81. You Are extremely uninformed

about what is and isnt an assault rifle, and what and AR-15 is.

The AR-15 is a civilian version of the M-16, used by the military. The M-16 is NOT fully automatic. it has 2 modes of fire, single shot and 3 shot burst.

you obviously do not know a lot about guns, you should not comment on things you know nothing about.

[vincent_vega_lives]

116. M16 and M16A1 certainly are fully automatic

The M16A2 on has the 3-rd burst.

[Pierre.Suave]

236. The Military

does not use that model. It wastes ammunition.

[vincent_vega_lives]

322. The Military includes

The Army National Guard, and they still use M16A1s in units.

[Pierre.Suave]

237. you are telling me this like I dont know...

they Military doesnt use full auto rifles anymore, they found they waster ammunition and dont hit anything.

[vincent_vega_lives]

323. The M4A1 Carbine used by SOCOM is fully automatic

As is the M16A3

[krispos42]

146. For legal purposes, the 3-round burst is considered fully automatic

Semi-auto is one-shot-per-trigger-pull, automatic is more-than-one-shot-per-trigger-pull. Therefore, the 3-round burst is by definition automatic, even though it is not fully-automatic.

[krispos42]

130. No, it is what the Brady people call an 'assault weapon'

A semi-automatic rifle that has military roots and looks 'scary', and therefore is a weapon of mass destruction that needs to be banned before the streets are red with blood. Or so the Bradys feel, at least. Can't let inconvienent facts cloud that mentality, can we?

Regardless, it is not a toy. It fires the exact same ammunition the M-16 fires. In fact, soldiers are prevented by law from using anything but non-expanding bullets. Civilians can.

The choice of a self-defense gun is complex. People who carry concealed firearms carry pistols or revolvers, as it is the only practical choice. People who keep a gun for home defense may choose a rifle, shotgun, or handgun, depending on circumstances.

Hackett chose the closest thing he could to the rifle he was trained by the US government to use to protect himself, his squadmates, and his country: the AR-15. And since he was outside in an open environment, I cannot fault his choice of weapons.

[montanto]

182. AR-15

Assault Rifle-15 is the same construction as a military M-16. It can very easily be converted to full automatic mode.

[BrightKnight]

231. He chose the weapon he knows and trusts.

I have gone backpacking a few times with my uncle who was a Marine in Vietnam. He always carries a military poncho with him. It is heavy and unnecessary but it makes him comfortable. He knows that no matter what happens he can survive with his poncho.

I would not make too much out of the particular weapon he chose to carry. Brass knuckles or a 22 short could be just as deadly.

[scrinmaster]

276. AR is from ArmaLite, not Assault Rifle.

Converting to full auto is a federal felony, 10 years in PMITA prison and a big fine.

[Ikonoklast]

281. Wrong

The AR-15 is not easily converted, unless you are a very skilled gunsmith and/or machinist. The M-16 has an entirely different receiver.

I own and shoot an AR-15 Carbine. I also own an AR-180, which was one of ArmaLite Arms earlier entries into the semi-automatic government spec rifle.

[sendero]

302. An AR-15..

.... is by no means a toy, it is a serious weapon that fires a seriously deadly round (.223).

Hackett did the right thing. Folks who think otherwise should hide under their mommy's skirt.

[benEzra]

306. The AR-15 is probably the most popular centerfire target rifle in America.

I'm not surprised he owns one.

[jobycom]

4. If he doesn't get back into politics, he could wind up being the next Audie Murphy!

Interesting man, isn't he? I love the line "He said he had done this about 200 times in Iraq, but this time there was not a translation problem."

[11cents]

7. Yeah, he's a real hero

He'd tracked the truck down and could have gotten the license # and called the cops -- but he did what a real man would do, get out the assault rifle and make a few assholes fear for their lives unnecessarily. Just like he did in Iraq?

[jobycom]

12. Interestingly, I said almost the same thing in my response to your post.

There's no question he has a larger-than-life personality, though, which was my point about the movies.

[IdaBriggs]

92. The perpetrators would have gotten away with it, which means

having learned there are "no consequences" for drunk driving, etc., they most likely would be hurting someone else later on.

With drunk driving, its not usually a case of "if" but "when." It takes a lot of moral courage to stand up like Paul Hacket did.

[Marie26]

95. Except they weren't drunk

Sorry to be so annoying about this.

[RaleighNCDUer]

114. They weren't drunk? You know this?

Does that mean they deliberatly ran over his fence? Maybe he had reason to carry a weapon in trying to find out who they were?

[Marie26]

119. Please show me any evidence they were.

They were taken by police at the scene - police routinely test drivers in traffic violations for signs of intoxication. Especially that last at night, the driver would've been tested for DUI. The driver was not charged w/DUI, and the article does not mention anything about him being intoxicated. Teenage drivers get into accidents all the time, because they're careless, not necessarily because they're drunk.

[krispos42]

134. Drunkeness was not an unreasonable operating conclusion

And I doubt Hackett was going to give a field sobriety test or get close enough to sniff breath.

He held the situation frozen until the authorities showed up. Nobody escaped, nobody threw away drugs or guns or other contraband.

works for me.

[Marie26]

174. Police on the scene immediately

NO DUI arrests, no reports of drunken behavior. This is a non-starter. The operating conclusion was that Hackett held some teens at gunpoint soley because they hit his fence. He trailed them blocks from his house - where they posed no danger to him, his family, or his stuff. The operating conclusion is that Hackett acted this way not out of self-defense, but because he was angry, armed, and wanted to kick ass. It's like an action movie! No wonder his got so many defenders - vigilante justice is an American ideal.

[AndreaCG]

256. I agree

Saying Oh he lives in southern Ohio and that's how they act is no excuse.

[Kodiaz]

332. Criminal scum should live in fear

Criminal garbage should fear law abiding citizens.

I'll never understand why democrats want citizens to fear criminals.

[oasis]

345. "Democrats want citizens to fear criminals".??? Are you quoting Limbaugh or Beck?

:shrug:

[Botany]

5. Paul is one tough S.O.B.

And one day I hope he will be President too.

I went to a meet up w/ him last winter and he was amazing .... he answered
every question with no b.s.. Unlike so many other people from all sides of
the spectrum.

[cui bono]

41. Um... I don't think I want my president behaving that way.

How would you have reacted if W did that? Same thoughts?

I think Hackett's heart and soul are in the right place, but he needs to learn to curb his emotional responses if he's going to be in politics.

[WatchWhatISay]

139. W is a drugstore cowboy - he only talks tough.

He would probably have gotten on a plane and flown half a country away.

[krispos42]

149. I trust Dubya with a loaded gun as much as I trust Cheney

Dubya is a proven incompetent, Cheney is proven to be bad at target identification. Enough said.

[No Exit]

214. Well... IF my president had been in combat,

I might make allowances for his having certain residual effects from that experience!

As we all know, Dumbya has never been anywhere near combat, nor any meaningful actual military service.

All in all, I would think Hackett is much more capable of carrying this off safely than would be a buffoon like Dumbya.

BTW, while Dumbya, the bubble boy, never did anything like this, we did have that little, er, unfortunate incident about Cheney and the gun. The difference is, Cheney hurt an innocent person, while Hackett did not cause the slightest harm to three persons who are not entirely innocent.

It's also possible that Hackett's catching them saved them from a later, fatal, wreck. Running into the fence may have been only a prelude, because it sounds like the driver was seriously messed up on alcohol or some other substance.

[VelmaD]

217. this drunk driving angle has been repeatedly smacked down

The driver was not charged with DUI. It's in the article linked in the OP exactly what he was charged with. Go read.

[RaleighNCDUer]

286. There are a lot of reasons a kid might not be charged with DUI,

and many have nothing to do with the level of alcohol in his system, and a lot to do with small town politics.

If he was the sheriff's nephew, or the mayor's son, or some such relation, he'd never be charged. If he was on the HS football team, they wouldn't want to ruin his chance for college with such a rap. If there was doubt about who was really driving (the drunk kid pointing to the sober one saying "It wasn't me - honest!) and the sober friend might take a reckless driving rap to save his drunk friend from a DUI, could the police claim otherwise?

THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION HERE TO CONDEMN HACKETT.

He may have honestly believed that this was a direct attack upon his home and family - he has, no doubt, received numerous death threats since he stood up to oppose *.

I can't believe that so many here are ready to pile on this guy.

[Marie26]

317. Also,

if he is a famous attorney/Iraq war veteran/hero, the local police might be more forgiving of his actions. Also a possibility, no? I don't anticipate any charges against Hackett, but that doesn't mean what he did was kosher. We have to go only on the actual facts of the story - not hypotheticals constructed to give cover. IMO, people can feel free to condemn or support him based on that.

[Catherine Vincent]

8. He doesn't want to be a hero like that.

He could have been killed.

[Rosemary2205]

10. What? No posts about Hackett being a nazi gun nut?

I'm shocked I tell ya. Shocked.

Seriously though, I like Hackett, but chasing someone down with an assault rifle for running into the fence in front of my house (a dark curvy street BTW) seems a little extreme.

[malaise]

14. Bingo n/t

[krispos42]

67. He was investigating an incident late at night and on his property

And he took the best precaution that he could, a semi-automatic rifle that he was intimately familiar with.

If the three teens had decided they didn't want any witnesses to their (possibly) drunken accident and had decided to beat him into unconciousness so they could get away, is that somehow better than Hackett preparing for the unknown?

There is a disturbing trend to think that taking preparations and actions to protect yourself is somehow both worse and morally wrong than simply assuming the situation is harmless and jumping into it with both feet.

[No Exit]

216. Maybe he's still suffering from some effects of his Iraq service.

None of us can imagine what it has really been like for those who have actually had to go and fight these neocon bastards' insane war(s). Will the Chimperor pay for Hackett to go to therapy??

[Lasher]

11. The cops don't like it when you take matters into your own hands like this.

After all it's their job to tell you they don't have anyone to send and that they can't do anything unless they personally saw the criminals actually do it.

[northshore]

15. It's the tip of the iceberg

First, thank God that this whack job didn't get elected. He was in NO WAY "defending" his home or family blocks away from what was simply a traffic accident. This maniac decided to take the law into his own hands, track down some people who were GUILTY of nothing yet, and at worst traffic violations, and wield a semi automatic weapon in a residential area to affect an illegal apprehension.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he needs to be in an insane asylum instead of the jail cell he would be in if he were a 21 year old black man.

But, more importantly, I shudder to think of haw many more incidents like this we will see as more and more mentally unstable vets come home from Iraq.

Hackett didn't protect his family. All he did was paint all Iraq war veterans as "manchurian candidates" waiting to go berserk.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

22. Hackett is NOT a whack job BUT if he were a repug the freepers

would be collecting money as we type to erect a statue in his honor. Since he is a Dem then he must be crazy. I don't like citizens taking the law into their own hands but until ALL the facts are known I will reserve judgment. A news blurb isn't usually the best spot for getting all of the details of an incident.

And no, he did not paint all Iraq war veterans as "manchurian candidates" waiting to go berserk on anyone's ass - only in the minds of some people who CHOOSE to see it that way.

And I STILL wish he had been elected.

[Ian David]

28. He took an oath to defend America from all enemies, foreign and domestic

Drunk drivers are a domestic enemy.

He was trained to interdict in a "police action" in Iraq.

Considering that drunk drivers kill more people than terrorists do, I'd say he did a damned fine job protecting the public from someone who could have killed others, further down the road.

But on the other hand, see my later post-- he did a very BAD job protecting his own family.

What if the people who crashed his fence had been a diversionary tactic to get him out of the house, so they could get at his family?

[Marie26]

33. The driver wasn't drunk.

Again. Are drivers who hit fences on a curvy road also a "domestic enemy"?

[Ian David]

36. You're either with the fences, or you're giving aid and comfort to the curvy roads. n/t

[uberllama42]

58. That's a good one. n/t

[Marie26]

61. Touche. nt

[IdaBriggs]

125. Ah, just common vandals then, driving around other people's

neighborhoods at 4:30 a.m. and pulling "hit and run" traffic accidents for the heck of it.

:eyes:

My opinion doesn't change; criminals. :)

[Kutjara]

245. When we were growing up, my cousin...

...used to brag to me about how he and his friends would take their trucks out on Friday nights and "tear up people's lawns." Favorite "pranks" were knocking over mailboxes, destroying fences and spinning wheels on the grass. My cousin, who was then and continues to be an idiot, thought this was the funniest thing ever. He wasn't worried about the cops, because he knew they never patrolled "safe" neighborhoods, so he was unlikely to be caught.

Whether Hackett's actions were appropriate or excessive, I know how I'd feel if some clowns committed criminal damage on my property and then drove off into the night.

[Kindigger]

46. Good post

sums up my thoughts exactly!:thumbsup:

[mongo]

51. If it had been a 21yo black man holding the rifle

he would have been shot dead by the cops.

[maxsolomon]

240. 21 year old black men stay out of Indian Hill

they're not crazy. they'd get shot for just driving past hackett's house.

i have to agree with the SW ohio hillbilly justice poster - i grew up in Cincy, too.

[JacksonWest]

55. A 21 year old black man wouldn't be in jail. He would have been shot.

If cops in the midwest see a black man holding an assault rifle near three white people at 4:30 in the morning, he's deader than dead.

[IA_Seth]

59. Halle-freakin-lujah!

A young minority with a gun (in his hands or not) holding 3 young white kids? D-e-a-d.

I am all for gun rights, I own em myself, but I don't think they should be used by civilians to enforce traffic laws.

[RaleighNCDUer]

111. Maybe, maybe not.

Hackett is, after all, a very public figure who aroused the animosity of thousands of freepers - how was he to know this was kids driving drunk, and not a bit of RW terrorism, unless he did what he could to catch them? The article says he never pointed the rifle at anyone - it was ready, just in case, but he didn't act precipitously, and didn't endanger anyone, unlike the drunk kids. It doesn't say so, but no doubt his wife was on the phone to the cops as he was headed out the door - otherwise, how did they show up so quickly.

Sounds like he did the minimum necessary to protect his family and the community.

[ellenfl]

16. i don't have a problem with what hackett did.

he sounded pretty responsible to me. he IS an officer of the court.

ellen fl

[Marie26]

42. He is NOT an officer of the court.

Huh?

[Deep13]

54. Lawyers are officers of the court.

That doesn't make him a cop, but so what?

[Marie26]

64. Oh, yeah

Lets get a posse of armed lawyers together! That's the ticket. Being a lawyer, like being a veteran, does not give someone the power to hold people at gunpoint at will. Being a cop does (w/probable cause), but, as you point out, he was not one. I'm a little stunned that people would seek to justify this behavior.

[Deep13]

73. No, not at will, but a private citizen does have the right to hold...

...a criminal suspect until the police arrive.

Armed band of lawyers? That sounds pretty funny, actually.

[Rex]

17. Not the guy you want to crash into his yard.

'He said he had done this about 200 times in Iraq, but this time there was not a translation problem'

Sorry but...:rofl:

[Ian David]

21. He's lucky the COPS didn't shoot him. n/t

[Rex]

53. True.

I can smell the machismo from 5 states away!

[progressoid]

18. Gee, I have homeowners insurance for that.

[9119495]

Yeah, but in this economy, who can afford the deductable?

n/t

[Marie26]

19. What a bully

This story just confirms my negative impression of the guy.

[smoogatz]

103. I disagree.

He's got a wife and young kids, and his property's invaded at 4:00 a.m. by destructive, dangerous, out-of-control idiots in a car. I'm not sure I'd do the same thing under the circumstances, but I can't say that what he did was wrong. He had a problem, and he dealt with it. No one got hurt. That seems like a pretty satisfactory outcome, IMO.

On edit: but then, I grew up in SE Ohio, which has pretty much the same socio-economics going on as SW Ohio. So I guess my hillbilly tendencies should be taken into a ccount.

[Marie26]

129. Baloney

Property invaded? The kids did not rob his house - they hit a fence along the road. Property invasion is a big stretch there - it's probably not even trespassing. They were long-gone by the time Hackett got out his assault rifle, got in his car, and hunted them down like they were insurgents or something. He was LUCKY nobody got hurt.

[smoogatz]

You're not from Southern Ohio, I guess.

Hackett's reaction was fairly subdued, as things tend to go in those parts. Just curious--where are you from?

[Marie26]

138. Northern Ohio

We're much more civilized up there. :)

[smoogatz]

141. Yep.

You guys would probably call the cops BEFORE jumping into your pickup truck with a loaded rifle. I reckon that's one way of doing things. But it ain't the hillbilly way.

[dogday]

144. That is incorrect-- The fence was on his property

so please get it right.. I admitted to mine

chased down three men in a car after it crashed into a fence at his home in the early morning hours of Nov. 19.

[Marie26]

153. It depends

That's why I said it's probably not trespassing. Fences along roadways can be constructed by the homeowner, or the state. The land along the road might be owned by the homeowner, or the state. We don't know. Even if it was owned by Hackett, this is a really weak trespassing case. They hit the fence & moved on. What, 5 seconds of trespass? No one would bring trespassing charges on that. Now, destruction of property, yes. But I think it's way overblown for people to talk about how they were invading his property and endangering his family!" The basic lesson, I think, is that Americans will defend our property to the death. Maybe a little bit of pioneer mentality left in all of us.

[dogday]

159. Crashed into a fence at his home

It is that simple

[No Exit]

218. Wouldn't a "bully" have been GREAT at opposing repukelicans in congress?

Haven't many persons on here been wailing for years that "our democrats have no spine"??

[Marie26]

318. Not really

Bullies are loose cannons, driven by their own insecurities & aggressions. There is a big difference between bullying and courage - and most bullies are cowards at heart. Democrats do need someone w/courage to stand up to the Bush Adm., but IMO there's some courageous Dems in Congress already (Leahy, Kucinich, Feingold, etc.)

[IdaBriggs]

20. Three cheers for him! Hope he scared the crap out of those idiots!

Sounds like he handled things like a hero. :)

I hate criminals, and drunk driving is up there as far as I'm concerned. The little shits would have gotten away with it, too, based on everything I've ever seen or heard -- all they had to do was get into the house, and the police wouldn't have been able to "prove" anything. (Yup, I personally know a guy who did that -- walked away from his vehicle drunk as a skunk, got home somehow, and claimed to know "nothing" when the cops showed up -- AND he was still drunk. Also there is the drunk guy who hit my parents, walked away from his car to his house leaving a clear trail in the new snow, who got away with it, too.)

You send a man to war, expect a warrior to come back. It sort of reminds me of that scene in "Crocodile Dundee" where a mugger flashes a knife, and the hero scornfully pulls out a "real" knife. Loved that!

Yeah, yeah, it would have been "smarter" to do the cops thing, but this sounds like a lot more effective way of handling the situation. Three cheers for Paul! Woo Hoo!

:woohoo:

[Marie26]

23. What if it'd been a car

of little old ladies who hit that fence? Or you? Hitting a fence is not criminal behavior, it's a traffic violation. It does not merit having a (loaded?) assault rifle pointed at you by some vigilante. BTW, there's absolutely no evidence that the driver was drunk.

[Ian David]

25. If they hit his fence, they may have been drunk. Getting them off the road could save lives. n/t

[Marie26]

31. The driver was not charged with DUI

If you read the article, the driver was not charged w/drunk driving, only failure to maintain control. Those kids were caught immediately after Hackett stopped them, and would be given breathalyzer tests as soon as police arrested them. They were not intoxicated. Why do we need to make up false hypotheticals here?

Hey, they could have been drunk drivers, but they weren't. They could have been someone w/high blood pressure who has a heart attack when an assault rifle is pointed at them, too. But they weren't. On the actual facts of this case, Hackett's actions were entirely reckless, IMO.

[Ian David]

35. I would say they were JUSTIFIABLY Reckless.

It was a bad idea, but it wasn't bad enough to be wrong.

[Marie26]

37. Why was it justified?

Under the actual facts of this case, why was chasing down a car that hit his fence w/an assault weapon justified?

[Monomorphic]

66. Yeah.. but they certainly left the scene of an accident.

RIGHT??? That's always suspicious. Bet they were high on Meth.

[Marie26]

68. Uh-huh

Let's construct fantasy scenarios. They could have been terrorists, too, right?

[Monomorphic]

69. Better safe than sorry... lolz

[rocktivity]

118. They left the scene of an accident

without so much as leaving a note as to where they could be contacted for insurance purposes. That's why I don't have any sympathy for them, especially if they weren't drunk.

:headbang:
rocknation

[VelmaD]

152. they were teenagers...

18 and 19 year olds...you telling me you didn't do anything stupid and then try to hide it when you were that age?

I would imagine most kids that age would have tried to keep on going.

[motocicleta]

243. I did stupid shit and tried to cover it up.

But I never left the scene of an accident, or tried to get away with destroying someone's property - at least not without the type of intentions that sometimes result in being chased by an armed man. You hit something at 4:30am with your car and run away, you're absolutely taking the chance a gun is about to be pointed at you.

Geography is important context here. Going after those kids somewhere else (say, a major metropolitan area, maybe in a rough neighborhood) would be idiocy enough, much less being armed when you do so. But in Hackett's setting, you have to go after them to make sure they don't do something worse, and you're an idiot if you don't bring along a weapon if you legally have one available.

[mtnester]

326. Ohio grants the RIGHT to refuse ANY type of drug an alcohol testing

to ANY driver pulled over. It is not a right of the police, in the State of Ohio, state cops, or local cops, to do a breathalyzer or blood draw. You can refuse. There are some consequences, like immediately losing your DL if you refuse, but they cannot refuse to allow you restricted loss of DL (i.e. you can drive to and from work only, to and from a doctor's appointment or hospital, etc).

So, the assumption that the cops would have immediately performed a breathalyzer is untrue, it would have been dependent on the people involved, and/or the parents decision, if they were under age. In Ohio, it is simply not the end all and be all of the law.

[Marie26]

343. Implied consent.

Ohio, like most states, assumes that you have consented to chemical testing by driving on the state's roadways. Sure, the driver can refuse a breath test, but if he does, the driver's license is immediately suspended, he's hit w/a fine, and the police can still charge the driver w/DUI if there's other signs of drunkenness (like, say, hitting a fence.) The penalties are steep either way. Technically, yes, you can refuse a breath test, but the law will subject you to punishment anyway. The officer can also note that on his report, and that info can be used during a DUI trial. But there's no evidence of that in this case. The officer didn't charge the driver w/DUI because there wasn't probable cause to indicate that that violation had occurred.

[mtnester]

344. I was not jumping on any previous DUI accusations

only replying to this and clarifying this portion of your post:

"...and would be given breathalyzer tests as soon as police arrested them"

Simply not true in Ohio...and I did address in my post the loss of license and consequences of refusal. Most attorneys in Ohio will tell you to refuse....due to the simple fact that legal intoxication limits do not necessarily present with apparent signs. It is much easier, if you are barely over the limit, to win your case in court, unless you were obviously intoxicated with other presenting symptoms, likely presented via video tape from either the scene (patrol vehicle) or any holding area an actual arrest would have landed you in.

I was simply making the Ohio law clear Implied consent does not automatically guarantee an immediate breathalyzer...the right to refusal exists in Ohio and as such there is no assumption or claim that any type of test would have been immediately, automatically performed.

Again, I am not speaking to any actions of Hackett or the kids, only Ohio's laws.

[ieoeja]

96. Any car on the road at any time MAY have a drunk driver.

Getting all those cars off the road could save lives.

[maxsolomon]

242. calling for a curfew?

that's SO indian hill.

[IdaBriggs]

148. The minute they drove away from the scene of the "accident" they

became criminals. I don't care if they were little old ladies, or drunken teenagers -- its against the law to "flee" an accident scene.

If they weren't drunk, why flee? Oh, that's right -- they didn't want to get caught. Now, why didn't they want to get caught? Usually its because they are either a) drunk (which makes sense at 4:30 a.m.), b) operating a vehicle illegally, or c) committing vandalism on purpose (which is a crime).

He never pointed the gun at them according to the report. But he did stop them from continuing to behave in an illegal manner (by not taking responsibility for their "accident").

What you see as "vigilante justice" I see as "heroic moral responsibility." I wish more people would step up to help stop crimes in progress. I think its what RESPONSIBLE citizens do. Plus, as a combat veteran, Mr. Hackett has been trained in these kinds of procedures; everything came out fine -- guilty parties apprehended (and hopefully scared into not being stupid criminals in the future), and everybody safe.

[motocicleta]

241. I'm guessing little old ladies wouldn't have fled the scene. eom

[windbreeze]

253. LOL....literally LOL at these posts....

Now don't you think a car full of little old ladies would have stopped, after hitting the fence??? Somehow, I just can't imagine little old ladies taking off down the street, after hitting his fence...but then...if they'd had a wild night on the town, and wanted to meet Paul Hackett, maybe this would have been a plan to get his attention...??? LOL
wb

[Marie26]

319. You never know

My car was hit in the parking lot by a little old (confused) man, who promptly tried to back off & leave, threw the car in the wrong gear, and hit my car again! Maybe I'm cynical, but little old ladies leave the scene too. So do nice suburban couples. My point is that you can't know who's driving that car - little old Hackett groupies or armed MS-13 gang members. Which is why it isn't a good idea to provoke a confrontation w/them.

[benEzra]

311. Didn't point the rifle at anybody, per the article. (n/t)

[Ian David]

24. Worst-case scenario

Step 1- Crazed Republickers crash into Hackett's fence and drive away.
Step 2- Hackett grabs gun and chases them.
Step 3- Black SUV full of other crazed Republickers pulls into Hackett's driveway.
Step 4- While Hackett is chasing the fence-crashers, the Republickers in the Black SUV kill his entire family.

In other words, if crashing into the fence had been a diversionary tactic by an organized group, his family would have been dead.

Unless, perhaps, his wife is a gun-toting Marine veteran, too?

[Marie26]

29. Worst-case scenario #2

That doesn't seem very likely. What's more likely is

1. Kids crash into fence
2. Hackett chases after them w/assault weapon
3. Kid makes a sudden movement in the car, and Hackett, trained as a soldier, shoots first & asks questions later. Innocent kid dies.

OR

3. Kid makes sudden movement for a real gun, and a shootout ensues, killing Hackett.

Both of these scenarios were very possible outcomes of this behavior.

[Ian David]

30. I think it's more likely he would have been shot by nervous cops arriving on the scene. n/t

[Marie26]

32. Also a possibility

Especially because his assault rifle was seen by the cops. He was very lucky. And, as someone else has mentioned, if he was a 21-year-old black man in that situation, he might easily have been shot.

[krispos42]

72. Your 'or' is a not a good example

If the kids had a gun and did not want to leave any witnesses, then they would have engaged in a firefight regardless of whether or not Hackett was armed.

At least armed, there was a possibility of "Kid grabs gun from car, gunfight ensues, Hackett wins".

[Marie26]

82. Either way, someone dies.

From a traffic violation. I don't see how your hypothetical is really any better.

[krispos42]

117. Because the person in the wrong dies

That's the difference.

The kid who pulled a gun and tried to kill a homeowner investigating a crash on his property is dead, not the intended victim.

The hypotheical death of the teen is not due to Hackett going on a rampage over a destroyed fence. It is the teen trying to kill a witness to an event.

If Hackett had shot all of the people in the car because Hackett lost his white picket fence, that is obviously wrong.

If Hackett had shot a person trying to shoot him, that is obviously right.

Both are obviously tragic, but only one is right.

[Marie26]

132. Oh, goody.

At least people who are wrong die. You're overlooking that the best way to avoid all that tragedy is to not go around aiming weapons at people.

[krispos42]

163. Excellent point- almost

If criminals did that, fewer of them would be shot.

Oh, wait, criminals are rarely shot by either the police or armed citizens. Most people shot were unarmed innocents murdered BY criminals!

So please tell me how nobody but the police fighing crime makes society safer? They're trying that in the UK, and in the past 40 years the homicide rate has doubled. Despite 4 million public-area security cameras monitored 24/7 by the police.

In the same amount of time our homicide rate is down by 11%. And we own all those evil assault weapons and handguns.

[Monomorphic]

98. Worst Case Scenario #3

1. Kids get away scott free
2. They make it home and finish doing their meth
3. They buy more meth
4. Money from drug sale finds its way into Terrorist hands
5. Said money is used to purchase small tactical nuclear weapon
6. Nuclear weapon is detonated somewhere in urban america
7. USA assumes its a Russian assault
8. USA launches all nuclear weapons
9. Russia launches all nuclear weapons
10. Cephalopods inherit the Earth

[Marie26]

198. Also probable.

Maybe Hackett saved the earth w/his quick-thinking? We'll never know.

[IdaBriggs]

157. Except they stopped being innocent when they fled the scene of an accident.

Now, if you'd said STUPID kid dies, I'd have agreed with that, but not innocent. And that would have been a high price to pay for being stupid. Those kids are lucky, and hopefully they have learned a valuable lesson for the future:

You never know who you are screwing with. Never. So don't screw with people.

[Rosemary2205]

34. Time to pack up the Play Station

sounds like you've played one video game too many.

[Ian David]

38. You don't think there was a Health Pack inside the car? n/t

[northshore]

27. The RNC is open, ya know...

For all of you who are defending this nutjob, the Republican party is accepting new members.

Do you really expect me to believe if Joe Scarborough had done this, you wouldn't be screaming for blood?

As a veteran with several guns and a CCW permit let me say that part of the right of gun ownership is the responsibility of gun ownership. Hackett acted irresponsibly and outside of any law. No private citizen has the right to chase down another with automatic weapons. It's pretty simple and by no means long division.

he needs treatment and he needs to have his guns taken away.

[smoogatz]

47. Right.

If you're "a veteran with several guns and a CCW permit," then you must know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Hackett's AR-15 is obviously of the latter variety--perfectly legal there in SW Ohio. As were his actions in chasing down and holding the two young lawbreakers--who represented a danger to themselves and the community.

No, we'll keep him right here in the Democratic party, thank you very freeping much. This incident will only enhance his image in his home district, where he's likely to run again for Congress--and win--in 2008.

[northshore]

101. cite please...

Please cite the Ohio law that allows private citizens to pursue perpatrators of non violent property crimes wit assault weapons.

I won't hold my breath.

[smoogatz]

124. Ohio § 2935.04. When any person may arrest.

From the Ohio Revised code:

"When a felony has been committed, or there is reasonable ground to believe that a felony has been committed, any person without a warrant may arrest another whom he has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the offense, and detain him until a warrant can be obtained."

Also:

§ 2935.06. Duty of private person making arrest.

"A private person who has made an arrest pursuant to section 2935.04 of the Revised Code or detention pursuant to section 2935.041 <2935.04.1> of the Revised Code shall forthwith take the person arrested before the most convenient judge or clerk of a court of record or before a magistrate, or deliver such person to an officer authorized to execute criminal warrants who shall, without unnecessary delay, take such person before the court or magistrate having jurisdiction of the offense. The officer may, but if he does not, the private person shall file or cause to be filed in such court or before such magistrate an affidavit stating the offense for which the person was arrested."

Happy now, Smartass? I've got an idea--how about you cite the Ohio law that Hackett broke. Or shut the fuck up.

[SoCalDem]

184. Is hitting a fence a felony? n/t

[VelmaD]

186. not according to the article...

linked in the OP. It specificially states is was a misdemeanor.

[dogday]

191. Leaving the scene of an accident is

Reckless driving while license is under already under suspension....


Let's face it this kid's driving days are over....

[smoogatz]

197. Bingo.

Hackett also had reason to believe they were DUI--also a felony.

[AndreaCG]

257. DUIs aren't necessarily felonies. IN NYS they are misdemeanors

unless you have priors or there are other circumstances. And leaving the scene is not a felony either. Just finished a trial where a defendant was charged with both.

And these kids were not DUI anyway.

[smoogatz]

258. Let's try that again:

"When a felony has been committed, or there is reasonable ground to believe that a felony has been committed, any person without a warrant may arrest another whom he has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the offense, and detain him until a warrant can be obtained."

"Reasonable ground to believe a felony has been committed" leaves the door open in this case, I'm pretty sure. Hackett's a lawyer, and I'd be surprised if he wasn't well acquainted with the Ohio Revised Code in all its particulars.

[ProudDad]

298. He may be a lawyer

but the dickwad's not a COP. He's just another fucked up gun freak...

(My girlfriend, the nurse is more kind -- she says "he's obviously PTSD'd out and needs help!"

[Marie26]

187. Hitting a fence isn't a felony

It's a misdemeanor - Hackett wouldn't be covered by that law. He'd have to argue that he reasonably thought hitting a fence was a felony; but that might be difficult for a lawyer to claim.

If he isn't covered by that statute, it could be considered a false imprisonment or assault.

[SoCalDem]

193. While I understand he was pissed, the way he acted was very Bush-ian

There might even be a law against vigilante-ism. I doubt that he would be charged, but i can see so many ways this whole thing could have ended very badly... all were very lucky :)

[No Exit]

221. Maybe we SHOULD have put this "vigilante" in congress! What better type of person

to deal daily with republican CRIMINALS??

[Marie26]

225. Agreed. nt

[cmd]

255. SoCal, that's why I could not support him in the primary

He behaves too much like Bush. This only confirms my belief.

[smoogatz]

263. Well, he could have just fucking shot them in the head.

Now THAT would be an incident for the concern trolls to wring their hands over. Oh my my, yes.

[krispos42]

337. Cheneyize da bastids! That'll learn 'em! lmao n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

287. No, he could argue he reasonably thought the driver was DUI,

and the driver then compounded that with fleeing the scene. Don't know about Ohio, but I know in many states, including NC, DUI is an automatic felony.

[motocicleta]

244. Ouch! Smoogatz, that's gonna leave a mark ...

Smoogatz 1, northshore 0.

[smoogatz]

260. Ain't the internets wonderful?

You can look stuff up, just like that. A simple Google search and five minutes of sifting through the online version of the ORC, and there you go. It's weird, though--freepers are evidently incapable of performing those simple internet tasks. I guess it's because they (freepers) lack basic analytical skills.

[motocicleta]

293. I don't know what the problem is,

but it (the problem) is obvious to the naked eye, and it is real. Some people just can't seem to manage a solid logical argument of any kind, and those people seem to often end up on the other side of the political spectrum. I mean, I'm just a dumb ass yokel what growed up in the Oklahoma section of California, but where I come from, that shit don't fly.

Just sayin'.

[shortcake]

266. Otherwise known as Citizen Arrest

Remember that on Andy Griffith?

[Deep13]

76. Not the law in Ohio.

Maybe he crossed the line, I don't know, but private citizens do have a right to hold criminal suspects until the police arrive. And refusing to eat one of our own does not make us Republicans.

[dogday]

84. So you would rather defend the Driver who

was found with a gun, brass knuckles, and his DL was suspended.... Who drove recklessly onto the property, which I am also sure there is damage as well to the fence and yard.....

[Marie26]

86. Driver DID NOT have a gun.

Come on now.

[dogday]

93. Concealed Weapon?

On edit: it is not a gun but a pair of brass knuckles.... OOps, that makes it so much better...

[Marie26]

94. No gun

He had brass knuckles in his pocket.

[dogday]

97. Yes just conceded that point, but does not

make this driver who is driving under suspension the victim by any means....

[TNOE]

151. Yea, these kids were obviously ANGELS

with brass knuckles and were such good kids & citizens that they took off running. Indian Hill is the RICHEST neighborhood in the Cincinnati area, they even have their own police force - who granted have probably not seen a real day of police work as the rich are VERY PROTECTED. He acted to protect his home & family - which is what I thought most Americans applauded soldiers for - PROTECTING THEM!

[dogday]

112. The Driver had a car and

that can be a lethal weapon... This driver who license was suspended had no right or reason to be behind that wheel...

[Marie26]

122. Interesting theory

So should you be considered armed & dangerous every time you get behind a wheel? I'm not sure where you're going with that. And in this case, the "weapon" was disabled, since the car had broken down by the time Hackett arrived on the scene.

[dogday]

127. And Hackett never removed the safety or

put his finger on the trigger... Seems like both were disabled... I say the car becomes a weapon in the hands of someone whose is not driving rationally and this driver had a history of it is all....

[Marie26]

136. If a

man has an assault weapon, loaded, pointed at you - would you say that weapon is "disabled"? He could choose to fire it at any time.

[IdaBriggs]

172. Point of order -- Hacket *NEVER* pointed the gun at them.

If we can't assume "drunk or chemically altered" then you can't assume he pointed a gun at them. :)

[Marie26]

179. OK

You're right - he told police that he didn't point the gun at the driver. I guess we'll have to believe him. But then I'm having trouble seeing how one man got three people to lie down on the ground - he says they "saw the gun", but he didn't "point it"? How did he keep them there till police arrived? I'll concede that he says that he didn't point the gun - but when someone has a loaded assault rifle at their side, the distinction might be a bit moot.

[IdaBriggs]

247. And just because someone was driving on a suspended license

at 4:30 a.m., hit a fence, and then fled the scene, we have to assume they were sober, non-chemically altered, and using good judgment (because that is how good citizens ALWAYS behave -- except its not!). Of course, all Hackett knew was that "someone" was fleeing the scene of an accident, which is, as I understand it, a felony crime. (Or is it different in Ohio? Upthread it says its a felony, but I'm not an Ohio resident...?)

[IdaBriggs]

168. Wow -- you are starting to become a candidate for the new "ignore"

feature. You are calling someone you don't agree with a "nutjob" and suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with you should join the Republican party.

In fact, your exact quote is: "For all of you who are defending this nutjob, the Republican party is accepting new members."

This is my polite way of calling you on the fact that your argument is losing credibility because you are starting to cross the line of "polite disagreement." Feel free to believe that Mr. Hackett is a nut job, but those who disagree with you have liberal credentials just as strong (and in some cases, stronger) than you do. Perhaps you might want to edit your post to make it a little more polite, and less insulting to the other members of the community with different opinions?

Or not. Its up to you. :hi:

[izzybeans]

39. This sounds sadistic. He tracked them after taking the time to

arm himself.

[Deep13]

56. Well, yeah...

...He wouldn't want to chase after a group of strange men unarmed. They'd beat the shit out of him.

[Deep13]

57. oops, wrong place

[northshore]

40. Further charges...

Actually, the kids in the car have a pretty good chance of nailing this gasbag on a few criminal charges.

Start with kidnapping and or false arrest. The deal was a car into a fence. Last car I drove had only one steering wheel. That means that 2 people were being held by this shell shocked maniac with an assault rifle for no other "crime" than being in the wrong car.

And as far as the ridiculous comments about his training in the military and his enlistment oath, as a lawyer he should be familiar with the concept of Posse Comitatus.

Heck, I'm a veteran. Does this mean I can put red light on my car, get an M16 and start a neighborhood watch???

[Marie26]

45. Or civil charges

He might end up getting sued for this.

- false imprisonment
- assault
- intentional infliction of emotional distress

There's probably others, too.

[Deep13]

62. fleeing, leaving the scene of an accident

:shrug:
plus they are material witnesses.

[durrrty libby]

43. I like Hackett, but he is a bit out there

[Deep13]

60. As someone who does not believe in a police state...

...I do not think he was required to sit idle until the police arrived and let them escape in the meantime.

[krispos42]

63. Mods, there's a dupe in LBN

Maybe time for a combination move there. It happened in November, so I guess it's not LBN any more! :-)

[VelmaD]

65. What the hell ever happened to rendering aid?

These 3 guys just had a car accident and instead of checking to see if anyone was hurt his first impulse was the point a gun at them?!?!

[MyNameGoesHere]

71. Well maybe if they had not tried

to FLEE THE SCENE he could have rendered assistance. Oh and the driver seemed like a real standup citizen.

" The driver was charged with failure to maintain reasonable control, driving under suspension and carrying a concealed weapon - a pair of brass knuckles found in his pocket - according to the Indian Hill police."

[dogday]

78. Bingo-The Driver was armed and ready

and driving while under suspension... I wonder why his license was suspended? :shrug:

[janx]

83. If he crashed into a fence, I think we have a pretty good idea...n/t

[Bark Bark Bark]

80. Read The Article Before Posting

His "first impulse" was to protect his family. He says he never pointed the gun at them. That's his statement, but there are no conflicting reports in the article.

Leave the "flying off the handle making **it up as you go" routine to the neocon pundits.

[VelmaD]

87. It's also right there in the article

that what Hackett did is against the law:
"Ohio law says guns can be used in self-defense in cases to repel deadly force. Criminal damaging is a misdemeanor and would not be considered a crime of deadly force."

on edit: If his first impulse was to protect his family...then why did he leave his home and family and go chasing after the car?

[dogday]

89. The Driver who just ran onto his property

had a concealed weapon on him....

[VelmaD]

99. where in the article

did it say they "ran onto his property"? They missed a corner and hit his fence and everyone is making that out to be the moral equivalent of B&E or home invasion. It's not like they were cutting donuts in his front yard. They weren't shooting out the windows of his living room. They hit a fence and somehow now they deserve to be held at gunpoint?

I'm glad none of y'all were on the scene the last time I backed into a telephone pole.

[dogday]

104. The driver was driving while under suspension

so right off the bat you can assume he has had some previous driving problems, and I for one say get this kid from behind a wheel of a car.

I said onto the property, because they hit his fence and that would be on his property..


The driver had brass knuckles on him and Paul Hackett said he never release the safety and never put his finger on the trigger....

[VelmaD]

110. I keep a pocket knife on my keychain...

or sometimes in my pocket. Guess that means I'm carrying a concealed weapon. Oops. Gives people the right to hold me at gunpoint apparently.

Look, we're probably never going to agree on this one and we're just gonna get snarkier so I'm gonna try to nip it in the bud now and get straight to what I'm really thinking...if Paul Hackett did this same thing a couple hundred times while in Iraq, and one can assume that most of the other soldiers over there have as well...I can understand why the Iraqis are a little irritated by our military presence there. If you pull me out of my car for a moving violation and point a gun at me...I'm going to be pretty miffed.

Even Hackett drew the comparison himself...he recognizes the similarities. So one has to wonder if maybe, just maybe, he didn't over-react just a teensy little bit based on mild PTSD.

[dogday]

115. Do you drive under suspension? Do you drive

onto people's properties at night and drive into their fence... There is a difference between your cute little key chain and brass knuckles....

[VelmaD]

120. what a huge assumption you just made

Yeah...I carry a cute little girly knife. :eyes:

You're reaching. I just finished reading your "a car is a deadly weapon" post. I don't think we have much of anything to say to each other. :hi:

[dogday]

123. You made the comparrison between the two

and the little key chain knife is not comparable to brass knuckles... Brass knuckles are considered a weapon for a good reason....

I hope we can discuss other topics, if not this one... I really did not mean to offend you :hi:

[VelmaD]

135. you just did it again

Are you making the assumption that I carry a cute little keychain knife because I'm a girl? I certainly hope not.

I read downthread where you had a similar experience and how it scared you. I'm sorry you had to go through that. But it begs the same question of you that I asked about Hackett...is it possibly that your reaction to this is coming out of your past experience and the fear it generated for you? Is it possible that you're applauding this not because you deep down agree with it...but because it's what you wish you had done or it fulfills a need for revenge or something like that?

To me it just feels like a lot of people are over-reacting on this. At least you have a good reason for the way you feel. :)

[dogday]

158. Revenge is such a dirty word

Nope, I just like Hackett and will defend him I guess.. I think that is what this is really about in a way for all of us... Could be....


I don't want revenge for an even that happened 24 years ago.. I never stated I was angry, only that it scared the shit out me. The driver was drunk, better my fence than a person right?

Again, I have an image of what the knife looks like on a key chain, but I guess I am entirely wrong as to the size of your knife and I don't assume you to be a girl, boy or in between... I am thinking about the size that would fit on my key chain I guess.....

[VelmaD]

165. you raise a very interesting point

How we feel about someone personally does effect how we view their behavior. I personally have no feelings one way or the other about Hackett. Not from his area. Don't know much about the issues he ran on. The closest I have to a "feeling" related to him at all is some lingering disappointment that so many Dems became so sycophantic over any and all candidates in '06 who had been in the military...sometimes without really looking at their actual positions. But that wasn't about Hackett personally.

My opinion is likely also shaped by having grown up in Texas surrounded by macho gun culture at its finest. *snort* I've probably just heard one too many idiots down here get a hardon over the idea of shooting anyone who so much as looked at them funny.

[daveskilt]

177. I just saw your homepage - I'm guessing NOT a girly knife

damn scary - In a good way though. :)

[VelmaD]

181. heeee...interesting conclusion...

for you to draw from a page with so much gay porn on it. *snort* :)

[daveskilt]

333. must of been all the kilts

I was wearing mine last weekend for a wedding - had my skean dubh and dirk of course. both not girly knives

[ellenfl]

150. oh, please! there are a lot of uses for a pocket knife

(i have one on my keychain) that are not weapons uses. how many uses are there for brass knuckles?

ellen fl

[Marie26]

106. I know!

Maybe I feel some sympathy cause I'm such a bad driver - but really, it's a twisty road, late at night, when a teenage driver overshoots the curve & hits a fence. It could happen to anyone, especially to new drivers. So anyone now deserves to be held at gunpoint?

I think this is less about the actual facts of the case, and more about the scenarios people have pre-constructed in their heads - possibly minorities, no doubt dangerous criminals, invading a middle class man's property & endangering his family. Whereby he must rush out and defend his property, family and rank in society. Hackett is "us", rushing out to defend society from the dangerous "them". It's a pre-constructed story, almost, that we'll then rush to apply. Once you've applied that label of "CRIMINAL" to a person, all bets are off, and all expectations of rights are off - they've become one of "them". That's how authoritarian societies work.

[krispos42]

173. Yeah, because Hackett KNEW BEFOREHAND

that the is was only a bunch of non-drunk teens in a car who overshot a road and wrecked his fence.

<sigh> Hackett went out to investigate, and he grabbed a gun beforehand. Had the kids hit a deer, he would have been in a position to end the deer's suffering and call the police. If the kids were injured, he would have been in a position to render first aid and call an ambulance.

And if the car was full of angry/drunk/drugged/fleeing-the-cops people, well, he was prepared for that as well.

One of the kids had brass knuckles, which are pretty much totally banned in the country, so the kids had an object that leads me to believe they partake in violent robbery.

If you legitimately think you need to defend yourself with your fists, you carry a roll of quarters in your pocket to aid your punches. If you want to beat someone senseless, perhaps during a mugging, you carry brass knuckles.

[VelmaD]

176. point of order

"if the car was full of angry/drunk/drugged/fleeing-the-cops people, well, he was prepared for that as well"...I beg to differ. If the car had been full of "angry/drunk/drugged/fleeing-the-cops people" he might well have gotten his brains blown out.

[IdaBriggs]

251. If you are a bad driver, its possible you feel sympathy for the young felon.

If you have been the victim of a bad driver, or just a normal stand up citizen who has some respect for the law, then you might find yourself applauding Mr. Hackett.

My husband has an amusing story about running over bushes in the middle of the day shortly after he got his driver's license in his youth. He was goofing with some friends (read: showing off), lost control, and mowed them over. There was no question about fleeing because some of the branches stopped the car, etc. Anyway, the long and short of it was that he got "spanked" good and proper by the adults around him financially (paying for the damages, cleaning up the mess, fixing his dad's car, etc.) and the lesson was driven home HARD: driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. He *never* behaved like that again, and has had an impeccable driving record ever since. (When he tells the story, his first thought was, "Oh, my God, my father is going to kill me!" I think at some level he would have almost preferred jailtime to facing his father, the car nut! LOL!) He can laugh about it now, but back then, it became one of the most maturing moments in his life -- when he had done something wrong, faced up to it, and did what was necessary to make things right.

I think most adults have those types of "epiphany" moments in their pasts (or at least the ones I find worth knowing). We all screw up some times, but then we have to do what it takes to take responsibility. The problem wasn't hitting the fence; it was fleeing the scene. The young felon fled the scene because he was in the process of committing ANOTHER felony (driving with a suspended license). Both things make him a criminal. I don't feel sorry for criminals; they irritate me. Did he deserve to die for it? No, but getting the crap scared out him was probably a GOOD THING. As for his friends, well, an old saying is "Lie down with dogs, get up with flees." Think they didn't know their good buddy was driving with a suspended license? Its possible, but now they know, and they know the "danger" of hanging out with someone who behaves like a criminal -- sometimes YOU get caught up in their self inflicted drama.

And if *you* are truly a bad driver, and you know it, may I suggest either taking a driver's safety course, or getting additional training from someone? Your local police department may offer a class for "driver's safety" at little to no charge, or you can find someone in the phone book. If you *know* you are a bad driver, and still get behind the wheel, that isn't maybe the brightest thing you could be doing; it could get you or someone else killed, and its preventable if you get some extra training. (I took a "women's safety course" that was offered by a local radio station, and frankly, my skills improved dramatically in just a few hours -- those people were good! The number one thing they taught me was what to do when surrounded by Idiot Drivers, who just so happen to be everywhere, and scare the crap out of me!) There is nothing wrong with not having received adequate training when you should have, but if, as a fellow mature responsible adult you continue to ignore this issue, then you are kind of being "not responsible." Only you know if you could benefit from some "extra training," and I'm not trying to tell you what to do, but seriously, if your confidence in your own ability isn't where you think it should be, spend a few hours with an expert to get there. (I think one girlfriend told me she got some extra help from a car dealership when she was contemplating getting a new vehicle....its out there, if you look for it.) Good luck!

[Marie26]

321. Oh dear Lord.

I've been in two accidents caused by bad drivers - one accident was caused by a senile man who hit my car a couple times, w/o having insurance. One was caused by a pack of teenagers who didn't see a red light & rammed into my car, totaling it & causing me thousands in medical bills. OK? Have I established my accident victim creds w/you? There's really no need for personal attacks.

Teenagers do stupid things and are notoriously bad drivers. Those kids definitely deserved to be arrested & lose their driving privileges. They DID NOT deserve to be assaulted by a random man w/an assault rifle. Once we accept that people can use their own guns, & their own violence, to settle accounts instead of relying upon the authorities, we have become a lawless society, like Iraq. One thing that scares me about Americans is our willingness to accept, even cheer, the use of violence. No wonder we get in all these wars. No wonder we re-elect Bush. And it bothers me that liberals can bemoan the increasing violence in society, and also support it when it suits them. No one likes bad teen drivers, so IMO it seems like a lot people get a kind of vicarious kick out of this story - revenge! And Hackett was getting revenge for the destruction of his fence - good for him. But our legal system is not geared for revenge, it's geared for justice. Thank God. Because if we allow everyone w/an assault rifle to get revenge for perceived wrongs, we've got no society left.

[IdaBriggs]

331. Marie, there was no personal attack. You said you were a bad driver.

I responded (very politely, I might add). I disagree with you about whether our young idiots deserved to be "assaulted" (especially because they weren't). You see them as "stupid kids" while I see them as "young criminals" because a) they abandoned the scene of an accident, b) the driver was driving on a suspended license, and c) one of them was carrying a concealed weapon -- all at 4:30 a.m. when I'm pretty convinced they were probably up to "no good." (:eyes:)

Being young, dumb and stupid doesn't excuse you from obeying the law. I think Paul Hackett did a brave and noble thing; I hope more citizens step up to assist the police and other law enforcement personnel in apprehending criminals. You have your opinion, and I'll keep mine. Criminals who have "bad things" happen to them (like getting some pissed off homeowner in their face with a big gun) are subject to my amusement, and derision. As my beloved husband has said repeatedly, "Stupidity should be painful; repeated stupidity should be fatal." I happen to agree with him.

In the meantime, the fact you feel sorry for the perpetrators instead of the victim doesn't make you a liberal in my opinion. It just makes you kind of ... well, wrong. Then again, that's the beauty of "the big tent" -- it takes all kinds. Even the soft hearted ones who sympathize with the trials and tribulations of young criminals.

:shrug:

[Marie26]

341. I think it depends on who you see

as the victim and who you see as the criminal.

Victim #1 - has fence damaged

Victim #2 - is confronted by man wielding an assault weapon, forced to lie down, and lives in fear until the police come.

I will always have more sympathy for someone who is subject to violence, or the imminent threat of violence, than someone who merely has property damage.

On the other hand:

Criminal #1 - hits fence, guilty of misdeamenor

Criminal #2 - threatens & assaults w/a deadly weapon, imprisons w/o legal justification, and detains 2 passengers w/o cause.

IMO, Hackett's actions could well be just as criminal as what the teenagers did. Who is the victim here, and who is the criminal? IMO, BOTH parties are both victim and criminal in this scenario, and both should be punished for their criminal actions, and receive a just recompense for the illegal acts perpetrated against them.

[IdaBriggs]

348. Why do you keep ignoring the part of the story you don't like -- the felony fleeing?

You leave the scene of an accident, its no longer a misdemeanor; its a FELONY.

That makes the actions of #2 make a lot more sense, and stops your "new victim" scenario in its tracks.

But you keep PRETENDING that the FELONY ACTIONS had nothing to do with the response. And, as for the people with Criminal #1, they became accessories (which I'm sure they didn't appreciate), but since they were driving around with a guy on a suspended license, I'm pretty confident that "consequences" were things they didn't normally take into consideration.

And for heaven's sake, quit trying to make excuses for it! "They were young -- " They weren't children driving around at 4:30 in the morning; they were ADULTS who were trying to get away with something, AND IT DIDN'T WORK.

You commit a FELONY, I want someone (like Paul Hackett) to stop you in your tracks, and detain you until the police arrive. I consider that brave and honorable behavior, which is in direct contrast to that demonstrated by our young FELON friend.

So, if you are going to reply again, please address the REAL question -- why is it so easy for you to ignore the part of the story you don't like -- the part where a simple "traffic accident" becomes A FELONY CRIME, which sets up the rest of the tale?

[Marie26]

353. Cause they were never charged w/a felony

Why do you keep ignoring that? ALL the charges were misdemeanors.

[northshore]

109. Yeah, right.

Brasss knuckles, which he had no way of knowing about.

Unless he's psychic.

So far all we know is he's psycho

[dogday]

88. Also never took the safety off or

ever put his finger on the trigger.....

[w4rma]

90. Good for him. If you're going to catch some criminals, do it right. (nt)

[Catherine Vincent]

91. ooh..

la la!!

[aceman2373]

100. the freepers are going to have a good time with this thread

talk about hypocrisy, if he were a republican we would be demanding he be arrested and charged.
How far do you take party loyalty before it becomes a joke?

[Catherine Vincent]

108. I don't think we would be demanding his arrest (if he were a repuke).

No one was hurt, thank goodness.

[aceman2373]

195. OH COME ON !

whatever

[Catherine Vincent]

203. OH COME ON !

Backatcha!

[TNOE]

162. More of "what the freepers think"

they have proven themselves to be as moronic as that dumass sitting in the White House - and you think anyone here gives a DAMN what they think? Ha, get seriess!11111

[janx]

102. A similar thing happened to me not too long ago.

Some idiot was drag racing on the street behind my house. He lost control and headed straight for my back fence. The only things that prevented his huge Ford truck from crashing into my back yard were a row of sturdy trees and an irrigation ditch. He snapped a lamp post in half. Due to these, he got stuck for a few seconds and squealed his tires, burning rubber, crashing his truck even more. Then he took off, just as recklessly as he had come, crashing briefly into another car as he did so. My neighbor was able to get the guy's license plate number. The car he hit made an abrupt U-turn and chased him into some neighborhood but lost him shortly thereafter.

I will never forget the noises the whole thing made. Pieces of his truck were literally strewn about the street and the irrigation ditch--a headlight here, a bumper there.

[dogday]

121. Same with me and the noise was loud as hell

not to mention the damage to my front yard, and fence, and my mailbox... I was scared and this was in broad daylight... I can't imagine if I had to of experienced this at night...

[janx]

160. When it happened at my house, it was around sunset.

It was surprising that my neighbor got the license plate number. Both of us were mad as hell at the guy--but I never did find out if he was caught or charged.

My first concern though, when I heard that horrific noise, was about the dogs. What if the guy had come crashing through the fence and hit the dogs?

[dogday]

167. Mine was in the afternoon

he plowed the fence down and turned and plowed it down again to get out of my front yard and for good measure knocked over my mailbox as he left...

It was my neighbor who was drunk, and pulled in too quickly and was embarrassed and took off.. We worked it all out with no problem... But it made a boom that really sounded like he hit the house....

[janx]

180. WOW. That must have been very strange for awhile. n/t

[janx]

166. Did your guy drive away, or did he stay? n/t

[dogday]

170. He drove away but we found out later

it was my neighbor who was like drunk and watching football... Went out to get cigars and thought he was pulling into his driveway.. He panicked and tore my front yard up trying to get out...

He was a nice old man and we worked it out with no problems...

[janx]

208. I can't help it...

:rofl:

It wouldn't have been funny at the time...but are you telling me that an old man who lived next door to you got drunk while watching football, went out to get cigars, then plowed through your fence into your front yard, wrecked the yard trying to get out, plowed through your fence AGAIN on the way out, knocked over your mailbox, AND DROVE AWAY?

[dogday]

211. Yep, he had been drinking, watching football

went out for cigars, and managed to turn into my yard instead of his driveway... He was so embarrassed and explained that he only drinks when he watches football...

He made sure everything was fixed exactly like it was before... he was a good neighbor none the less.

[janx]

215. When/how did you find out that it was your neighbor?! n/t

[dogday]

220. My husband saw him do it

He finally came home after 30 minutes and his wife came to our door and explained what happened and how bad he felt....

[TNOE]

222. You "rent" in Indian Hill?

n/t

[dogday]

224. At the time we owned the house

I am not sure I understand what you are saying...

[TNOE]

226. Ohhh sorry - I misread

my bad - I thought you were saying your husband saw Paul Hackett.

Nevermind.

[northshore]

105. Moron...

Stupid choice of weapon too.

If you miss, and even if you hit, that round is going to travel about a mile, and ruin the day of anything/anybody it hits next.

Forget Congress, this guy isn't smart enough to be a lawyer. Anthrax vaccine fried his brain or something.

[RaleighNCDUer]

161. No, the M16 (AR-15) was designed as a close-in weapon.

It doesn't have that kind of effective range, and when the slug hits it immediately tumbles, making for a nasty wound - it would not punch through and keep going. It actually is probably the perfect weapon for such an encounter because it looks intimidating as hell, much more than a handgun, it is light and easy to handle in close quarters, and nobody thinks they can outrun or out-dodge a rifle.

And you know what? It worked. He didn't even have to point it at them for them to give up.

I think he was totally justified - as a public figure, he couldn't know that they were not wack jobs of the freeper persuasion who did that deliberately. If they were, letting them go could endanger him and his entire family.

You are aware that the only real terrorists we've come across in this country in the last 5 years have been far right radicals?

[peace13]

107. Better get used to it folks!

We have a lot of vets coming home with experiences that we cannot even imagine. They will react in ways that you and I would not. The price we pay for asking people to do an ugly job. I'm glad no one was hurt. I am certain that his wife must have been having kittens waiting for the police to catch up with him. Peace on earth, kim

[derby378]

113. This man must run for Congress again in 2008

I'd love to see him go after "Mean Jean" Schmidt's seat once again.

Say what you wish about his tactics, but some lawbreakers are in jail because of Paul's actions.

[Rosemary2205]

131. Schmidt is packing too.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article2784.html

On October 15th, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt of Ohio's Second District attended and successfully completed a Concealed Handgun License training class held in the Clermont County town of Miamiville, near Cincinnati.

snip

Congresswoman Schmidt, who voted for the concealed carry reform legislation that is now law in Ohio, told Rink that she hopes the 126th General Assembly will "amend the law to clear ambiguities and inconsistences."

"Most importantly," she added, "a woman's ability to carry a gun in the car must be addressed."

more

[VelmaD]

145. I remember when Texas passed it's concealed carry law

The debate was fun to watch. I saw an interview with a bartender who opposed the legislation who said, "Now when people get drunk and angry they think they're Mohammed Ali. After this they'll get drunk and angry and think they're Dirty Harry". *snort*

Anyway, said all that to say this...I had a bet with my mom that it would be less than a week after the bill passed that we'd hear about someone pulling a gun and shooting someone during a traffic accident on the interstate in Dallas. I won that bet easy. Carrying a gun in the car...not always a good idea.

[Rosemary2205]

205. Yeah, Amen

Now there's a bartender with brains.....


"Now when people get drunk and angry they think they're Mohammed Ali. After this they'll get drunk and angry and think they're Dirty Harry". *snort*

[scrinmaster]

282. You know that conceal carrying in a bar is illegal, right?

If people are going to break the law and carry their handgun into a bar, they could do that without a CCW permit as well.

http://www.packing.org/state/texas/#stateoff_limits

[Klimmer]

140. Wow, Kick-Ass and take Names!

Yes, for some perhaps too aggresive. But considering what happened, justice was done. Damn, I wish justice was always done so cleanly.

From me, a peace time veteran, to Paul, a War Veteran, I salute you. I'm glad you kept your cool. This was a damn fair citizen's arrest if you ask me.

DO NOT F*CK WITH PAUL HACKETT.

[daveskilt]

147. So why did he chase them?

I mean what made the guy feel he was threatened enough to want to go after them. Or was he just pissed off about his fence and decided to lock and load and go chase down the teenagers and make them shit their pants?

Huge difference if he had some reason to fear his families safety or if he was an angry asshole with a weapon. He was a good candidate who said resonable things - this doesn't seem all that reasonable of an action. self defense is only when you are immediate jeopardy - if they were running away it seems a bit texan to feel justified to chase them.

I once chased down 3 men (drunk and in their twenties) who had just thrown rocks at the car I was in (i got out of the car and chased them and had no weapon - just to clarify). I was 18 and I consider it to be the stupidest thing I have done in my life. I got off with a warning from the nice policemen. surely you grow out of that kind of thing? unless you spent a bit too long in iraq?

[Lautremont]

156. He sounds pretty nutty to me.

I can't imagine doing that to dudes who'd dared to crash into my fence.

[Meldread]

169. Hackett's reaction is 100% justified.

I think a lot of people are looking at this from a "what would I personally do" perspective. If you try and take Hackett's prospective, what he did makes sense - sure it SOUNDS bad, but if you put yourself in his shoes it makes total and complete sense.

First of all, he is a trained Marine veteran. He knows how to use a weapon and has access to weapons. He's run for public office twice, and was a high controversial candidate. He was hated by right wing extremists who are the terrorists of America, and there is little doubt he has received many death threats to him and his family. We all know how crazy those nut jobs are, people like the Freepers.

So here Hackett is at 4:30 AM in the morning, asleep in the bed - there is a loud noise outside. His wife jumps up in bed and goes, "Paul did you hear that?" They both get a sinking feeling in the pit of their stomach as they hear car wheels screeching and storming off. Paul turns to his wife and tells her to check on the kids and call the cops. He grabs a flashlight and his weapon, the weapon he was trained to use and used hundreds of times. He goes to investigate what he perceives as a threat.

He notices the damage done to his property, and follows a trail that leads him to those who did the damage. He approaches the vehicle and demands that they exit and lay face down on the ground. He uses his cell phone to notify his wife that he caught the guys and tells her to tell the police where he is located. The cop shows up, and the rest is history.

Sure, it looks bad if you look at it from this prospective. It looks as if he over reacted, but Paul didn't have ANY of this information when he was doing this. How did he know it wasn't a crazy group of Freepers who were trying to throw a homemade bomb in his front yard? How did he know it wasn't some group of crazy people that were going to try and hurt his family?

If you look at things from HIS prospective it makes complete sense and his actions are justifiable.

[VelmaD]

175. Because he didn't know what was going on...

that would be the number one reason he should NOT have picked up a gun. For all he knew it could have been a carload of armed assassins or guys so hopped up on PCP they thought they were invincible. He could have gotten his head blown off and never seen his family again. Conversely, he could have blown someone's head off and ended up in prison for the rest of his life. When you don't have all the facts, picking up a weapon is generally not the best idea.

And I hate to be the grammar police...but it's perspective.

[Meldread]

183. I'm sure he knew that, but...

...he would have also known that if they were coming for someone it was him and not the rest of his family. Going outside to prevent them from coming INSIDE and harming his wife and children is something any brave father would do. Sure, he might end up dead, but at that moment what is more important your life or the life of your children? Worst comes to worse they kill Paul and drive off, leaving his family alone. Best case scenario, he kills them and is only wounded. In either case, he is a highly trained soldier with the skills to defend himself should such an event come to pass. He has the ability to push down his fearful emotions and put his family's life first.

[VelmaD]

185. What a bedtime story you've created for us all

By the time he got outside the people who hit his fence were GONE. He was not in immediate danger. His family was not in immediate danger. If he really had the ability to push down his "fearful emotions" he wouldn't have chased after them. He would have done what most rational human beings would do and called the police.

[Meldread]

196. Actually, it's still very rational.

I'm fairly certain by the time he got outside his wife was already on the phone with the police notifying them of the disturbance and the fact that her husband had gone outside to check it out. Rationally speaking - adrenaline still pumping and preventing clear thinking, and perhaps more than a little pissed at finding his property destroyed - he went back in and got his keys, jumped in his truck and went looking for the people who did it. He finds them and then notifies his wife, who in turn notifies the police of his location.

In the same circumstances, I can't really say I would have done anything different. The only reason it sounds "irrational" is because he had the gun. If you take the gun out of the picture it makes sense. What if they had been heavily drinking? Paul could have prevented them from possibly killing someone.

[VelmaD]

199. pick one...

he's either capable of pushing down fearful emotions or he had adrenaline pumping preventing clear thinking...you can't have it both ways.

Actually it would have been more irrational if he had chased them unarmed, he coulda got hurt...but neither action is rational to begin with. When someone harms your property, not your person, not a loved one, your property...arming yourself and chasing them down is not a rational response.

[Meldread]

227. You see, the problem with that is...

...you are assuming that he went back into his home and got the gun. If you think about it logically, and I did my best to try and put myself in his situation before posting, he would have had the gun BEFORE he knew it was just damaged property. After all, he wouldn't have known there was damaged property until he went outside, and as you said - running outside unarmed would have been irrational. Thus, he would have armed himself before going out. We don't know if he went back in after he went out, if he took his keys when he went out the door, or went back in to get them and inform his wife that he was going to track them down. I would imagine that he did, but we can't be certain.

There is a difference between pushing down fearful emotions and having your adrenaline pumping - clouding your thinking. Pushing down fearful emotions is just that - not letting your fear keep you from doing something. It doesn't mean you're not afraid, it just means you don't let fear control you. You can't prevent your heart from racing or your adrenaline from raging - after all he was likely STILL afraid - which means that his adrenaline was definitely pumping. There was no telling what he'd find when he walked out the door. Were there armed gun men ready to shoot? Was there a bomb thrown in the yard? He likely had flash backs to similar tense situations from when he was in Iraq.

[VelmaD]

230. I didn't assume anything

In the narrative YOU posted you stated he went back inside and got the gun.

And that's my problem with pretty much everything you've posted on this thread...you're making shit up as you go. You're writing a narrative without all the facts to justify your position and when someone challenges your position you just tweak your narrative.

[Meldread]

234. Read my response in #233 -nt-

[Rosemary2205]

178. Only a complete stupidass

would leave their family to fend for themselves if they thought the family was in mortal danger.

That, and we don't KNOW his perspective -- or anyone else's for that matter.

[Meldread]

189. We may not "officially" know his perspective...

...but all the people throwing stones at Paul are the real "stupid asses" - for that very reason. How can anyone judge what he did as over the top when they weren't there and walking in his shoes? What we DO know for certain is that:

1. Paul has most definitely received death threats in the past. There is little doubt in that, most public officials do, and we all KNOW how crazy those Freeper bastards are - I wouldn't put it past any of them to attack. They are terrorists, plain and simple.

2. Paul couldn't have possibly had all the information we have now, which is the information many people are using to condemn his actions as "over the top". He was most certainly acting against some unknown threat (perceived or real).

3. It's a good bet that if there was ever an attack on Paul's house that they would be coming just for Paul and not his wife or children. Thus if Paul left the house and went outside to fight off whoever was there, even if he died, there was a very high chance of the individuals fleeing the scene immediately after. Conversely, if he had remained in the house and there WERE people coming to kill him the chances of his family dying also increase dramatically. Thus, going outside to face them is actually the better choice - if your primary goal is to protect your family and not just yourself. You add to this that he is also a trained soldier and it makes sense.

[Rosemary2205]

200. Whatever

I'm still stuck on the part where condemning him not knowing the whole story is wrong but applauding him not knowing the whole story is OK.

But then DU has never lacked for posters able to create factiness. Certainly makes this place entertaining sometimes.

[Meldread]

223. Because of the facts we can be certain of one thing...

...that Paul successfully aided in apprehending criminals. Three individuals, in the middle of the night, destroyed his property through reckless driving and then fled the scene. Paul tracked them down and ensured that they were caught. We all know that had he not tracked them down they would have gotten away with it - how many times have we seen similar cases when someone has a hit and run accident and gets away? Ever come out of a store to find that someone had backed into your car, only to find that they didn't leave ANY contact information? How many of those folks are captured and brought to justice? Answer: One percent or less.

It could be argued that running around with a gun may have been a bit "over the top", but based on what we DO know, and based on what is in the article (the fact that he didn't point it at them, the safety was on, and he didn't threaten them with it) I don't think that it is anywhere near as bad as people here claim. Paul isn't some crazed person roaming the streets looking for people to kill. Which is the impression you'd get reading some of these posts.

[VelmaD]

229. actually we don't know that he did

We know that the driver was charged...but what about the other 2 passengers? They didn't drive the car into his fence. We don't know if they egged the other person on, if they were terrified bystanders, what? There are a lot of questions left unanswered by the article in teh OP and for anyone on this thread to pretend they know the true story is ludicrous.

[Meldread]

233. That's true, but the whole point of my posting was too...

...basically try and defend Paul by trying to rationalize things from his point of view. It's easy for people to criticize him when they weren't there and haven't experienced what he's experienced. After all, we can be 100% certain that he has received death threats from crazy Freepers. They send death threats to just about everyone to the political left of Ann Coulter. Paul was a lightning rod - so I can imagine him being afraid for his family and acting the way he did.

I can imagine the scenario that I painted being close to what happened. It doesn't seem logical that Paul would walk out of his home WITHOUT the gun, notice the damage done to his property, then go back in to get the gun. Logically he would have taken it with him when he went out the door. According to the article Paul said the safety was on, that he never pointed it at them, and that he didn't threaten them with it - honestly I'm not too sure about ALL of that - it doesn't sound very reasonable. After all, who takes a loaded gun with them, has it strapped over their shoulder, and doesn't at least threaten to use it? I can't imagine that three individuals would act the way that they did without at least the threat - though I'm rather confident that Paul wouldn't have shot them.

Just the same, I DO believe Paul most likely needs counseling - something that I think will do him some good. Both for the time he's spent in Iraq and for some of his aggression issues - this isn't the first time that he's been overly aggressive.

[VelmaD]

235. I guess we have radically different ideas...

about what a rational person does. The sound of a car crashing into something is pretty distinctive. Most people I know don't react to hearing a car crash outside their house by picking up a gun first thing.

But your last paragraph is something we can agree on. His reactions in this case should serve as a red flag that he may need help dealing with the aggressive feelings he brought home with him. I wish more people would come at it from that perspective rather than the rush to glorify what he did.

[Meldread]

239. I'm not trying to glorify what he did.

Anyone who chases people down with a gun shouldn't be glorified, what I was trying to do is get people to at least CONSIDER things from his prospective. I mean, sure it's easy to look at the article and go "Wow that man is bat shit crazy", and completely forget that Paul didn't have all that information when he first set out. If you read the article and assume that Paul had all the facts then yeah, he's a crazy bastard that probably - as one person put it "needs to be in the insane asylum." However, there is no way logically that he could have known even half of that, so it is easy to conclude that what he did MIGHT be at least semi-rational if not justifiable. (Though those who are anti-gun will always consider such things as unjustifiable.)

The way that I see it:

1. Paul was either justified in his actions, and guilty of being a bit over zealous which can be contributed to heat of the moment decisions.

2. Paul is suffering from some form of emotional and mental issues and needs help. In which case, he's sick - not someone who should be demeaned and treated like dirt. After all, those he caught are STILL criminals if for no other reason than fleeing the scene of their crash after destroying private property.

People who want to paint him as crazy are just falling into the same trap that was used against Howard Dean. I'm sure we all remember his little "incident" after Iowa that got replayed again and again, which resulted in him being labeled "unstable", "angry" and "crazy."

[RaleighNCDUer]

289. "Most people I know don't react... by picking up a gun first thing."

Most people you know probably have not received numerous death threats, either. What he went through in Iraq is not in the norm for most of us - but then, neither is what he's had to deal with since becoming a public figure, either.

[RaleighNCDUer]

192. Thank you. I've been trying to say the same thing. nt

[fooie]

188. Did not point weapon, safety was on, finger off trigger

No threats made:


"During the investigation, Hackett told police Nov. 30 that he was carrying an AR-15. He said one round was in the chamber and that he usually has 28 rounds in the magazine. He also told police that he did not point the weapon at the three men, the safety was on and he never put his finger on the trigger.

Hackett said he had followed a trail of fluid left by the car, and the vehicle stopped in a driveway. Hackett told police that he hopped out of his truck and that he was armed.

"He told the boys to 'Get the ---- out of the car and get on the ground.' ... He said he did not touch the vehicle with the rifle and maintained his distance. 'I knew they saw I was armed,' he said. He said he had done this about 200 times in Iraq, but this time there was not a translation problem," the Indian Hill police report said.

Moore said Hackett was woken up by "criminal activity" and "took affirmative action to protect his wife and family from an unknown disturbance at his house." He then "attempted to bring the perpetrators to justice who had fled from the scene," according to Moore."

[Ikonoklast]

201. After reading all the above posts

Replace 'Paul Hackett' with 'Rick Santorum'.

Now defend his actions.

[TNOE]

204. That's Easy

You defend it exactly the same way - Santorum was protecting his home & family - although since Santorum didn't have any Iraq service to his country - he could never be acused of acting out due to PTSD.

[Bucky]

206. First off, Santorum wouldn't need a rifle to do this.

He'd probably just overpower the punks with fumes from pooping in his pants.

Second, I'm thinking the noble Mr Hackett may be suffering from PTSD a bit. Chase down kids who trench your neighbor's lawn? Yes, I'd do that. In fact I've done something pretty similar a couple of times. But chase them down with an assault rifle? I think that may be a little over the top.

I seriously hope he gets ticketed and forced into counseling for this. I consider it a yellow flag.

[benEzra]

335. If he had a holstered revolver or a slung shotgun instead...

Second, I'm thinking the noble Mr Hackett may be suffering from PTSD a bit. Chase down kids who trench your neighbor's lawn? Yes, I'd do that. In fact I've done something pretty similar a couple of times. But chase them down with an assault rifle? I think that may be a little over the top.

If he had a holstered revolver on hip, or a shotgun slung over his shoulder instead...would you feel any different?

This may not apply to you, but I think a lot of people are harping on the fact that he was carrying a rifle with modern styling, rather than the incident itself. Not everyone is, but I see a lot of "assault weapon" hysteria upthread, as if a non-automatic, civilian, .223 caliber carbine is somehow more dangerous than a .729 caliber shotgun.

[Marie26]

209. Another experiment

Replace millionaire Paul Hackett w/a black man in a poor section of town. Replace the teenagers w/some middle-aged white women. The suburban moms are driving home late at night & accidentally hit the fence by the man's house. They back off & keep driving. He runs out w/a loaded assault rifle, jumps in his truck and follows their car for blocks until it breaks down. Then, he shows them the assault rifle, and forces them to get out of the car & lie down on the ground until police come. Is it still OK? If not, why not?

[VelmaD]

210. don't forget to add...

one of them has a can of mace in her purse...a concealed weapon. :evilgrin:

[Marie26]

213. And the car itself, too

Two deadly weapons!

[smoogatz]

264. Ha.

1.Chickenhawk Santorum wouldn't have had the brass balls to do what Hackett did, either in Iraq or in chasing down these two dumbass delinquents.

2.If Santorum HAD attempted to do anything like this, he'd have probably shot his own pecker off climbing into the truck with his gun.

[VelmaD]

202. I have to say I am amazed...

at the psychic abilities displayed by some people on this thread. They know exactly what happened in stunning detail and they know just what was going on in Paul Hackett's head...what he thought, what he knew, what he reasonably suspected. It's amazing the narratives people will write for themselves to justify their reactions when they don't know the whole story.

I always say, this place is the best for people watching.

[liam_laddie]

261. FWIW, I live here and...

I am really pissed about the Cincinnati Enquirer's treatment of the story...as well as the Hackett-haters on here, and their bile!

I am amazed at the rank speculation in many posters' entries. When they aren't locals, don't know relevant aspects of the situation, expose their partisan attitude or make blanket statements based on very incomplete knowledge (based on inaccurate or biased media reports,) I feel obligated to post the following...

These three 18-19 year-olds were 15-18 miles from their west-side homes...at 4:30 in the morning...in a very wealthy east-side suburb.** They were "joy-riding," having been past Hackett's house a few times already (he was awakened and heard them.) On the third pass, they crashed through his fence into his property and tried to quickly leave the scene. The driver was under a suspended license. Hackett asked his wife to call the Indian Hill Rangers and report the incident and decided to follow them (not "chase them with a gun.")

They left the scene of an accident. He could not have known who or how many they were or if they were armed. He followed the fluid trail left by their damaged radiator or oil pan. He did what's called a "citizen's detention" not "arrest." The AR-15 looks like an M-16 but is a "one pull, one shot" sporting rifle. The safety was on, he did not point the weapon at the perps. The Indian Hill Rangers, a very professional force, plan no further investigation. Case closed? Think again...

Now, six weeks later, comes a leak from a grand jury investigation (a witness or juror? a partisan official?) and the very-right-wing Enquirer does a cover story. This is what we can expect from RW media everywhere for the next two years; rightist/conservative media will do EVERYthing possible to smear progressive people and causes. Hackett did the right thing, legally. Oh, did I mention the County prosecuter is a repub hack who's had number of past alleged misconduct allegations made against him?

**Indian Hill was, IIRC, the second highest money source (by zipcode) in the US for GWB's 2000 or 2004 campaign, exceeded only by an Upper East Side NYC zipcode. It has since slipped in ranking, but remains an 85% or so repub-voting enclave. (A local joke is: If God ever retired, God would move to IH, IF God could afford it.)

Edit, add - having plowed through the comments upthread, I gotta say Northshore takes the "delusional & hate-filled" prize, followed closely by a bunch of wingnutz/trolls. Geez...

[Catherine Vincent]

269. Thank you for that informative post!

:hi:

[hedgehog]

212. If enough people take the law into their own hands instead of

leaving it to the police, you end up with Iraq.

Paul Hackett's actions may or may not reflect community standards, but if enough people do what he did we'll end up with family feuds and honor killings.

How many murders happen every day becaue someone decides that they need immediate justice for whatever the other person has done?

If the police in your community are ineffective, reform the police.

[RaleighNCDUer]

290. And that is exactly why he shot all three kids in the head upon

catching up with them.

:eyes:

[BrightKnight]

219. .

[northshore]

228. Now I know how Bush won twice.....

We have people foolish enough to belive Hacketts BS story. It' snot such a stretch now to see how people belived Bush's BS stories.

Didn't point the gun. My life was in danger. Safety was on.

Yep. And Bill didn't inhale.

What a bunch of losers!!!!

[Catherine Vincent]

262. You sound like a jelly roll.

:)

[smoogatz]

268. Rhymes with--

smelly _____.

[smoogatz]

265. Hey, northshore--

So, which law was it that Hackett broke, again? You've had plenty of time to look it up, no? Or are you just going to keep bloviating cluelessly all over this thread?

[northshore]

270. The following....

Unlawful detention (false arrest, whatever) of the 2 persons who were not charged.

Also, he acted irresponsibly leaving his family to fend for themselves. Further, he acted recklessly in attacking a superior numerical force carrying undetermined weapons without knowing what supporting arms he had available and/or reinforcements arriving with no real reason to do so, but that IS just like a Marine.

And to make it simple (but probably not simple enough for some) civilians do not go tear assing around in the pre dawn darkness with assault weapons because someone wrecked their fence. I don't care if they are former Marines, lawyers, whatever. It's dammed stupid and irresponsible. It could have just as easily ended with the death of Hackett, the people in the car, bystanders in their homes (given the nature of he weapon he was misusing) and responding law enforcement officers. For a dammed fence! You all have lived thru 6 years of Repug domination. Now that we are in charge, is it really that important to be just like them and defend anything one of our own does????

[smoogatz]

272. The police detain people all the time without charging them.

Hackett's covered under the "reasonable ground to believe" clause in the citizen's arrest statute I cited above. You've got nothing except some irrational hatred for the guy that you're trying to turn into an argument for Democrats not supporting him. Well, sorry. He may be an armed and dangerous upscale hillbilly, but that's actually going to play well in his district. Lots of freeptards and wingnuts are going to try to turn this into a huge deal, but the more they yell, the more popular Hackett will be down there in Southern Ohio. So go on, keep wringing your little hands and making your outrage face. What elese have you got to do, right?

[northshore]

275. Key word..

The Police.

He is NOT the police. He needs to realize that, for him, the war is over. If need be, he should get help.

And as far as this "playing well" with the hillbillies, I have had enough DINIOs to last a lifetime.

[smoogatz]

277. DINIOs?

Care to translate? Look, Hackett's politics are progressive to the core. He's anything but a DINO, if that's what you were trying to say. And that, of course, is why you hate him.

[northshore]

284. Bully

I hate him because hes just a rich fucking lawyer bully who thinks hes hot shit because he has a gun.

He was just pissed because he got woke up and his fence was busted. He isn't a cop and he had no reason to be running around half asleep with an assault rifle playing "Baghdad '05 for nintendo".

[smoogatz]

288. Now he's a bully?

Funny, if he was a Republican, all y'all freeptards would be hailing him as a big, gun-toting hero for protecting his property from dangerous criminals. But because he's a Democrat and an Iraq vet, to you he's a bully.

[northshore]

292. Yeah, sure is..

In his OWN WORDS,

"I'll be dammed if someone. is going to go through my fence. They could have knocked on the door."



http://news.cincinnati.com/assets/AB56675110.PD

[northshore]

285. Read it and weep.

In his OWN WORDS,

"I'll be dammed if someone. is going to go through my fence. They could have knocked on the door."



http://news.cincinnati.com/assets/AB56675110.PD

[jean]

232. if he felt that his family was so threatened, why did he leave them all

alone in the house at that early hour? His behavior is extreme on this one, no getting around it.

[trumad]

249. You're right...

What is he Rambo?

[Buck Rabbit]

254. Two passengers were ordered out of the car and made to

lay on the ground by an armed man for what reasonable cause? What did the passengers do?

Words of wisdom:
Don't take a knife to gun fight. Don't take a gun to discuss a traffic accident.

[smoogatz]

267. Oh--the humanity!!!

I see the concern trolls and hand-wringers are out in full force yet again. Here's a little bit of info about Southern Ohio that some DUers apparently don't know: it's not upstate New York or Southern California or Minneapolis or anyplace nearly as civilized as those fine locales. In fact, it's got a lot more in common with Kentucky and West Virginia, economically and sociologically. Most of the residents of that part of the world are descendants of poor, Scotch-Irish immigrants who came "west" to farm, or, if they were really broke, work the coal mines. I grew up in Southern Ohio (Athens County, other side of the state, third poorest county in Ohio); I know these people, I went to high school with them (my parents were foreigners from the East Coast, so I don't really count as a local, despite being born and raised there). By the standards of the region, what Hackett did was, in fact, a fairly moderate response to a serious provocation. A REAL hillbilly would have shot at them. Or beaten them with a log-chain once he caught them. Or, well, you get the picture (think "Deliverance"). Don't get me wrong--I don't advocate what Hackett did, and it's not the response I would have chosen. But things are still pretty wild and woolly out in his part of the country, and we'd be wise to try to keep that in mind before pursing our lips and making our fussy little disapproval noises.

[northshore]

271. Demographics be dammed..

Indian Hill "wild and wolly" It one of the richest zip codes in the Nation.

Gimme a break!!!

[smoogatz]

273. Rich hillbillies are still hillbillies.

It's an attitude thing. You wouldn't understand.

On edit: I was talking about the region as a whole, not just Hackett's zip code. Southwestern Ohio has always been a bit more prosperous than where I grew up--better farmland, not much coal--but it's still trailer-park country, still just a bridge away from Northern Kentucky.

[MyNameGoesHere]

339. you must be cookoo

for cocoa puffs.

[Devil Dog Dem]

280. Good for Paul!

Way to go Marine!
Semper Fi, and don't listen to the pantywaists who think anyone who has a gun is bad.

[northshore]

283. Hackett was not concerned for his safety

In his OWN WORDS,

"I'll be dammed if someone. is going to go through my fence. They could have knocked on the door."



http://news.cincinnati.com/assets/AB56675110.PDF

He needs to have his guns confiscated YESTERDAY!!!


Links to all the police reports


http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070110/NEWS01/701100339/-1/CINCI

[Redneck Socialist]

291. Idiot

His reaction was way over the top. The kids had left the scene and posed no threat to him or his family.

Good luck running for office now Mr. Hackett.

[fujiyama]

294. He's certainly an ummmm....interesting character

but there is a part of him that sounds a bit nuts.

The situation could have turned out a lot worse though and fortunately it didn't. I understand the frustration and anger he would have felt over someone coming by and disrupting and destroying a piece of his property in the middle of the night, but I've got to question the logic of running outside and chasing these idiots with a semi automatic rifle. I'd be freaked out too if something like that happened at such an odd time, but if he were concerned for his or his family's safety, he could have got the license plate number, called the cops and had them take care of it. It was a ballsy move on his part but pretty reckless and as others have said, he could possibly have been shot by a nervous cop. If he was black and the punks were white, I'd bet he'd be dead.

I trust Hacket's handling of a weapon and he had the good judgment to not to shoot the damn thing and assuming he's telling the truth, not pointing the weapon and keeping the safety on, but I'm not sure I completely believe those two things. Though, to his credit he did not assault the men either (at least I have heard no evidence of any physical altercation) and waited for the police to arrive. He was very capable of leaving those men in very bad shape. In a sense he did keep his cool.

It's just fortunate no one was really hurt...and that the idiot driver was caught (he obviously had no right driving considering his license was suspended - and it's possible that was past DUIs).

[Guaranteed]

295. Sounds like he just did what the police would have done.

Maybe with a bigger gun, and a little more forcefully.

He just made the arrest himself. He's trained- militarily. But that's somewhat similar training, and assertiveness is the main skill in such a situation.

He didn't hurt anyone. He was aggressive and firm, but maintained control and a sense of justice.

It sounds like he did a great job, to me. He could have just let them get away, but there would have been no guarantee that the cops would have caught them.

[mzmolly]

296. This guy needs some kind of political appointment.

He fascinates me. ;)

[ProudDad]

297. Hackett's a criminal

"Ohio law says guns can be used in self-defense in cases to repel deadly force. Criminal damaging is a misdemeanor and would not be considered a crime of deadly force."

Hackett broke the law -- he's a vigilante, not a hero!

He should have gotten the license number and just called the cops.

[Ian David]

303. Citizens' Arrest

Copyright ©1994 Constitutional Business
Post Office Box 90
Hull, Massachusetts 02045
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
All Rights Reserved

Limited License:

The right to publish this article off-line in print, or via CD-ROM, floppy diskette, tape, laser disk, or any other media, electronic or otherwise, can only be granted by the author and must be in writing. Online usage is unrestricted as long as this article, including the byline, copyright notice, publisher's address, and limited license, is published in its entirety.
CONSTITUTIONAL BUSINESS

Published By Citizens' Justice Programs

Post Office Box 90, Hull, Massachusetts 02045
Citizens' Arrest
By David C. Grossack, Constitutional Attorney

Common Law Copyright © 1994
All Rights Reserved

Not long ago the politically correct Boston Globe noticed a "shocking" new trend. It seems as if some citizens of Massachusetts were so fed up with crime that they have begun to intervene in petty street crime afflicting the streets of our cities. Thieves and pickpockets in Massachusetts should exercise caution in where and how they ply their craft as the chances that vigilantes pummel them and drag them to the nearest cop are definitely on an upswing. While the Globe is shocked at this healthy trend, students of the law should note that both a statutory and common law basis for a certain degree of "vigilante behavior" is well founded. Indeed, in an era of lawlessness it is important that readers be advised as to their lawful right to protect their communities, loved ones and themselves by making lawful citizens' arrests. The purpose of this essay is to simply explain the law and the historical context of the citizen's arrest.

First, what is an arrest?

We can thank Black's Law Dictionary for a good definition: "The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime." See Ex parte Sherwood, (29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S.W. 812).

Historically, in Anglo Saxon law in medieval England citizen's arrests were an important part of community law enforcement. Sheriffs encouraged and relied upon active participation by able bodied persons in the towns and villages of their jurisdiction. From this legacy originated the concept of the posse comitatus which is a part of the United States legal tradition as well as the English. In medieval England, the right of private persons to make arrests was virtually identical to the right of a sheriff and constable to do so. (See Inbau and Thompson, Criminal Procedure, The Foundation Press, Mineola, NY 1974.

A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment. Simply put, without firepower, people are less likely going to be able to make a citizen's arrest. A random sampling of the various states as well as the District of Columbia indicates that a citizen's arrest is valid when a public offense was committed in the presence of the arresting private citizen or when the arresting private citizen has a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a felony, whether or not in the presence of the arresting citizen.

In the most crime ridden spot in the country, our nation's capitol, District of Columbia Law 23- 582(b) reads as follows:

(b) A private person may arrest another -

(1) who he has probable cause to believe is committing in his presence -

(A) a felony, or

(B) an offense enumerated in section 23-581 (a)(2); or

(2) in aid of a law enforcement officer or special policeman, or other person authorized by law to make an arrest.

(c) Any person making an arrest pursuant to this section shall deliver the person arrested to a law enforcement officer without unreasonable delay. (July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 630, Pub. L. 91-358, Title II, § 210(a); 1973 Ed., § 23-582; Apr. 30, 1988, D.C. Law 7-104, § 7(e), 35 DCR 147.)

In Tennessee, it has been held that a private citizen has the right to arrest when a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it. Reasonable grounds will justify the arrest, whether the facts turn out to be sufficient or not. (See Wilson v. State, 79 Tenn. 310 (1833).

Contrast this to Massachusetts law, which while permitting a private person to arrest for a felony, permits those acquitted of the felony charge to sue the arresting person for false arrest or false imprisonment. (See Commonwealth v. Harris, 11 Mass. App. 165 (1981))

Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible. (See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest (Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)

Utah law permits citizen's arrest, but explicitly prohibits deadly force. (See Chapter 76-2-403.)

Making citizen's arrest maliciously or without reasonable basis in belief could lead to civil or criminal penalties. It would obviously be a violation of a suspect's civil rights to use excessive force, to torture, to hold in unsafe or cruel conditions or to invent a reason to arrest for the ulterior motive of settling a private score.

Civil lawsuits against department stores, police departments, and even cult deprogrammers for false imprisonment are legend. Anybody who makes a citizens arrest should not use more force than is necessary, should not delay in turning the suspect over to the proper authorities, and should never mete out any punishment ... unless willing to face the consequences.

As the ability of the powers that be to hold society together and preserve law and order diminishes, citizen's arrests will undoubtedly be more common as a way to help communities cope with the wrongdoers in out midst.
The author is an attorney in private practice in Boston.
http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm

[benEzra]

314. He didn't use the gun...didn't even point it at anybody...

he carried it with him just-in-case, which was perfectly legal.

You're citing the law under which you can SHOOT somebody, not the law under which you can have a rifle in your possession.

[Contrite]

299. Citizen's arrest laws

vary, but generally, I read that a citizen can make an arrest if they witness a crime or suspect a person of committing a felony. Property damage is a felony. A citizen's arrest is a temporary hold while awaiting police. You are allowed "reasonable force". Hackett had his wife call the authorities. He did not injure anyone or anything. Of course, you must be certain or you could be sued for unlawful arrest. Ohio has just revised its gun laws, not sure of the particulars, but a check of the gun would have shown it was on safety, and he was not pointing it at the perps.

I'd bet Hackett is within the law here, which is as it should be, considering he is an Ohio attorney.

[northshore]

315. not in Ohio

Property damage is not a felony in Ohio. Neither is DWI. Hes a lawyer, he knew that.

Safety on or not, pointed or not. The presence of a person in possession of what could easily be taken for an automatic weapon, at 4:30 in the morning, shouting obscenities, is a threat.

[Contrite]

334. Beg to differ

http://www.courttv.com/trials/mccoy/law.html

Property damage is a felony in Ohio.

CHAPTER 2909: ARSON AND RELATED OFFENSES

2909.05. VANDALISM


E) Whoever violates this section is guilty of vandalism. Except as otherwise provided in this division, vandalism is a felony of the fifth degree that is punishable by a fine of up to two thousand five hundred dollars in addition to the penalties specified for a felony of the fifth degree in sections 2929.11 to 2929.18 of the Revised Code. If the value of the property or the amount of physical harm involved is five thousand dollars or more but less than one hundred thousand dollars, vandalism is a felony of the fourth degree. If the value of the property or the amount of physical harm involved is one hundred thousand dollars or more, vandalism is a felony of the third degree.

[Marie26]

342. This is not vandalism.

The driver was charged w/failure to control, which is a misdemeanor. For it to be vandalism, there would need to be a deliberate, pre-meditated intent to destroy someone's property, which is not present in this case.

[Contrite]

347. Vandalism (definition)

Noun 1. vandalism - willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others

Wanton (definition)

1. Immoral or unchaste; lewd.
2.
a. Gratuitously cruel; merciless.
b. Marked by unprovoked, gratuitous maliciousness; capricious and unjust: wanton destruction.
3. Unrestrainedly excessive: wanton extravagance; wanton depletion of oil reserves.
4. Luxuriant; overabundant: wanton tresses.
5. Frolicsome; playful.
6. Undisciplined; spoiled.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vandalism

[Marie26]

351. Nice definition

What was the point of posting that,exactly? It's still not vandalism, under the legal definition, because there is no premeditated intent to destroy the property. The clincher here? They weren't charged w/vandalism. The police didn't think it was vandalism, and the judge doesn't. It doesn't meet the legal standard, opinions of internet posters notwithstanding.

[Contrite]

352. I was just trying to make a point.

The article clearly says: Criminal damaging is a misdemeanor and would not be considered a crime of deadly force. I know what the judge ruled, as that is also clear in the article.

I was trying to point out that, under Ohio code, a judge/attorney could construe this as vandalism, if one considers that the driver was willfully wanton (i.e., driving recklessly, when he knew he shouldn't be) and his actions resulted in property damage. I don't think driving under the influence is anything but "willfully wanton" personally, and if the result is wrecking someone's fence and then driving away, I would call that an act of vandalism. I suppose you'd have to be an "activist judge" to interpret the law this way, but laws do get interpreted differently by different legal bodies.

[BrightKnight]

300. People on adrenaline don't make good decisions at 4:30 am.

He probably grabbed his weapon when he heard the crash and did not think much about it after that.

I fear that he may have some issues adjusting to civilian life. I hope that he will get some help if he needs it.

[Voltaire99]

304. F'ing nutcase.

They crash into his fence. He turns a loaded rifle on them.

Attaboy, Ghostface Killa.

[frogcycle]

312. to everyone ranting back and forth on the merits of this

get a life

[Hippo_Tron]

324. If someone breaks into your home, should you be allowed to blow their head off?

I think there are two main issues to consider here

1) Hackett is a highly trained marine so it doesn't surprise me that this situation didn't involve a body count. However, the average guy with a gun might not be able to handle the situation properly.

2) Human life versus property. If someone breaks on to your property and damgaes or steals it, should you be allowed to kill them? Should that be considered part of the risk of trespassing on private property?

Not a black and white issue if you ask me.

[Redneck Socialist]

327. In many states the answer is yes

but there is a world of difference between confronting someone who has broken into your house and tracking down someone who ran into your fence and then fled, and then confronting them with a weapon.

Hackett stepped way over the line here, at least IMO.

[ShaneGR]

338. Wow, never thought I'd see DU support assault weapon wielding vigilantes....

I'm sorry, somebody GASP hits my fence.... I call the cops. I don't grab an assault weapon and chase them down. If this was a Republican people would be screaming to the high hills, but because its Hackett it's A-OK!!! This is the guy people supported over Sherrod Brown?

[CJCRANE]

340. Remember kids

Paul Hackett is a fully trained combat veteran. Please don't try this at home.

[ProudDad]

346. He's a f*ckin wingnut

Just 'cause he's a PTSD driven "veteran" dem doesn't make it any better.

Sorry to tell you but just 'cause someone's been in the military doesn't mean his shit don't stink...

[CJCRANE]

349. I was being kinda ironic

but I take your point.

On a serious note and further to the issue of PTSD etc I think it's also interesting to note that the only terrorist to come out of Iraq to America was combat veteran Timothy McVeigh who claimed to have been dehumanized by his role in the first Gulf War.

[Neshanic]

350. This guy needs to be in office. He's my kind of Democrat.

Nobody can hang the "wimp librul" on him. you go Paul!