Teen Geocacher shot in leg for tresspassing?

[+tozainamboku]

I never said that he wasn't responsible. I said that he didn't try to kill someone. The law agrees with me that there is a difference. If the old duffer was telling the truth, he was only trying to scare them off. That's a big difference from trying intending to kill them.

The law looks at intent and he clearly wasn't intending to kill or even hurt anyone. But if you shoot a gun in the direction of some people you should know that no matter how good of aim you have there is a possibility that you're going to hit someone. You shouldn't be knowingly firing a gun at a person unless you or someone else in imminent danger. Any law abiding gun owner ought to know at least this.

Please allow me to repeat myself: I never said that he wasn't responsible.

 

I said that I thought 7 years was excessive under the circumstances as I understand them to be.

So you're saying it not a big deal to point a gun in the direction of someone and pull the trigger if you weren't really intending to hit them?

 

I might understand if you accidentally shot someone deer hunting. You didn't see that it was a person and thought the geocacher was a deer. But this guy seemed to know he was shooting at people. And he should know that it doesn't matter if he was an expert marksman, there is always a chance of hitting someone when you fire a gun at them. This seems to be a pretty serious thing to do; I don't believe 7 years is too stiff a punishment.

[+mountainman38]

To continue...say he WAS firing warning shots AT them. Right there. If your "warning shot" HIT the guy then what are you doing? Every warning shot I've ever seen (Movies, books, ...ah, movies) always fire into the air. How could you POSSIBLY hit a rock, not just any rock, a rock near enough to the victim to ricochet into the kid unless you were AIMING AT HIM.

 

I was born at night, but not last night, and that old coot needs to spend the rest of his nights thinking about what a stupid thing he did.

 

He was a scared old coot, living out in the desert, alone, had been victim of theft and had probably been hearing stories about illegals and all sorts of things to get his imagination going. I'm not saying that he should have gotten off scott-free, or even on straight probation. But I do not think that he is some sort of willful criminal that needs to be put behind bars for years. He's probably learned his lesson already, actually. Give him enough time so that others may also learn the lesson, and then let the old desert rate go back to live the rest of his solitary desert junkyard life.

 

With great power comes great responsibility (I just made that up). When you pick up a gun and fire it, you take responsibility for where the bullets go.

 

Being alone and scared doesn't justify firing at people who are clearly not a threat, and who have shown their eagerness to retreat.

 

Break into Mr. Heim's home, attack or threaten him -- yup, he's got a right to shoot. Wander on his property, and try to take off as soon as he hollers -- no way.

 

Mr. Heim's age is irrelevant to his actions. If that teen had been killed, would it have mattered to him how old the shooter was? Guns are powerful tools, and not to be fired around whenever the whim strikes.

[+OldLog]

Ok what turned out to be an interesting story about a irresponsible gun owner has turned in a general bashing of all gun owners. time to close the thread.

[+Bamilbis]

To continue...say he WAS firing warning shots AT them. Right there. If your "warning shot" HIT the guy then what are you doing? Every warning shot I've ever seen (Movies, books, ...ah, movies) always fire into the air. How could you POSSIBLY hit a rock, not just any rock, a rock near enough to the victim to ricochet into the kid unless you were AIMING AT HIM.

 

I was born at night, but not last night, and that old coot needs to spend the rest of his nights thinking about what a stupid thing he did.

 

He was a scared old coot, living out in the desert, alone, had been victim of theft and had probably been hearing stories about illegals and all sorts of things to get his imagination going. I'm not saying that he should have gotten off scott-free, or even on straight probation. But I do not think that he is some sort of willful criminal that needs to be put behind bars for years. He's probably learned his lesson already, actually. Give him enough time so that others may also learn the lesson, and then let the old desert rate go back to live the rest of his solitary desert junkyard life.

 

Now were talking. I agree he was probably a victim of previous crime and wired to react. My problem there is even if a bad man broke into your house last week and killed your wife and kid you CAN NOT now shoot the school kid next week selling chocolate bars for a fund raiser for his school.

 

I do agree it was probably an accident and he's certainly learned his lesson. But HE fired that warning shot WAY too close to the direction of the kid. That was his choice. And to your point of giving "enough time so that others may also learn the lesson" I say 7 ain't enough. I'd hammer him for that exact reason. Maybe not the max extent of the law...but he shot and hit people LEAVING his property. There are loads (I know because more than 2 people I've met and I've met less than 1/2 a percent of the US population) of folks that think it's okay to shoot anyone who enters their property without the owners permission.

 

There needs to be a big case to educate these ding dongs that trespassing IS NOT a Capitol offence and that they don't get to be judge, jury and executioner. Maybe this guy rotting in jail (deservingly) will lend to that cause...

Edited November 3, 2011 by GeotaggedBloger

[knowschad]

I never said that he wasn't responsible. I said that he didn't try to kill someone. The law agrees with me that there is a difference. If the old duffer was telling the truth, he was only trying to scare them off. That's a big difference from trying intending to kill them.

The law looks at intent and he clearly wasn't intending to kill or even hurt anyone. But if you shoot a gun in the direction of some people you should know that no matter how good of aim you have there is a possibility that you're going to hit someone. You shouldn't be knowingly firing a gun at a person unless you or someone else in imminent danger. Any law abiding gun owner ought to know at least this.

Please allow me to repeat myself: I never said that he wasn't responsible.

 

I said that I thought 7 years was excessive under the circumstances as I understand them to be.

So you're saying it not a big deal to point a gun in the direction of someone and pull the trigger if you weren't really intending to hit them?

 

I might understand if you accidentally shot someone deer hunting. You didn't see that it was a person and thought the geocacher was a deer. But this guy seemed to know he was shooting at people. And he should know that it doesn't matter if he was an expert marksman, there is always a chance of hitting someone when you fire a gun at them. This seems to be a pretty serious thing to do; I don't believe 7 years is too stiff a punishment.

 

Toz... you are better than that. You know gosh-darn well that is not what I said. Please don't put words in my mouth... I don't think I do that to you.

[knowschad]

To continue...say he WAS firing warning shots AT them. Right there. If your "warning shot" HIT the guy then what are you doing? Every warning shot I've ever seen (Movies, books, ...ah, movies) always fire into the air. How could you POSSIBLY hit a rock, not just any rock, a rock near enough to the victim to ricochet into the kid unless you were AIMING AT HIM.

 

I was born at night, but not last night, and that old coot needs to spend the rest of his nights thinking about what a stupid thing he did.

 

He was a scared old coot, living out in the desert, alone, had been victim of theft and had probably been hearing stories about illegals and all sorts of things to get his imagination going. I'm not saying that he should have gotten off scott-free, or even on straight probation. But I do not think that he is some sort of willful criminal that needs to be put behind bars for years. He's probably learned his lesson already, actually. Give him enough time so that others may also learn the lesson, and then let the old desert rate go back to live the rest of his solitary desert junkyard life.

 

With great power comes great responsibility (I just made that up). When you pick up a gun and fire it, you take responsibility for where the bullets go.

 

Being alone and scared doesn't justify firing at people who are clearly not a threat, and who have shown their eagerness to retreat.

 

Break into Mr. Heim's home, attack or threaten him -- yup, he's got a right to shoot. Wander on his property, and try to take off as soon as he hollers -- no way.

 

Mr. Heim's age is irrelevant to his actions. If that teen had been killed, would it have mattered to him how old the shooter was? Guns are powerful tools, and not to be fired around whenever the whim strikes.

 

>> firing at people who are clearly not a threat,

 

See, I suspect that, in his mind, they were a threat. But that's something we will never know, will we? Once again, I am not defending his actions, and I am getting very tired of repeating that. I just said that I felt that seven years is excessive for the circumstances, as I see them. The teen was not killed, nor was he charged with attempted murder or even manslaughter, so please take that off your plate.

[+geodarts]

[

The prosecutor didn't charge him with shooting the boy. Either he believed the guy did not try to hit anybody, or he couldn't prove it. Either way, that's sufficient for me.

 

He was charged with it - assault with a firearm with a great bodily injury enhancement. But the jury acquitted him of it.

Edited November 3, 2011 by geodarts

[GOF and Bacall]

To continue...say he WAS firing warning shots AT them. Right there. If your "warning shot" HIT the guy then what are you doing? Every warning shot I've ever seen (Movies, books, ...ah, movies) always fire into the air. How could you POSSIBLY hit a rock, not just any rock, a rock near enough to the victim to ricochet into the kid unless you were AIMING AT HIM.

 

I was born at night, but not last night, and that old coot needs to spend the rest of his nights thinking about what a stupid thing he did.

 

He was a scared old coot, living out in the desert, alone, had been victim of theft and had probably been hearing stories about illegals and all sorts of things to get his imagination going. I'm not saying that he should have gotten off scott-free, or even on straight probation. But I do not think that he is some sort of willful criminal that needs to be put behind bars for years. He's probably learned his lesson already, actually. Give him enough time so that others may also learn the lesson, and then let the old desert rate go back to live the rest of his solitary desert junkyard life.

 

With great power comes great responsibility (I just made that up). When you pick up a gun and fire it, you take responsibility for where the bullets go.

 

Being alone and scared doesn't justify firing at people who are clearly not a threat, and who have shown their eagerness to retreat.

 

Break into Mr. Heim's home, attack or threaten him -- yup, he's got a right to shoot. Wander on his property, and try to take off as soon as he hollers -- no way.

 

Mr. Heim's age is irrelevant to his actions. If that teen had been killed, would it have mattered to him how old the shooter was? Guns are powerful tools, and not to be fired around whenever the whim strikes.

 

>> firing at people who are clearly not a threat,

 

See, I suspect that, in his mind, they were a threat. But that's something we will never know, will we? Once again, I am not defending his actions, and I am getting very tired of repeating that. I just said that I felt that seven years is excessive for the circumstances, as I see them. The teen was not killed, nor was he charged with attempted murder or even manslaughter, so please take that off your plate.

 

I agree pretty much with what you are saying. I suspect he was scared. I don't know if he was aiming to actually hit anyone but that doesn't seem to be a question. But the facts are, from what I can tell, that he shot someone who was leaving the area. I don't think a seven year sentence is unreasonable. Particularly when it is unlikely that he will even serve half of it in prison.

[+Bamilbis]

Ok what turned out to be an interesting story about a irresponsible gun owner has turned in a general bashing of all gun owners. time to close the thread.

 

No, I am very for gun owners rights. This isn't about that, it's about geocachers wandering onto private land and getting shot at. This guy, IMHO, was WAY WAY WAY out of line when he spotted our hapless geocachers. That is what this is about. I'm not anti-gun owners. I own guns. THIS guy deserves serious jail time from what I've heard. (again, I wasn't on the jury).

Edited November 3, 2011 by GeotaggedBloger

[+GeoBain]

I never said that he wasn't responsible. I said that he didn't try to kill someone. The law agrees with me that there is a difference. If the old duffer was telling the truth, he was only trying to scare them off. That's a big difference from trying intending to kill them.

The law looks at intent and he clearly wasn't intending to kill or even hurt anyone. But if you shoot a gun in the direction of some people you should know that no matter how good of aim you have there is a possibility that you're going to hit someone. You shouldn't be knowingly firing a gun at a person unless you or someone else in imminent danger. Any law abiding gun owner ought to know at least this.

Please allow me to repeat myself: I never said that he wasn't responsible.

 

I said that I thought 7 years was excessive under the circumstances as I understand them to be.

So you're saying it not a big deal to point a gun in the direction of someone and pull the trigger if you weren't really intending to hit them?

 

I might understand if you accidentally shot someone deer hunting. You didn't see that it was a person and thought the geocacher was a deer. But this guy seemed to know he was shooting at people. And he should know that it doesn't matter if he was an expert marksman, there is always a chance of hitting someone when you fire a gun at them. This seems to be a pretty serious thing to do; I don't believe 7 years is too stiff a punishment.

 

Sounds to me like he's saying that we're talking about a 70+ year old man who was apparently antsy due to having been recently robbed. From the limited information we forum jurors have, it would appear he did not intend to kill anyone, but did intend to scare them off his property. While firing a deadly weapon at people who were retreating, a teenager was wounded.

 

The man was rightfully found guilty of the weapons charge. And had he been a much younger man, even in his 50's or 60's, 7 years would probably be about right for the crime; perhaps even longer.

 

But given that this man has reached his 70's without even a traffic violation against his record and the fact that 7 years is likely the equivalence of a life sentence at this point, it seems a little harsh. Maybe a couple of years jail time and another 7 to 10 probation would be more appropriate.

 

That might not be what KC was saying, but it's the way I see it anyway.

 

As someone else asked, are we trying to punish him or rehabilitate him?

 

If we're punishing him, then let's go ahead and give him lethal injection and save the tax dollars some money. He's gonna die in prison anyway.

 

Or, if we're about rehabilitation, I am 99% positive that if you were to release this particular man in 2 years you would have no further problems out of him. I'm fairly sure he has thoroughly learned his lesson. I really don't see what the additional 5 year is going to accomplish.

[+Bamilbis]

Geo, you had me. I was onboard. But then I remembered what I heard a judge say at a sentencing for some murder or rapist or whatever. ( the crime doesn't matter here )

 

He said, "Jail serves three purposes. 1. It punishes a person for a crime committed. 2. It protects society from a person who can not or will not obey the laws, and 3. It serves as a deterrent to others who might think to commit the same crime."

 

With that in mind my whole argument has been for number 3 there. 1 and 2 are probably satisfied with probation alone, but number 3 is where I say, "lock him up"!

 

There are a ton of wacko's out there who think it's okay to shoot anyone on their property. Be it a rapist, a liberal, a kid fund raising for school or a geocacher. Those people need to be educated and a heavy sentence for this guy might help spread the word. Give him probation and word won't get out and if it does the word will be "go ahead and shoot the cacher".

[+GeoBain]

There are loads (I know because more than 2 people I've met and I've met less than 1/2 a percent of the US population) of folks that think it's okay to shoot anyone who enters their property without the owners permission.

 

There needs to be a big case to educate these ding dongs that trespassing IS NOT a Capitol offence and that they don't get to be judge, jury and executioner. Maybe this guy rotting in jail (deservingly) will lend to that cause...

 

I'm not one of those people. I am one who understands that no property is worth one's life. And if I believed he was really trying to kill them, I would have no problem with him rotting in jail. Maybe he WAS trying to kill them and the judge and jurors didn't believe he was just firing warning shots. I don't know since I was not in that court room.

 

But IF he had no intention of killing anyone, then I believe the sentence in THIS PARTICULAR case is a little harsh.

 

And I don't think this is the best case to make an example of. From what I've seen, he wasn't trying to be judge, jury, and executioner. He was an old man who chose a very, very bad method for running people off his property.

 

Maybe he should have looked into one of these systems.

[+GeoBain]

Geo, you had me. I was onboard. But then I remembered what I heard a judge say at a sentencing for some murder or rapist or whatever. ( the crime doesn't matter here )

 

He said, "Jail serves three purposes. 1. It punishes a person for a crime committed. 2. It protects society from a person who can not or will not obey the laws, and 3. It serves as a deterrent to others who might think to commit the same crime."

 

With that in mind my whole argument has been for number 3 there. 1 and 2 are probably satisfied with probation alone, but number 3 is where I say, "lock him up"!

 

There are a ton of wacko's out there who think it's okay to shoot anyone on their property. Be it a rapist, a liberal, a kid fund raising for school or a geocacher. Those people need to be educated and a heavy sentence for this guy might help spread the word. Give him probation and word won't get out and if it does the word will be "go ahead and shoot the cacher".

 

Problem is #3 doesn't really work. But if it did, this is not the type of offender to make an example out of for all the other would-be vigilantes.

 

THIS would have been an excellent case to make an example of and they let that guy walk free.

[+tozainamboku]

Didn't anyone read the article.

At Tuesday’s hearing in Victorville Superior Court, Deputy Public Defender Luke Byward attempted to persuade Judge John Tomberlin that Heim should only get probation. Heim shot into the air and at the rocks to scare away the strangers because he’d been living in constant fear of trespassers since getting robbed a short time before the incident, according to Byward.

 

“He overreacted. He made a mistake,” Byward said. He added that Heim has never had so much as a traffic ticket and that a prison term could mean putting him behind bars “effectively for the rest of his life.”

 

Tomberlin flatly rejected the idea that it was a probation case. He said Heim’s unprovoked actions caused a great threat of bodily harm as well as emotional injuries to the victims.

 

“I don’t see that Mr. Heim’s past experience with somebody else who’s ripped him off gives him license to shoot people who just happen to wander onto his property for totally innocent reasons,” Tomberlin said. “There’s absolutely nothing sinister whatsoever that the victims in this case were engaged in.”

The judge apparently thought it was a serious crime that deserved jail time. He rejected the public defenders appeal for probation. He saw Mr. Heim's actions as reckless and unprovoked and threw the proverbial book at him. The fact that he was a scared old man neither justified what he did or entitle him to get special treatment.

 

Just to be on topic - I kno a 75 year old man whose cache was not published because it was 510 feet from another cache. Now he put there because his GPS was acting strange and he was afraid that the batteries would run out. He didn't intend to put his cache too close the the existing one. I think the reviewer should consider this and publish his cache. OK - bad analogy - but the point is the law shouldn't be giving special treatment to someone who, despite not intendin to harm anyone, acted in a way he should have known could cause injury - and in fact did cause injury.

Edited November 3, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+GeoBain]

Didn't anyone read the article.

 

You're really getting good at tossing out assumptions tonight.

 

I read the article in it's entirety when CanadianRockies posted it.

 

The fact that the judge apparently holds the same opinion as the vast majority of posters in the last few hours does not change my opinion or my right to hold such an opinion.

 

I have read and fully comprehended the other posts in this thread tonight. Yet, I still hold my own, differing opinion. You of all people should know that is not only allowed but also tends to lead to some rather healthy debates.

 

Just because someone disagrees with you (or the judge presiding over this case) doesn't mean they are illiterate or ignorant of the facts of the case. It just means that we hold a differing viewpoint. Period.

 

Just to be on topic - I kno a 75 year old man whose cache was not published because it was 510 feet from another cache. Now he put there because his GPS was acting strange and he was afraid that the batteries would run out. He didn't intend to put his cache too close the the existing one. I think the reviewer should consider this and publish his cache. OK - bad analogy - but the point is the law shouldn't be giving special treatment to someone who, despite not intendin to harm anyone, acted in a way he should have known could cause injury - and in fact did cause injury.

 

Actually, the reviewer should probably consider the cache if the 75 year old man can show a good reason to make an allowance for the 18 feet. I do believe reviewers are allowed to make exceptions if the situation calls for it. Rarely done, but it is possible, nonetheless.

[+steben6]

Sounds more like a slap on the wrist. Seems you try to kill someone, the punishment should be substantial.

 

From what we have read, he didn't try to kill anyone. He did shoot his weapon and threaten them, and one of his shots allegedly ricocheted and hit the boy, although he wasn't charged with that.

 

Our opinions must vary here. Seems to me if you pull a trigger on purpose and that causes a bullet to fly up in the air, hit the beak of an eagle, come back and hit a rock and bouncing through the open window of a passing car killing a person you are responsible.

 

An eagle and a person are dead as a result of your actions. The fact that he was aggressively pursuing these people (as opposed to say a target practice incident where a stray bullet happened to hit the kid with no malice) means to me he should get the FULL brunt of the law.

 

If you can't handle or understand the outcome of shooting a gun then maybe you shouldn't be shooting it.

 

PS, my comments pertain to caching. This is not a firearms thread.

 

edited because God I kant spell

 

I never said that he wasn't responsible. I said that he didn't try to kill someone. The law agrees with me that there is a difference. If the old duffer was telling the truth, he was only trying to scare them off. That's a big difference from trying to kill them.

 

I wasn't in the jury. I didn't hear the testimony. Neither were you. But, I would need one awesome story to explain how a guy intentionally fired a gun and accidentally hit a kid.

 

That story had better come with video and another gunman in the bushes. What do the politicians call it? ....oh yeah, it would take a "suspension of disbelief" for me to swallow that old guys story.

 

The prosecutor didn't charge him with shooting the boy. Either he believed the guy did not try to hit anybody, or he couldn't prove it. Either way, that's sufficient for me.

He was charged with shooting at the boy, but was acquitted of that charge.

[+geodarts]

The judge apparently thought it was a serious crime that deserved jail time. He rejected the public defenders appeal for probation. He saw Mr. Heim's actions as reckless and unprovoked and threw the proverbial book at him. The fact that he was a scared old man neither justified what he did or entitle him to get special treatment.

 

Not really. Probation was extremely unlikely given that this is legally classified as two "serious felonies." However, the court did choose the low term for the principal offense, which means the judge believed that the crime was mitigated. After that, mandatory consecutives and firearm enhancements come into play. Heim could have been sentenced to over 16 years, but not less than what he was given.

 

That the jury acquitted him of two of the charges, including the count involving the actual shooting and the more serious great bodily injury charge, also might indicate that there was more going on here than a simple shooting.

Edited November 3, 2011 by geodarts

[+Team Firenze]

How did anyone determine that this person wasn't trying to kill the trespassers? I am reading quite a bit a about how "he wasn't shooting to kill". How is that even possible? He fired a gun at a victim close enough to wound them. As far as I am concerned, that is shooting to kill. I would think that the only time someone shoots to not kill is if you fire a warning shot in the air or you are a crack shot shooting to wound.

 

7 years is good. You can't just go around shooting people because you feel like it. And if you do you should pay the price.

[+GeoBain]

How did anyone determine that this person wasn't trying to kill the trespassers?

 

From the article. I also said I have limited knowledge (as do the rest of you) since I was not in the court room. It is very likely the judge and jurors did not believe him when he said he wasn't trying to hurt anyone.

[+geodarts]

From the article. I also said I have limited knowledge (as do the rest of you) since I was not in the court room. It is very likely the judge and jurors did not believe him when he said he wasn't trying to hurt anyone.

 

He was never charged with an intent to kill. The jury acquitted him of two counts, including the one involving injury - which would have led to much longer prison time. The judge imposed a minimum sentence. I think he must have had some degree of credibility.

Edited November 3, 2011 by geodarts

[+sbell111]

There needs to be a big case to educate these ding dongs that trespassing IS NOT a Capitol offence and that they don't get to be judge, jury and executioner. Maybe this guy rotting in jail (deservingly) will lend to that cause...

It should be noted that the geocachers did not trespass. A person who is merely on someone's land without permission is not trespassing. In order for it to be trespassing, they generally must have knowingly entered another's property and be made aware that their presence is not welcome. In most cases, this means that the land must be posted or they must have been told to leave and either refused to do so or later returned. In cases where they must enter a closed fence or building, it is generally found that the fact that they must go through or around the barriers is enough to show that they knew that they were unwanted. Edited November 3, 2011 by sbell111

[+Team Firenze]

How did anyone determine that this person wasn't trying to kill the trespassers?

 

From the article. I also said I have limited knowledge (as do the rest of you) since I was not in the court room. It is very likely the judge and jurors did not believe him when he said he wasn't trying to hurt anyone.

 

What kind of limited knowledge do you need to understand that someone shooting in the general direction of a person close enough to actually hit them is trying to kill them?

 

I get pissed because people hunt illegally behind my property. Now they aren't trying to kill me but they are putting my family's life in danger. The more I think about it the more it concerns me that this wasn't considered attempted murder.

 

The issue at hand is that a geocacher/hiker/whatever has a right to be notified if there are trespassing on land. The landowner has a right to protect himself from harm but they don't have the right shoot people walking on a piece of property.

 

If anyone so much as pulled a gun on me or my family for something like this I would do two things. Speak to the law to see if any charges could be made. If that didn't work, I would figure out a way to have a very stern talking to the individual in a situation where they didn't have their gun handy.

[+Team Firenze]

There needs to be a big case to educate these ding dongs that trespassing IS NOT a Capitol offence and that they don't get to be judge, jury and executioner. Maybe this guy rotting in jail (deservingly) will lend to that cause...

It should be noted that the geocachers did not trespass. A person who is merely on someone's land without permission is not trespassing. In order for it to be trespassing, they must have knowingly entered another's property and be made aware that their presence is not welcome. In most cases, this means that the land must be posted or they must have been told to leave and either refused to do so or later returned. In cases where they must enter a closed fence or building, it is generally found that the fact that they must go through or around the barriers is enough to show that they knew that they were unwanted.

 

Great point, isn't this how the Jehovah's witnesses work. Unless posted can't they walk right up to your front door? Furthermore, if you front door isn't locked, can't they walk right into your house???

[+sbell111]

There needs to be a big case to educate these ding dongs that trespassing IS NOT a Capitol offence and that they don't get to be judge, jury and executioner. Maybe this guy rotting in jail (deservingly) will lend to that cause...

It should be noted that the geocachers did not trespass. A person who is merely on someone's land without permission is not trespassing. In order for it to be trespassing, they must have knowingly entered another's property and be made aware that their presence is not welcome. In most cases, this means that the land must be posted or they must have been told to leave and either refused to do so or later returned. In cases where they must enter a closed fence or building, it is generally found that the fact that they must go through or around the barriers is enough to show that they knew that they were unwanted.

 

Great point, isn't this how the Jehovah's witnesses work. Unless posted can't they walk right up to your front door? Furthermore, if you front door isn't locked, can't they walk right into your house???

Yes and no.

 

Anyone can walk up to your front door and give a knock if you haven't posted otherwise.

 

A person who enters your home uninvited and unwelcome through an unlocked door is trespassing. (If the unlocked door was closed, he would also likely be guilty of breaking and entering).

Edited November 3, 2011 by sbell111

[+baloo&bd]

And I don't think this is the best case to make an example of. From what I've seen, he wasn't trying to be judge, jury, and executioner. He was an old man who chose a very, very bad method for running people off his property.

 

He most certainly was trying to be the Judge and jury and an argument can be made for executioner as well.

 

Bernie Madoff, 73, was a "an old man who chose a very, very bad method for" making money, however you see none of us complaining when he got a "life" sentence.

 

Sorry, age should not be a factor and, if I remember reading earlier in the forums, it is questionable as to whether or not the victim was even trespassing as well as the fact that the previous alleged crimes committed against him were not life threatening. If anything, age should equate to experience and factor in to a harsher sentence.

 

This affects us all. Trust me, many of you have wandered in to and out of private property without even knowing it while caching. If the owner feels they are "threatened" and is aware of this case, they know that the worst case is a wrist slap and then only if you can not afford and attorney and get an overwhelmed PD.

 

Should reviewers check more closely if a cache is on private property? Maybe, however CO's should know the area even better and sign off that it is not on private property. Even then, how big a berth do we need to give around private property before being in danger of someone who is scared of things that go bump in the night and have the capability of doing bodily harm?

[knowschad]

Didn't anyone read the article.

At Tuesday’s hearing in Victorville Superior Court, Deputy Public Defender Luke Byward attempted to persuade Judge John Tomberlin that Heim should only get probation. Heim shot into the air and at the rocks to scare away the strangers because he’d been living in constant fear of trespassers since getting robbed a short time before the incident, according to Byward.

 

“He overreacted. He made a mistake,” Byward said. He added that Heim has never had so much as a traffic ticket and that a prison term could mean putting him behind bars “effectively for the rest of his life.”

 

Tomberlin flatly rejected the idea that it was a probation case. He said Heim’s unprovoked actions caused a great threat of bodily harm as well as emotional injuries to the victims.

 

“I don’t see that Mr. Heim’s past experience with somebody else who’s ripped him off gives him license to shoot people who just happen to wander onto his property for totally innocent reasons,” Tomberlin said. “There’s absolutely nothing sinister whatsoever that the victims in this case were engaged in.”

The judge apparently thought it was a serious crime that deserved jail time. He rejected the public defenders appeal for probation. He saw Mr. Heim's actions as reckless and unprovoked and threw the proverbial book at him. The fact that he was a scared old man neither justified what he did or entitle him to get special treatment.

 

Yes, I read that part, and I don't disagree (well, I do disagree with some of it). I do disagree with the length of the sentence. I am also reasonbly certain that a different court would also have come to a different, more humane sentence.

[knowschad]

There needs to be a big case to educate these ding dongs that trespassing IS NOT a Capitol offence and that they don't get to be judge, jury and executioner. Maybe this guy rotting in jail (deservingly) will lend to that cause...

It should be noted that the geocachers did not trespass. A person who is merely on someone's land without permission is not trespassing. In order for it to be trespassing, they must have knowingly entered another's property and be made aware that their presence is not welcome. In most cases, this means that the land must be posted or they must have been told to leave and either refused to do so or later returned. In cases where they must enter a closed fence or building, it is generally found that the fact that they must go through or around the barriers is enough to show that they knew that they were unwanted.

 

Great point, isn't this how the Jehovah's witnesses work. Unless posted can't they walk right up to your front door? Furthermore, if you front door isn't locked, can't they walk right into your house???

 

Ummm.... that isn't just Jehovah's witnesses. That is also true for your neighbors, for salesmen, and for people looking for their lost dog.

 

I'm not sure about the 2nd question. Television would have us believe that its true. I suspect it isn't totally true, but that if you did leave your door unlocked, that you'd have a much more difficult time trying to bring charges (or collect insurance).

[+sbell111]

More humane?

 

The guy very clearly broke the law and received a very lenient sentence for it.

[+Team Firenze]

 

 

Ummm.... that isn't just Jehovah's witnesses. That is also true for your neighbors, for salesmen, and for people looking for their lost dog.

 

I'm not sure about the 2nd question. Television would have us believe that its true. I suspect it isn't totally true, but that if you did leave your door unlocked, that you'd have a much more difficult time trying to bring charges (or collect insurance).

 

I was using JWs as an example. Obviously it applies to everybody.

[+Team Firenze]

 

Yes, I read that part, and I don't disagree (well, I do disagree with some of it). I do disagree with the length of the sentence. I am also reasonbly certain that a different court would also have come to a different, more humane sentence.

 

What right does this person have a to a more humane sentence?? What kind of different court? This person had absolutely zero right in any court to do what he did. He used extreme force against someone who was leaving his "property". I think he was lucky to get what little sentence he did.

[+humboldt flier]

Hey it is Cali. He will probably be out in 18 mo.

[+bflentje]

But IF he had no intention of killing anyone, then I believe the sentence in THIS PARTICULAR case is a little harsh.

 

I was taught once that you should never point your gun at anything you don't intend to kill. The trespassing was stupid. But the brandishing of a weapon when there clearly was no threat of great bodily harm or death was even stupider.

 

I don't think the sentence was too light.

[+geodarts]

It should be noted that the geocachers did not trespass. A person who is merely on someone's land without permission is not trespassing. In order for it to be trespassing, they generally must have knowingly entered another's property and be made aware that their presence is not welcome.

 

As a matter of law you may be correct. In California, since the property was unfenced, they would not be guilty of trespassing unless signs were posted every third of a mile and at a trail or road entrance. (Pen. Code 602.8) An early log entry for the original cache indicated that the property was unposted - although if you are bushwhacking across land, it can be easy to miss a sign. In some jurisdictions, all that is needed is a single sign at the main entrance.

 

I am also reasonbly certain that a different court would also have come to a different, more humane sentence.

 

Again, short of probation, which is extremely unlikely in these kind of cases, the trial court imposed the statutory minimum for the principal term and the enhancement.

 

Anything else is a political question -- at one time the court could have stricken the firearm use enhancement (which it might have done since the underlying crime required use of a firearm). That discretion was taken away. The enhancement and consecutive sentences were mandatory.

 

Hey it is Cali. He will probably be out in 18 mo.

 

Its California. The home of the largest prison population in this country. In our state, if Mr. Heim commits a petty theft after being released, he will be subject to a life sentence. But he will not be released until he serves at least 85% of his term. (Penal Code section 2933.1)

Edited November 3, 2011 by geodarts

[+tozainamboku]

I am also reasonbly certain that a different court would also have come to a different, more humane sentence.

We'll there seems to be some disagreement over what a reasonable "humane?" sentence is for point a gun at a person and pulling the trigger. There wasn't any evidence that this guy was in fear for his life despite his previous having been robbed. It's not clear if he was actually robbed or had just been the victim of burglary by some alleged drug addicts who stole some of his junk. Here he saw some people up the hill on his property who were wandering around looking for a geocache. When he yells at them to get off his property they head away from him up the hill. He then shoots at them.

 

I really don't see what mitigating circumstance there are here. The public defender certainly argued there were, and apparently has convinced some here in this forum, even though he didn't convince the judge.

 

The charge of wounding the teen probably required showing intent. I think is was clear to the jury that he didn't intend to hurt anyone. So he was acquitted on those charges. He did however intend to fire his weapon in the general direction of a person or persons. This is the crime he was convicted of and the sentence he got was within the sentencing guidelines (in fact it was at the lower end of the available sentence).

 

Now, there is no doubt that gun laws in the State of California tend to be among the strictest in the country. So it could be that in Minnesota, if you shoot at someone with out intending to cause bodily harm, you'd get a lesser sentence. But regardless of where you live I would argue that firing a weapon in the direction of a person is a still a serious crime.

[knowschad]

Ummm.... that isn't just Jehovah's witnesses. That is also true for your neighbors, for salesmen, and for people looking for their lost dog.

 

I'm not sure about the 2nd question. Television would have us believe that its true. I suspect it isn't totally true, but that if you did leave your door unlocked, that you'd have a much more difficult time trying to bring charges (or collect insurance).

 

I was using JWs as an example. Obviously it applies to everybody.

 

And my point applies to everybody, as well. You DO need either a No Tresspassing sign, or to tell them at least once to stay off of your property. Until that time, it isn't trespassing.

[+geodarts]

 

I really don't see what mitigating circumstance there are here. The public defender certainly argued there were, and apparently has convinced some here in this forum, even though he didn't convince the judge.

 

The charge of wounding the teen probably required showing intent. I think is was clear to the jury that he didn't intend to hurt anyone. So he was acquitted on those charges.

 

The charges involving the two teens were the same charges for which he was convicted in regard to the adults. The charge for the teen who was injured also carried a great bodily injury enhancement that would have subjected Mr. Heim to additional prison time, but intent was not an element of any of the counts. Heim's state of mind was at issue only to the extent that it offered a defense. The jury was out for a long time, so it seems to have been a compromise verdict.

 

The Public Defender did convince the court to mitigate the sentence as much as it could, but not to grant probation. Probation was a legal option, but not a practical one given the legal classification of these charges as violent and serious felonies involving the use of a firearm. As a general rule under the statute, probation was not to be granted in this case. It would have taken a specific finding that this was an unusual case subject to special interests of justice before the court could grant probation. It was not going to happen here.

Edited November 3, 2011 by geodarts

[+SwineFlew]

Ummm.... that isn't just Jehovah's witnesses. That is also true for your neighbors, for salesmen, and for people looking for their lost dog.

 

I'm not sure about the 2nd question. Television would have us believe that its true. I suspect it isn't totally true, but that if you did leave your door unlocked, that you'd have a much more difficult time trying to bring charges (or collect insurance).

 

I was using JWs as an example. Obviously it applies to everybody.

 

And my point applies to everybody, as well. You DO need either a No Tresspassing sign, or to tell them at least once to stay off of your property. Until that time, it isn't trespassing.

 

Yes, thats correct. Its funny how the law works. However, posting a no trespassing sign have to be done the correct way as well. I see no tresspassing signs setup wrong and its very confusing of what is their property and what is not. Very important of how you hang up the sign. Alot of people do it wrong so the law backfired back at them.

[knowschad]

Yes, I read that part, and I don't disagree (well, I do disagree with some of it). I do disagree with the length of the sentence. I am also reasonbly certain that a different court would also have come to a different, more humane sentence.

 

What right does this person have a to a more humane sentence?? What kind of different court? This person had absolutely zero right in any court to do what he did. He used extreme force against someone who was leaving his "property". I think he was lucky to get what little sentence he did.

 

OK.

[4wheelin_fool]

The sentence doled out by the old man was too harsh. Attempted murder of an unarmed kid who accidentally wandered onto your property?

Having a gun fired at you creates mental trauma, not to mention physical injury.

 

The other day I ran across the following sign, which appears to be on newly aquired public property.

 

 

There are some very special people out there..

[knowschad]

The sentence doled out by the old man was too harsh. Attempted murder of an unarmed kid who accidentally wandered onto your property?

Having a gun fired at you creates mental trauma, not to mention physical injury.

 

The other day I ran across the following sign, which appears to be on newly aquired public property.

 

 

There are some very special people out there..

 

"Attempted murder"?

[+sbell111]

The sentence doled out by the old man was too harsh. Attempted murder of an unarmed kid who accidentally wandered onto your property?

Having a gun fired at you creates mental trauma, not to mention physical injury.

 

The other day I ran across the following sign, which appears to be on newly aquired public property.

 

 

There are some very special people out there..

 

"Attempted murder"?

Certainly, had he actually killed the teen, a charge of murder would have been appropiate. As such, I see no problem categorizing what he did do as attempted murder.

[knowschad]

The sentence doled out by the old man was too harsh. Attempted murder of an unarmed kid who accidentally wandered onto your property?

Having a gun fired at you creates mental trauma, not to mention physical injury.

 

The other day I ran across the following sign, which appears to be on newly aquired public property.

 

 

There are some very special people out there..

 

"Attempted murder"?

Certainly, had he actually killed the teen, a charge of murder would have been appropiate. As such, I see no problem categorizing what he did do as attempted murder.

But from the story that we have been given, he did not attempt murder. He attempted to chase some people off his land. He most certainly was not found guilty of attempted murder, at the very least.

[+geodarts]

Certainly, had he actually killed the teen, a charge of murder would have been appropiate. As such, I see no problem categorizing what he did do as attempted murder.

 

Or perhaps manslaughter. I am thankful that the discussion of what might have been is a hypothetical. Although Heim was not convicted of any crime involving the teen, it was all too close.

Edited November 3, 2011 by geodarts

[+brokenoaks]

Is all this “what constitutes trespassing” really worth someone’s life? No matter how well someone may know the law if ya get shot and killed for going after a geocache on someone’s property without their permission, they may be in jail but you will be just as dead. Perhaps going the extra distance to be sure could go a long way to preventing tragedy. It is obvious this old man made a stupid decision to shoot but that does not make him a bad person, just scared and foolish. Going after a geocache on private land without permission is also rather foolish. And no they should get shot for it but being right does not always save ones life.

[+Bamilbis]

Okay, the court said they believed he had no intent to hit the kid with a bullet. I've said I don't understand how that could possibly be true, but that aside. I'll "suspend disbelief" for the simple fact that I was there to hear the testimony and the court was.

 

Given that, the charge of "murder" or "attempted murder" seems far fetched. But if I am walking down the stairs with a gun (say I have a carry permit) and trip, fall down the stairs and the gun goes off and accidentally hit someone what am I guilty of? Does it change if the person I hit is merely wounded or if he's killed?

 

Would this be where "manslaughter" comes in? Full involuntary manslaughter if he's killed and attempted manslaughter if he just wounded?

[+geodarts]

Okay, the court said they believed he had no intent to hit the kid with a bullet. I've said I don't understand how that could possibly be true, but that aside. I'll "suspend disbelief" for the simple fact that I was there to hear the testimony and the court was.

 

Given that, the charge of "murder" or "attempted murder" seems far fetched. But if I am walking down the stairs with a gun (say I have a carry permit) and trip, fall down the stairs and the gun goes off and accidentally hit someone what am I guilty of? Does it change if the person I hit is merely wounded or if he's killed?

 

Would this be where "manslaughter" comes in? Full involuntary manslaughter if he's killed and attempted manslaughter if he just wounded?

 

This is getting rather far afield, but you may not be guilty of any form of homicide. In my state, involuntary manslaughter would require you to be doing a lawful act (carrying a permitted gun) in an unlawful manner or without caution and circumspection. There is no crime of "attempted involuntary manslaughter."

 

So if Mr. Heim had tripped and the gun had gone off accidentally, that would have been an interesting defense. But it is better not to be in the position of facing that situation. So again, please double check the placement if you are unsure about whether you are placing a cache on private property.

[+sbell111]

Certainly, had he actually killed the teen, a charge of murder would have been appropiate. As such, I see no problem categorizing what he did do as attempted murder.

 

Or perhaps manslaughter. I am thankful that the discussion of what might have been is a hypothetical. Although Heim was not convicted of any crime involving the teen, it was all too close.

In California, in order for it to be voluntary manslaughter, he would have had to be provoked. As a result of that provocation, he would have acted rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured his reasoning or judgment, AND the provocation would have caused an average person to act rashly and without due deliberation…that is, from passion rather than from judgment. The mere fact that someone was hiking on your property would not cause the average person to lose it to the point of shooting the person as he walked away from you, in my opinion. Therefore, manslaughter would not be appropriate. Second degree murder would be the more appropriate charge, in my opinion.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I asked the cacher, (that went back with the father of the kid that was hit in the leg, back to the cache site) how come they couldn't get attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon for the teenager. He told me they couldn't prove that the old man was actually aiming at the kid. I really believe this guy took a shot at them and hit the kid directly and not a ricochet. The kid was knocked down to the ground. The guy yelled at them, then went to his car to grab the gun(22 rifle with scope) and shot 7 rounds at them. I think this guys' sentence is deserved. I still question the private property issue too, as he was renting the place. I'm just glad he didn't kill the kid. The adults didn't even know the kid was shot until they got back to the car. The kid started to lose feeling in his leg. The bullet burned its way in because there wasn't any blood. Just a little black hole and a rip in his pants.

 

One scary encounter while geocaching. Hope we never hear of things like this happening again. Stay safe out there and be aware of your surroundings.

[+geodarts]

In California, in order for it to be voluntary manslaughter, he would have had to be provoked.

 

Unreasonable self defense will get you there, having an unreasonable but good faith belief in the need for self defense. (People v. Blakeley.) Given Heim's defense and the verdict in this case, it would seem likely to me.

 

I asked the cacher, (that went back with the father of the kid that was hit in the leg, back to the cache site) how come they couldn't get attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon for the teenager. He told me they couldn't prove that the old man was actually aiming at the kid. I really believe this guy took a shot at them and hit the kid directly and not a ricochet. The kid was knocked down to the ground. The guy yelled at them, then went to his car to grab the gun(22 rifle with scope) and shot 7 rounds at them. I think this guys' sentence is deserved. I still question the private property issue too, as he was renting the place. I'm just glad he didn't kill the kid.

 

The property is owned by the Heim Trust (a cement company owns the property to the back of this land, where the replacement "John Wayne" cache was placed after the shooting). Rental would not affect the status of the land as private property, and the CO might think about moving the new cache (which is a tribute to the teen) to nearby BLM land.

 

Of course neither rental or direct ownership offer a defense to shooting someone. It remains somewhat of a mystery about why the jury did not convict on assaulting the two teens, while convicting for assaulting the adults. But we are all very glad that no one was killed.

Edited November 3, 2011 by geodarts

[+Team Firenze]

Ummm.... that isn't just Jehovah's witnesses. That is also true for your neighbors, for salesmen, and for people looking for their lost dog.

 

I'm not sure about the 2nd question. Television would have us believe that its true. I suspect it isn't totally true, but that if you did leave your door unlocked, that you'd have a much more difficult time trying to bring charges (or collect insurance).

 

I was using JWs as an example. Obviously it applies to everybody.

 

And my point applies to everybody, as well. You DO need either a No Tresspassing sign, or to tell them at least once to stay off of your property. Until that time, it isn't trespassing.

 

Where did I disagree with that? I firmly agree with that statement.