How a Tulsa Neighbor Dispute Becomes International News

[cannon_fodder]

Great comments Cynical.  I'd like to try to add to it.

1) While they drive around all the time, in reality the police are like the fire department, they respond when something has already happened. The fire department can't go into your kitchen because they think there will be a fire. The police can't interfere with your neighbor because they think there might be an assault. Someone has to report a fire or they have to see smoke.

2) As a practical matter, Police can arrest anyone at any time; but if they arrest when no prosecution is really possible they get some grief, the DA gets grief, and the City may get sued. As Cynical pointed out, with the items actually reported and the witnesses actually available, prosecution would have been nearly impossible. "Shots fired" may draw an officer to your area, but if there is no witness... there is no arrest. That isn't the police officer's fault. Sometimes police will sense a situation is so dangerous they will make an arrest just to clear the air with the understanding that the minor charge probably won't be prosecuted, but I understand that is becoming more rare as police scrutiny increases.

3) The police may have been able to use a mental health hold, but that is an enormous pain in the donkey and expensive. Tulsa usually has to drive such holds to Stillwater (full prisoner transport) for the hold because we lack basic facilities for mental health. If an officer is transporting someone, they aren't available for any other work. Simple numbers game I'm afraid, and that isn't the police officer's fault.

and

4) John Q public has no clue what bond is used for. The primary purpose of requiring a bond is to ensure the defendant shows up to face his charges. The secondary purpose of "protecting the public" was added much later (1984 in Federal law) and is, frankly, a farce (requiring someone to post more money doesn't protect the public from anyone but poor people. If they are so dangerous then bail can be denied).  Americans have had a Constitutional right to be free from excessive bail for as long as we've had freedom of speech.

It's also important to note that the defendant is accused of committing a crime when dragged before a court for bail. In the eyes of the Court, the Defendant should have a 50/50 shot at worst (reality is far different than this impartial fantasy land). Bond prevents a person who is innocent until proven guilty from serving time.

In this instance, the judge makes 100 bail decisions a week (if not a day). $300,000 bail is fairly close to just denying bail for most people and would be challenged as excessive. While an assault with a vehicle could qualify as an offense for which bond could be denied, that would be unlikely unless the individual had a violent history. This judge could (and maybe has) set bail at $30k for similar offenses 10,000 times and everything worked out fine. One time it goes bad (really bad) and the public is happy to look back and say "clearly should have denied bond." Unfortunately, the judge can't look at the next defendant and say "this went bad one time, so I'm going to violate your rights because some bigoted moron abused his constitutional rights."

The system failed because some crazy bigot decided to murder his neighbor. Our justice system is designed to catch and punish people who commit crimes. It is not designed to prevent crime, it is not designed to identify and treat people with violent mental health issues, and it isn't designed to arbitrate disputes between neighbors... even where one is violently ill. A crime was committed, the guilty party was quickly apprehended and is in jail. The system works. 

This is not to belittle the tragedy or say things couldn't have been done differently, but I don't think there is anything that makes it fair to point in hindsight and say "you messed up."

[Conan71]

CF and Cynical, thank you for adding in your input.

There's no disagreement that police work, for the most part, is reactive.

As CF knows, I had personal experience with a mentally ill next door neighbor and we had to call the cops out several times due to her bizarre and sometimes threatening behavior.  What CF said about what happens when they are called out on a mental case is spot-on.  Basically, the PD would stay around until they were reasonably certain the situation had been defused, and we had a paper trail if she were ever to harm anyone on my property or damaged our property.  I get that they cannot simply cuff someone and haul them away.

If there was no one to talk to the cops on the record about the reputed shot fired, I understand why they couldn't do anything.  Without them being there to witness it and there were no witnesses willing to talk, it is as if it never happened.  If Majors' husband was unwilling to tell the cops he was in fear for his own life or that of the neighbors, I get that they simply could not bust down the door with guns blazing.

What I keep getting stuck on is there was an obvious history of domestic disturbances between these two families which clearly was escalating.  The Jabaras had a PO against Majors.  Majors had a PO against Khalid.  Majors had been arrested and extradited to California to finish serving out a sentence ostensibly for similar activities when he lived there.

These are things which certainly would have been known by the DA's office if the average citizen can access those records and I would assume had been argued before the judge in getting Majors locked up without bond for eight months in the first place after he ran over Mrs. Jabara and left her for dead.  Could finally getting some sort of bond really have been because all the sudden Majors had finally gotten a stud attorney who was capable of doing so?

I simply want to know what was going through the judge's head when he finally decided it was all the sudden safe to release someone with zero conditions back next door to the people who had a PO against him.  It appeared from what evidence has been talked about publicly that when Majors ran over Mrs. Jabara, he clearly had targeted her and it was intentional.  As a secondary issue, he was also drunk at the time.  He was obviously a hazard if not to society as a whole, most certainly his next door neighbors.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Cynical, wouldn't a shot fired in the city limits, or at least a report of be enough basis for a search warrant?  It sounds like Schmauss, Majors' husband was just as afraid of this guy as the Jabaras were.

Bill LaFortune is going to have to live with this on his conscience.  He was the judge who allowed Majors to walk.  After spending a few hours reading what little any of us can access on OSCN, I cannot imagine any scenario that a rational judge could have allowed him to bond out.  His felony warrant for jumping bond from California shows up there.  That would indicate that a district court in Oklahoma likely has better access to public records than we do and he would have been aware of his previous behavior in California. Turns out, the California case seems to be due to similar behavior.

Breadburner is right on - this is another Tulsa County Judge fail.  Only this time someone was killed!  It appears to be endemic to the courthouse.  dbacksfan touched on the concept of "pattern of behavior" in a reply - absolutely dead on!!   We have judges that engage in this pattern of behavior and yet, we keep on electing them.... or not un-electing them!


The outcomes were different, only through pure blind luck, but Judge Glassco and DA's office let Mark Allen Eaton off with even less bail when he just tried to kill a couple of kids!!

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hey thin-skin, I was the one who posted the links, and I did so without judgement or comment. 
The result has been a civil, necessary and informative discussion (with one exception).

The point being, Im as aghast as anyone else as to not only how "the system" failed this badly, but how far and wide the implications are.

See my post above....

[patric]

4) John Q public has no clue what bond is used for. The primary purpose of requiring a bond is to ensure the defendant shows up to face his charges. The secondary purpose of "protecting the public" was added much later (1984 in Federal law) and is, frankly, a farce (requiring someone to post more money doesn't protect the public from anyone but poor people. If they are so dangerous then bail can be denied).  Americans have had a Constitutional right to be free from excessive bail for as long as we've had freedom of speech

You have probably seen this in recent news:

"Hundreds of thousands of human beings are held in American cages every night solely because they are too poor to make a payment," Karakatsanis said. "Today's amicus filings of support by a wide range of groups, including the Department of Justice, takes us closer to finally eradicating poverty jailing from American society."  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doj-american-bail-industry_us_57b727bde4b03d513687f5e8

...which does seem to recognize that bail functions more as a privilege of wealth than a right, and in some cases is a form of punishment without benefit of a conviction.  The million-dollar bonds in Waco, Texas come to mind, where 170-ish people who were no more than witnesses to a crime were offered lower bail if they agreed to surrender their rights.

In all, Im not seeing one single solution that just jumps out.  Certainly we need better mechanisms to deal with mental health; you would think that would be a given in a city this size, but we would have to pay for it.

[erfalf]

You have probably seen this in recent news:

"Hundreds of thousands of human beings are held in American cages every night solely because they are too poor to make a payment," Karakatsanis said. "Today's amicus filings of support by a wide range of groups, including the Department of Justice, takes us closer to finally eradicating poverty jailing from American society."  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doj-american-bail-industry_us_57b727bde4b03d513687f5e8

...which does seem to recognize that bail functions more as a privilege of wealth than a right, and in some cases is a form of punishment without benefit of a conviction.  The million-dollar bonds in Waco, Texas come to mind, where 170-ish people who were no more than witnesses to a crime were offered lower bail if they agreed to surrender their rights.

In all, Im not seeing one single solution that just jumps out.  Certainly we need better mechanisms to deal with mental health; you would think that would be a given in a city this size, but we would have to pay for it.

So in other words, their damned if they do, and if they don't. What an envious position.

I'm not trying to shed the blame, but it is a difficult line to balance on, especially when it's as vague as the law can be.

Tragic things happen every day. I feel for the family, and it certainly seems unjust.

I just have a feeling that the same people complaining about how justice was miscarried here, would also be complaining about excessive use of the law to detain people (ie drugs anyone). They would then be over stepping their bounds.

All that being said, I still don't know enough about this particular case to make a factual based opinion on what should or should not have happened, although I am quite certain it is not black and white.

[cannon_fodder]

Breadburner is right on - this is another Tulsa County Judge fail.  Only this time someone was killed!  It appears to be endemic to the courthouse.  dbacksfan touched on the concept of "pattern of behavior" in a reply - absolutely dead on!!   We have judges that engage in this pattern of behavior and yet, we keep on electing them.... or not un-electing them!

The outcomes were different, only through pure blind luck, but Judge Glassco and DA's office let Mark Allen Eaton off with even less bail when he just tried to kill a couple of kids!!

This is great rhetoric, but what you appear to be proposing is just locking people up accused of a crime without regard to the 8th Amendment. Or, are you saying that you would be better able to make such determinations than people who do this for a living? It is exactly what I was talking about.

This Mark Eaton you referenced appears to have been before Glassco for pointing a gun at people and carrying a firearm while intoxicate, not attempted murder. His bond for that was $25k. Which he posted, and was out on bond for the duration of the proceedings without incident. He got a ten year deferred. In other words, you would have had him locked up for the 16 months it took to finalize his case while he was sentenced to no time served. So in your example, the "pattern of behavior" worked exactly as the Framers of the Constitution wanted it to.

http://www.oscn.net/dockets/Results.aspx?db=tulsa&number=&lname=eaton&fname=mark&mname=&DoBMin=&DoBMax=&partytype=&apct=&dcct=&FiledDateL=&FiledDateH=&ClosedDateL=&ClosedDateH=&iLC=&iLCType=&iYear=&iNumber=&citation=

Then, of course, there is the practical side: There are 136,000 arrests per year in Oklahoma. Each arrests takes from a year to two years to clear. Oklahoma's total prisoner population is about 28,000 (prisons and jails). It costs We the People $55 per day to house inmates at David L. Moss. If the State of Oklahoma just adopted your policy of denying bail we'd get to add $4,000,000,000.00 per year to our jail budget (136000*1.5*365*55), pretending we could house more prisoners than the State of California.

Of course it wouldn't be that high for a number of reasons. But I like to think its because unlike the judges who actually have to do this job, the arm chair QBs would all know the right defendants to let out on bail and which ones you could Constitutionally detain. It's a pipe dream of a balancing act that just isn't really there to be had. The Criminal docket is a mess and yes, things are missed. But cutting the Court's funding and lambasting judges that are left certainly doesn't help (HEY! YOU! Do a better job. By the way, do that better job with an increased docket because we are cutting your funding, oh, and less staff to. YOU DO BETTER NOW!). I'm not saying we would have had a different outcome, but certainly a lower caseload and more staff would allow judges to actually spend time looking at each case instead of constantly trying to keep their head above water (most because they are trying to do a good job, but there are some slacker judges).

Clearly, in this case, the system did not protect the Khalid family. The reasons are legion and easy to list. The solution(s), not so much.
- - -

Patric -

The mental health debate is real, but it is also used as a "pass the buck" or scapegoat when convenient. However, Tulsa County is putting real money into a new mental health program at David L. Moss. I really hope we see a return on this investment - people that really need mental health treatment will be cheaper to treat than to just arrest, release, repeat until they finally hit the big time. I really hope it saves us money (ignoring the humanitarian aspect of it).
.

[heironymouspasparagus]

This is great rhetoric, but what you appear to be proposing is just locking people up accused of a crime without regard to the 8th Amendment. Or, are you saying that you would be better able to make such determinations than people who do this for a living? It is exactly what I was talking about.

This Mark Eaton you referenced appears to have been before Glassco for pointing a gun at people and carrying a firearm while intoxicate, not attempted murder. His bond for that was $25k. Which he posted, and was out on bond for the duration of the proceedings without incident. He got a ten year deferred. In other words, you would have had him locked up for the 16 months it took to finalize his case while he was sentenced to no time served. So in your example, the "pattern of behavior" worked exactly as the Framers of the Constitution wanted it to.

http://www.oscn.net/dockets/Results.aspx?db=tulsa&number=&lname=eaton&fname=mark&mname=&DoBMin=&DoBMax=&partytype=&apct=&dcct=&FiledDateL=&FiledDateH=&ClosedDateL=&ClosedDateH=&iLC=&iLCType=&iYear=&iNumber=&citation=

Then, of course, there is the practical side: There are 136,000 arrests per year in Oklahoma. Each arrests takes from a year to two years to clear. Oklahoma's total prisoner population is about 28,000 (prisons and jails). It costs We the People $55 per day to house inmates at David L. Moss. If the State of Oklahoma just adopted your policy of denying bail we'd get to add $4,000,000,000.00 per year to our jail budget (136000*1.5*365*55), pretending we could house more prisoners than the State of California.

Of course it wouldn't be that high for a number of reasons. But I like to think its because unlike the judges who actually have to do this job, the arm chair QBs would all know the right defendants to let out on bail and which ones you could Constitutionally detain. It's a pipe dream of a balancing act that just isn't really there to be had. The Criminal docket is a mess and yes, things are missed. But cutting the Court's funding and lambasting judges that are left certainly doesn't help (HEY! YOU! Do a better job. By the way, do that better job with an increased docket because we are cutting your funding, oh, and less staff to. YOU DO BETTER NOW!). I'm not saying we would have had a different outcome, but certainly a lower caseload and more staff would allow judges to actually spend time looking at each case instead of constantly trying to keep their head above water (most because they are trying to do a good job, but there are some slacker judges).

Clearly, in this case, the system did not protect the Khalid family. The reasons are legion and easy to list. The solution(s), not so much.
- - -

Patric -

The mental health debate is real, but it is also used as a "pass the buck" or scapegoat when convenient. However, Tulsa County is putting real money into a new mental health program at David L. Moss. I really hope we see a return on this investment - people that really need mental health treatment will be cheaper to treat than to just arrest, release, repeat until they finally hit the big time. I really hope it saves us money (ignoring the humanitarian aspect of it).

Feloniously pointing firearm.

Which in the police reports, and by witness testimony - he took his assault rifle (SKS), pointed it at two kids across the street, pulled the bolt back to load the chamber, aimed, then pulled the trigger.  Also from police report he was "gonna clean up the neighborhood..."   Whatever that means.  And while I am not a fan of cigarette smoking, that is what the kids were doing - sitting in their car for a smoke break because their family wouldn't allow smoking in the house.

All that "court stuff" is straightforward and went pretty much as expected.  Then took a turn.

He plead guilty.  Both counts.  SHOULD have been end of story - Guilty with appropriate sentencing.  Which would have included, AT A MINIMUM, revocation of concealed carry license and $1,000 fine.  And if criminal sentence, would (should) have been not less than 1 year nor more than 10 years in prison.

I suspect the family would be less appalled at this if he had even gotten the minimum - revocation of concealed carry.  There is so much gun control stuff spewing around that when a REAL case of a person NOT being suitable for the license gets this kind of kid-glove treatment and doesn't lose that privilege, it shows the whole system for the bias that it has.  Judge Glassco and DA Tim Harris office cut this sweet little deal for someone who obviously had connections.  (I have heard of a "social conscience" lawyer around town named Gary Eaton and have wondered if he is related?)  Anyway, Glassco basically said, no, I won't accept your guilty plea since the DA and I and perhaps some of his buddies are enjoying the benefit of the good ole boy system....

I bet if the situation were reversed, the poor people in that little neighborhood would not have enjoyed such a boon.  And if I were ever in need of a defense lawyer, I would certainly try to do the same - get it routed through that path!!  Sweet deal !!

http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2014/title-21/section-21-1289.16

http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2014/title-21/section-21-1289.17

.

[heironymouspasparagus]

This kinda points out the problem we have that we don't differentiate between violent criminals and non-violent...how many of the current batch of prisoners are non-violent simple possession prisoners (I hear numbers from 15% to 40%...Any % is ridiculous.) and how much room would there be for truly violent offenders if we stopped housing people who are not dangerous?

[cannon_fodder]

All that "court stuff" is straightforward and went pretty much as expected.  Then took a turn.

He plead guilty.  Both counts.  SHOULD have been end of story - Guilty with appropriate sentencing.  Which would have included, AT A MINIMUM, revocation of concealed carry license and $1,000 fine.  And if criminal sentence, would (should) have been not less than 1 year nor more than 10 years in prison.

Actually, no. This didn't take a turn at all, it went exactly as most criminal cases do. An accusation was made, an officer investigated and made an arrest, the DA brought charges, they were negotiated and plead. There is no strange turn here, that's what happens in 85+% of criminal charges.

And take the guilty plea with a grain of salt. Nearly everyone who makes a deal has to plead guilty and has to admit they are pleading guilty because they are guilty, otherwise, no deal. Face 10 years in prison, or say you are guilty and get slapped on the wrist. I'm not saying the guy was innocent, but the guilty please is, unfortunately, not indicative of the truth of the matter asserted.

Furthermore, a conviction wasn't a forgone conclusion. Presumably, the evidence in favor of the state was testimony of minors. This guy would have told a different story. And a jury could believe the kids and still believe that the defendant had "lawful justification" or otherwise decide he was overcharged or a witness doesn't show up or... there's a reason the State gave him a deal and walked away. Even if the State had a rock solid case, a plea is almost always on the table. And this plea didn't look out of the ordinary.

And the judge generally has zero input on a "deal." His job is to have the DA present the deal and ask the Defendant if he has accepted the deal, then approve it or reject it. If you want to allege that a sitting judge is corrupt, show some evidence. What you have shown thus far is that you are unfamiliar with how the criminal courts really works. When it doesn't work in a manner you agree with, it must be corrupt. Or so says Donald Trump.  (over the line?)

I suspect you are personally invested in this case for some reason.

Also--- this Mark Eaton didn't get in more trouble (there are two Mark Eatons, one is born in the 1950s and appears to have a drug problem, the one you appear to be discussing is born in the 1980s).  The Mark Eaton we are discussing seems to be 6 years into a 10 year Court supervision and has not gotten in any more trouble.  I don't know this guy and the only reason I looked it up is this post - so substitute Defendant Dave for this guy all you want... just an example.

[Conan71]

I am perhaps a bit less perturbed with LaFortune after reading this.  It seems the assistant DA also had a clumsy part in this.  LaFortune admitted to not being really familiar with the history between the two families and he was in a hurry to get on to a jury trial that was awaiting him so he was getting impatient to bring the bond hearing to a conclusion so he could move on to his next task.  Read and decide for yourselves.

Transcript shows new details in past bond hearing for homicide suspect

During a bond hearing earlier this year, days after Stanley Vernon Majors had been released from jail after allegedly running over a neighbor with his car, the prosecutor fighting to keep Majors behind bars found himself in a predicament.

Majors, charged last year with assault and battery with a deadly weapon, had just left jail after posting a "completely inadequate" $30,000 bond," Assistant District Attorney Brett Mize told District Judge Bill LaFortune during the bond hearing.

The Frontier obtained a transcript of the May 25 hearing during which Majors' bond was discussed.

Mizewas worried that Majors, who lived next door to his alleged victim and had a long history of alleged racially-charged harassment toward the Jabara family, would return home and immediately return to his old tricks. Realizing LaFortune was determined to grant Majors bail, Mize asked the judge to raise it to $300,000 and require Majors wear an ankle monitor.

majors jabara
Stanley Vernon Majors, left, was arrested last week for allegedly killing his neighbor, Khalid Jabara, right. Records show Majors told attorneys he would move away from the Jabara family, but it was never set as a formal condition.
LaFortune gave the prosecutor two options: leave the bail at $30,000 with a new condition that Majors move from his home into an apartment far away from the family he allegedly tormented or have his bail upped to $60,000.

Court records appear to show Mize and Marvin Lizama, Majors' attorney, settled on the latter. Less than three months later, Khalid Jabara was dead, shot to death last Friday on his front porch, and Majors was arrested for the alleged murder.

That revelation in the highly publicized case came Thursday after a transcript of the May 25 bond hearing was reviewed by The Frontier.

Majors allegedly terrorized his Lebanese neighbors for years, routinely spitting racial epithets at them. Prior to Khalid Jabara's shooting Friday, the bad blood culminated last September when an allegedly drunken Majors reportedly ran over Khalid's mother, Haifa, who was on an evening walk.

Documents:
State's motion to reconsider bond
Transcript from the May 25 bond hearing

The 65-year-old woman, who runs a successful catering business, was found by a passerby lying in a pool of blood, asking for her husband. Her shoes had been knocked off of her body and were found by police lying 44 feet away, a fact that led investigators to determine Majors hit the woman at full speed.

"When someone is struck at a decent rate of speed, one of the first things that actually flies from the body are the shoes," Officer Stephen Theimer testified at a previous hearing on that incident. "That's just from the force of the strike."

Another officer, who had responded to dozens of disputes between the Jabaras and Majors, testified in that hearing that Majors "had a dislike" for his neighbors, noting he'd once responded to three calls in one day at the two residences.

The suggestion that Majors move from his home at 9332 S. 85th E. Ave. was initially made by Majors himself, the transcript shows. It was made as attorneys were bartering with LaFortune over the prospect of equipping Majors with an ankle monitor.

LaFortune said during the hearing he "routinely" ordered ankle monitors, but he was concerned it would have little effect since Majors lived just a few feet away from the Jabaras.

"I just don't think it's going to have the effect it normally would," the judge said.

LaFortune then addressed Majors directly.

"This is a very precarious situation for the court and for the parties and for yourself and for the victim's — the alleged victim's — family," he told Majors.

"Well I could move to another apartment," Majors said.

"Well that might be a great idea," LaFortune responded.

LaFortune told The Frontier on Monday that ethics rules would not allow him to speak about the case, since the felony the bond hearing was attached to was still pending in Tulsa County District Court.

Family members have criticized the way Majors' case was handled, saying it was not treated with the seriousness it deserved. However, on the day of the bond hearing, LaFortune appeared very concerned with both Majors' history and his proximity to the Jabaras.

LaFortune said during the hearing that when he set the original $30,000 bail, just days before this bond hearing, he had not been aware of much of Majors' prior alleged incidents with the family.

Haifa Jabara had a protective order against him, which had already been violated once prior to the alleged assault. Police records show officers responding to various disputes between the two sides dozens of times in the last few years.

"I mean it's not a good history for you in terms of my perception, and I'm very concerned with you out of custody and living next door to the victim and the victim's family, of what might happen on any given day given this history," LaFortune told Majors.

But still, LaFortune seemed perfectly willing to leave the bond at $30,000, offering Mize a take-it-or-leave-it scenario at the end of the hearing, noting he wanted to hurry because he had a jury waiting for a trial that was set to begin.

"I can put (Majors moving to an apartment) as a condition if we want to get it wrapped up," LaFortune told the attorneys. "I don't want to spend all day on this because I've got a jury waiting."

Mize, according to the transcript, initially seemed amenable to the $30,000 bail, saying he would "be agreeable to going back to the original bond" if Majors would be willing to move into a different location. and moving condition.

But he quickly backtracked and again asked LaFortune for the $60,000 bail.

"Judge, I think I negotiated against myself there," he told LaFortune. "I would rather leave it at 60 (thousand) and put the effort on them to prove they're making steps to move away."

Majors posted the increased bond hours after the hearing ended and was released from custody until he was arrested last Friday for allegedly killing Khalid Jabara.

Lizama could not be reached for comment late Thursday.

District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler, who said he expects to get the criminal case against Majors from Tulsa Police by the end of Friday, told The Frontier earlier this week that "the system failed" the Jabara family by letting Majors out of jail unchecked.

He said Thursday that it appeared in the bond hearing that prosecutors first argued for Majors to be held without bond, then sought a $300,000 bail. Kunzweiler said prosecutors "wanted an ankle monitor and we wanted him out of the house."

"To which we got neither," he said.

"What it sounds like to me, from the transcript, is that we wanted a higher bond to be set, but it became clear that (District Judge Bill LaFortune) was not going to go above $60,000, so that's what we agreed to," Kunzweiler said. He noted that what prosecutors typically do at that point is accept the judge's high range and then negotiate from there.

The killing has generated heavy interest nationally, and even internationally, with outlets ranging from the BBC to Aljazeera covering Jabara's death.

Jabara's funeral is set for Thursday evening. Fundraisers have raised more than $15,000 to help the family with expenses.

From readfrontier.com

[heironymouspasparagus]

And take the guilty plea with a grain of salt. Nearly everyone who makes a deal has to plead guilty and has to admit they are pleading guilty because they are guilty, otherwise, no deal. Face 10 years in prison, or say you are guilty and get slapped on the wrist. I'm not saying the guy was innocent, but the guilty please is, unfortunately, not indicative of the truth of the matter asserted.

Furthermore, a conviction wasn't a forgone conclusion. Presumably, the evidence in favor of the state was testimony of minors. This guy would have told a different story. And a jury could believe the kids and still believe that the defendant had "lawful justification" or otherwise decide he was overcharged or a witness doesn't show up or... there's a reason the State gave him a deal and walked away. Even if the State had a rock solid case, a plea is almost always on the table. And this plea didn't look out of the ordinary.

And the judge generally has zero input on a "deal." His job is to have the DA present the deal and ask the Defendant if he has accepted the deal, then approve it or reject it. If you want to allege that a sitting judge is corrupt, show some evidence. What you have shown thus far is that you are unfamiliar with how the criminal courts really works. When it doesn't work in a manner you agree with, it must be corrupt. Or so says Donald Trump.  (over the line?)

I suspect you are personally invested in this case for some reason.

Also--- this Mark Eaton didn't get in more trouble (there are two Mark Eatons, one is born in the 1950s and appears to have a drug problem, the one you appear to be discussing is born in the 1980s).  The Mark Eaton we are discussing seems to be 6 years into a 10 year Court supervision and has not gotten in any more trouble.  I don't know this guy and the only reason I looked it up is this post - so substitute Defendant Dave for this guy all you want... just an example.

Friend of the family.  (I have mentioned that several times in the past on posts about this.)

17 year olds.  Two other neighbors witnessed it, too.  I don't remember if their names got onto police report - they said talked to someone about the case, though, and thought it was prosecutors office...

Mark Allen Eaton.  The 1980's one.  The other one spells his middle name Alan, IIRC.


More trouble - well, none that has been reported to police.  The neighborhood attitude is, well if he got away with this, what is the point....?  Couple of times, another neighbor has called police about this guy shooting his Glock in the backyard - and MAE talked about it with him.  One event, his dog got into yet another neighbor's yard, so he just fired off a couple shots to get the dogs to stop fighting....And with all the history, it's no wonder he would not sign a police report - just puts a target on his back.

Other stuff is just low level white trash punk BS that others do all the time, too, so not really much point.  Racing cars through neighborhood, etc.   Driving across neighbor's yard to park in his front yard (dog fight guy).  Parking his toy hauler trailer on the other neighbor's yard.  Little trashy carp...


I understand how the courts cut deals all the time.  (Especially when there is someone who knows someone who knows someone.  I'm betting some Eaton's know some Eaton's - just a hunch.)  One point that still remains is how we get so many simple possessions who end up with prison time, and then a violent event doesn't even get a concealed carry permit removed for a violent firearm related crime.  That is the biggest issue to me personally.  Even as "enthusiastic" as I am about gun rights, I am equally enthusiastic about personal responsibility if you do violent things.  This case has "boys will be boys" treatment by the court written all over it.

[cannon_fodder]

The low level possession resulting in charges is from a couple of different sources in my experience one is those guys get busted over and over and over and over, until eventually they are forced to do time. Another is federal law "encouraged" states under the war on drugs to enact laws being "tough on drugs" with more in-jail time etc.

I know the frustration of having low-life neighbors and little that can be done about it. Not advocating for the guy, just that it isn't unique.

[Hoss]

Answering the question to the actual subject line, I found out in the last couple of days that I actually work with the victim's sister.  She's a marketing manager for a publication and/or event show we run.  FWIU she was the one who wrote the statement that was circulated to the press.  In her line of work she knows how to write to grab attention.  I know that sounds a little callous, but bringing attention to this is not a bad thing.

[Conan71]

I know the frustration of having low-life neighbors and little that can be done about it. Not advocating for the guy, just that it isn't unique.

I dunno, hookers and gypsies can be pretty entertaining.