How Not To Stop a Thief (Who Isn't Stealing Anything)

imported post

Ole Rambo Veitch got in over his head. Had a legitimate concern, did a legitimate stake-out, and did a legitimate call to 911.

He could've just waited for the legitimate law enforcement forces to show up and do their legitimate stuff.

Instead, Veitch ended up being a goof with a gun....and a killer.

Ought to be an interesting trial.





April 11, 2009

Builder's murder trial to begin Monday
By Elizabeth Richardson

The Times-Herald

The trial for Richard Jason Veitch is scheduled to begin in Coweta Superior Court on Monday at the Coweta County Justice Center.

Veitch is a Coweta builder who allegedly shot and killed drywall worker Gaston Gonzales, whom Veitch thought was a copper thief, on the night of July 27, 2008. Veitch had been having problems with thieves stealing copper from his under-construction homes on Trammell Road in south Coweta. Authorities say he accidentally shot to death his own subcontractor, who was an illegal Mexican sleeping in his van at the job site.

Veitch is being represented by Attorney Mike Kam. Senior Assistant District Attorney Ray Mayer will prosecute the case. Superior Court Judge Dennis Blackmon is expected to preside over the proceedings.

Veitch has pleaded not guilty to charges of felony murder, three counts of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

According to authorities, Veitch decided to stake out the property one night and try to catch the thieves himself. When a van pulled up in the driveway of one of the under-construction homes, Veitch called Coweta 911 to say he was being robbed. Then Veitch, wearing camouflage pants and carrying two firearms, approached the van.

Authorities say he allegedly fired a warning shot and then ordered the three men in the van to get out and lie down on the ground. According to the two survivors, Gonzales did not speak English very well and did not understand that Veitch was telling him to get on the ground and put his hands behind his head.

Veitch allegedly jabbed Gonzales twice in the back with his 12-gauge, over/under shotgun. On the second jab, the gun went off, fatally wounding Gonzales, authorities said.

http://www.times-herald.com/local/Builders-murder-trial-Monday-712427

imported post

Maybe he should be his own attorney, too. See how that works out for him.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Maybe he should be his own attorney, too. See how that works out for him.

Click to expand...

He didn't make that mistake. The guy is stupid. But he is rich.

And the goof with a gungot off....the old gun went off gambit....

I think the guy had some juice.





Builder acquitted of murder charge
An accident: Defendant says he shot subcontractor at a work site in 2008 after mistaking him for a copper thief.


By Marcus K. Garner

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, April 17, 2009


A Coweta County jury on Thursday acquitted a home builder of murder charges for having shot and killed a subcontractor he had mistaken for a copper thief.

In June 2008, Richard J. Veitch shot Gaston Gonzalez of Norcross at a work site.


“It was pretty clear after a 2 1/2-day trial, as we’ve always maintained, that this was an accidental shooting,” said Veitch’s attorney Ron Harwell.

Ray Mayer, the Coweta assistant district attorney who led the prosecution, declined to comment.

Veitch, 28, maintained he pointed the gun at Gonzalez because he thought Gonzalez was one of a trio of thieves who had come to steal copper at one of the builder’s work sites in Moreland. The men actually were there to install drywall.

The defense argued that Veitch’s gun discharged accidentally.

“They had no business being there at 1 in the morning on a Saturday after my client had been hit [by theft] several times,” Harwell said of the men Veitch encountered before shooting Gonzalez.

Veitch declined through Harwell to comment because of threats against his life and a pending lawsuit.

Harwell said witnesses who were with Gonzalez the night he died gave conflicting testimonies in taped depositions and in court.

“They previously stated in taped statements that they were there to pick up their tools,” he said. “But they told the jury they were there to spend the night.”

Harwell said Veitch and his family “grieve for the Gonzalez family.”

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/04/17/veitch0417.html

imported post

So are they going to refile charges of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder?
It seems pretty clear that he was not in danger of grievous bodily harm, he shot an unarmed man, laying on the ground, in the back. Please don't tell me he simply gets to "walk".

imported post

Although it is admitted that the victim was in the U.S illegally, seems like he should have stayed home, meaning whatever country he came from. The builder should be tried for hiring illegals, and then sent to prison for it.

imported post

Pagan wrote:

Although it is admitted that the victim was in the U.S illegally, seems like he should have stayed home, meaning whatever country he came from. The builder should be tried for hiring illegals, and then sent to prison for it.

Click to expand...

No. It doesn't seem like that at all.

You may be gettinghung up on some lesser issues. Much lesser.

Focus. An unarmedman was shot in the back. With a shotgun. While he waslying on the ground. Killed.

By an incompetent cop wannabe.... by a goof with a gun.

Focus.

imported post

If a cop can get walk from a negligent shooting involving poor trigger discipline, then it is immensely unjust to hold a private citizen criminally liable in a similar situation.

imported post

Heartless_Conservative wrote:

If a cop can get walk from a negligent shooting involving poor trigger discipline, then it is immensely unjust to hold a private citizen criminally liable in a similar situation.

Click to expand...

Right-Oh, heartless. Amnesty for all goofs with a gun who don't know what a trigger does! All they have to say is "The gun went off!" and "A cop did it too--let me go!"

Here are some details. Decide for yourselfhow you'd gradeVeitch's performance on his very firstSWAT stakeout. It's OK to give him extra points for impromptu ambulance driving.



April 15, 2009

Veitch recalls night of shooting
By Alex McRae

The Times-Herald

A Coweta County Superior Court jury is deliberating the fate of Newnan builder Jason Veitch, who is charged with felony murder in the June 28, 2008, shooting death of drywall worker Gaston Gonzalez.

Superior Court Judge Dennis Blackmon is presiding over the case. Coweta Judicial Circuit Assistant District Attorney Ray Mayer is leading the prosecution. Newnan attorney Michael Kam led the defense Wednesday. Newnan attorney Ron Harwell also represents Veitch.

On Wednesday morning, Kam presented the defense, calling only one witness -- Veitch.

Veitch testified that during the month of June 2008, copper was stolen from several homes he was constructing near the intersection of Trammell and Robinson roads. Veitch said he had reported the thefts to the Coweta County Sheriff's office, but no suspects had been apprehended.

On the morning of Friday, June 27, Veitch saw that four homes burglarized of copper earlier in the month had been hit again. That afternoon, Veitch met with then-Coweta deputy Steven Jordan to report the thefts and ask what could be done to prevent the losses, which Veitch said ran as high as $6,000 per house.

According to Veitch, Jordan said the only solution was to catch the thieves in the act.

Veitch said Jordan also advised him to make a citizen's arrest and hold any suspected thieves in custody until law enforcement arrived.

That night, according to Veitch's testimony, he went to the job site and hid in the woods. He had a 12-gauge shotgun, a .22-caliber pistol and extra ammunition for each weapon. He also had a bag of plastic ties he'd bought that night. Veitch said that sometime after midnight he saw an unfamiliar vehicle drive onto the site and park in front of one of the under-construction homes.

Veitch said he called 911 and reported he was being robbed. He said he then called his father-in-law, Billy Flournoy, and asked him to come to the scene. Phone records have confirmed the calls.

Veitch said he remained hidden in the woods waiting for deputies to arrive, but Flournoy got there first.

According to Veitch, Flournoy parked his truck with its lights shining on the van, then shone a flashlight into the van and ordered the passengers to come out.

Veitch testified Wednesday he feared for Flournoy's safety and left his hiding place, that he fired a warning shot from the 12-gauge into the air and joined Flournoy as three drywall workers exited the van.

Veitch said two of the men got on the ground and put their hands behind their heads as ordered. A third man, Gaston Gonzalez, exited the van and laid on the ground but kept trying to get up, refusing to place his hands behind his back, Veitch said.

Veitch testified that in an attempt to make Gonzalez comply, he poked Gonzalez twice on the upper back with his shotgun barrel. On the second poke, the shotgun fired, striking Gonzalez in the back of the neck.

After the shooting, Veitch called 911 and requested an ambulance, but instead of waiting, Flournoy drove Gonzalez to Piedmont Newnan Hospital, where Gonzalez was pronounced dead.

Veitch said he'd intended to wait until law enforcement had arrived to take any action, but once Flournoy was on the scene, Veitch feared for his and Flournoy's safety and fired the warning shot and confronted the drywall workers with the gun in an attempt to take them into custody.

"I never had any intention of hurting anyone," Veitch said. "I did not intend to shoot anyone. I was just scared to death and this was a terrible accident."

Jury deliberations continue today.

http://www.times-herald.com/local/Veitch-recalls-night-of-shooting-716234

imported post

My Amateur Opinion: He should get 1st degree manslaughter and loose his freedom for at least a half dozen years.

He blew it and went off "full cocked", He should have waited for the cops, after all he called them, he was fully armed so whats the big hurry, he has the surprise upper hand , he was in no danger.

I think he was emotional & zealous he took an angry action, vs a calculated rational action which precipitated his negligence, to me this is border line murder.

The Mexicans family should NOT be able to sue in court tuff toe nails for being here illegally, "but" the defendant/shooter/killer /contractor should privately pay his family for what he did as a matter of morality and what is right , perhaps 500 a month for 5 or 10 working years

imported post

SteveInAshand wrote:

My Amateur Opinion: He should get 1st degree manslaughter and loose his freedom for at least a half dozen years.

He blew it and went off "full cocked", He should have waited for the cops, after all he called them, he was fully armed so whats the big hurry, he has the surprise upper hand , he was in no danger.

I think he was emotional & zealous he took an angry action, vs a calculated rational action which precipitated his negligence, to me this is border line murder.

The Mexicans family should NOT be able to sue in court tuff toe nails for being here illegally, "but" the defendant/shooter/killer /contractor should privately pay his family for what he did as a matter of morality and what is right , perhaps 500 a month for 5 or 10 working years

Click to expand...

I agree. Veitch put himself and his father in law in a bad situation. We'll be seeing more of the vigilante arrests as LE for most counties is cutting their budget.

imported post

flintlock tom wrote:

So are they going to refile charges of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder?
It seems pretty clear that he was not in danger of grievous bodily harm, he shot an unarmed man, laying on the ground, in the back. Please don't tell me he simply gets to "walk".

Click to expand...

That would be double Jeopardy- "No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

imported post

StacyN wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

So are they going to refile charges of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder?
It seems pretty clear that he was not in danger of grievous bodily harm, he shot an unarmed man, laying on the ground, in the back. Please don't tell me he simply gets to "walk".

Click to expand...

That would be double Jeopardy- "No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

Click to expand...

Thought that was only being retried twice on the same charge.....

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

StacyN wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

So are they going to refile charges of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder?
It seems pretty clear that he was not in danger of grievous bodily harm, he shot an unarmed man, laying on the ground, in the back. Please don't tell me he simply gets to "walk".

Click to expand...

That would be double Jeopardy- "No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

Click to expand...

Thought that was only being retried twice on the same charge.....

Click to expand...

If Veitchhas slipped through legal system unpunished, I hope he has some bad dreams for a while.

Just doesn't seem fair thata goof with a gun could get away with killing a man unnecessarily and not pay some kind of price.

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

StacyN wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

So are they going to refile charges of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder?
It seems pretty clear that he was not in danger of grievous bodily harm, he shot an unarmed man, laying on the ground, in the back. Please don't tell me he simply gets to "walk".

Click to expand...

That would be double Jeopardy- "No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

Click to expand...

Thought that was only being retried twice on the same charge.....

Click to expand...

No it's covers thecrime (and the jurisdiction)not the charges.

If he violated a federal law he cold be tried in federal court though. He could also be sued in civil court.

"Double jeopardy isnot implicated for separate offenses or in separate jurisdictions arising from the same act."

imported post

Sometimes a stupid horrible accident is a stupid horrible accident. I don't think that every time someone commits a stupid horrible accident that they should go to jail. Anyone who has lived their life and not spent all their time sitting in the dark in their parents basement on the computer (using the old internet example in a general sense not directed at anyone) has been in a situation at one time or another where through a moment of stupid, bad judgment or inattention s/he could have seriously injured or killed another person. Just because the stupid, bad judgment or inattention involves a firearm rather than a ladder, car, power tool, boat, etc. does not make the accident more tragic or the accident more of an on purpose.

To punish this man criminally for his act is retributive, not constructive. There is no evidence that this man would do this again or is a danger to society. As a society we used to understand the difference. The very idea of civil wrongful death suits seem to recognize this difference, that someone can do something negligent wherein they are not criminally responsible but are civilly responsible to those they harmed due to their stupidity, bad judgment, or inattention.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Sometimes a stupid horrible accident is a stupid horrible accident. I don't think that every time someone commits a stupid horrible accident that they should go to jail. Anyone who has lived their life ... has been in a situation at one time or another where through a moment of stupid, bad judgment or inattention s/he could have seriously injured or killed another person. Just because the stupid, bad judgment or inattention involves a firearm rather than a ladder, car, power tool, boat, etc. does not make the accident more tragic or the accident more of an on purpose.

Click to expand...

:uhoh:
Gawd, what a perfect argumentation for the antis/LE/Bloombergs to make light of. Their rebuttal (and call for regulation) would go something like this:

"Even when a man hunts down and kills an unarmedman, who is his own employee, by shooting him in the back while the shootee is surrendered and face down on the ground--the pro gun advocates STILL do not think that such a shooter should be held accountable under criminal law!!!!!Pro-gun advocates actually think that shooting a man in the back with a 12 gauge at contact rangeisequal to an accident involving a ladder!!!

Pro-gun advocates simply do not care if one of their own kills anybody and will concoct any kind of rationale to explain shooting an unarmed employee on the ground in the back!!!"

It frightens and saddens meif we can't give even one, not even one, up for what it is: an utterly clear case of manslaughter or murder by a goof with a gun.

imported post

HankT wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

Sometimes a stupid horrible accident is a stupid horrible accident. I don't think that every time someone commits a stupid horrible accident that they should go to jail. Anyone who has lived their life ... has been in a situation at one time or another where through a moment of stupid, bad judgment or inattention s/he could have seriously injured or killed another person. Just because the stupid, bad judgment or inattention involves a firearm rather than a ladder, car, power tool, boat, etc. does not make the accident more tragic or the accident more of an on purpose.

Click to expand...

:uhoh:
Gawd, what a perfect argumentation for the antis/LE/Bloombergs to make light of. Their rebuttal (and call for regulation) would go something like this:

"Even when a man hunts down and kills an unarmedman, who is his own employee, by shooting him in the back while the shootee is surrendered and face down on the ground--the pro gun advocates STILL do not think that such a shooter should be held accountable under criminal law!!!!!Pro-gun advocates actually think that shooting a man in the back with a 12 gauge at contact rangeisequal to an accident involving a ladder!!!

Pro-gun advocates simply do not care if one of their own kills anybody and will concoct any kind of rationale to explain shooting an unarmed employee on the ground in the back!!!"

It frightens and saddens meif we can't give even one, not even one, up for what it is: an utterly clear case of manslaughter or murder by a goof with a gun.

Click to expand...

Before you bust my chops that I "can't give even one, not even on, up" I suggest you read my posts on other shootings, for example, the pharmacy shooting. I did not have a knee jerk reaction to this story and I thought about it quite a bit when the story first broke. I have judged several shooters to have been in the wrong on these forums. Your strawman about the antis does nothing to detract from my discussion as their entire basis is irrational and arguing another possible irrationality they may use is not an effective response to my considered opinion.

This matter involves a fine line. I'll contrast it with Dave Workman's recent posts about 2 hunter shooter cases in WA. In both of those cases the hunters with reckless abandon (IMO) pointed their guns at something they could not identify and while not under duress or threat they deliberately pulled the triggers and killed a human being. I believe that to be a criminal act. While the death of a human being was accidental everything else up to that point was deliberate and without duress. They intended to shoot, the did shoot and they did hit what they were aiming at without verifying their target and their target turned out to be a human.

In this case he knew his target and he deliberately pointed a gun at another human being and he was under duress. He made a horrible error in not keeping his finger off the trigger until ready and intending to fire. Had he not made that grievous error no one would be dead.

It is somewhat the difference between someone sitting in their car in a parking lot knowing there is a group of people picnicking just over a rise in front of him, looking backwards, putting the car in drive instead of reverse by accident, hitting the gas and tragically darting forward, bouncing over the rise and hitting the people and someone in that same parking spot, without looking to see what is over the rise, looking forward, putting the car in drive and slamming the gas pedal to the floor. The first is a horrible accident and may rightfully have civil penalties, the second is reckless disregard for others.

imported post

I agree with Hank on this one.

This guy's stupidity and recklessness caused him to shoot and kill and innocent, unarmed man.

Since he apparently didn't plan on or intentionally kill him, murder is probably overzealous, but a manslaughter conviction is definately warranted

imported post

i have mixed emotions, 1 in the am, big van 3 mexicans , previous acts of crime at site, 150 shot of adrenaline when he only needed 75, prison in my oppinion is not right and if the guy (s) were there "sleeping" then they should have gotten permission before hand, OH right just like they should have gotten OUR permission to come to this country and work. not exploit it and go home (mexico) and live like a king off of some poor guys copper money. I dont mean to sound like the wang here but if he would've stayed in mexico or more importintantly got a green card then asked his boss to sleep on the property..... he MIGHT still be alive. but who knows maybe if it didnt happen then, maybe he would have gotten shot "sleeping" right next to YOUR expensive goods?? prison ? NO! the guy needs proper firearms training , then train him on how to ask for a S.S./Green Card. or maybe i'm just the wang and i got it all wrong.:question::cuss::question:

imported post

IMO, this guy needs to be relieved of any right to bear arms, until properly trained,and can demonstrate adequate firearm safety, unless he has already received proper training.

If he has received proper training, then I would say he has done his part to ensure safety but should pay some other form of penalty, not necessarily monetary,for his apparent negligence. By theavailable evidence, he did have his finger on the trigger at a time when he did not feel in iminent danger and was using the firearm as a means of control.

While it is our right to keep and bear arms, it is not our right to endanger others through negligence or lack of training. ANY lapse of judgement should be punished in some way to serve as a reminder and help prevent future lapses in judgement.

The fact that this guy was illegal should have no bearing on the outcome of this situation. His citizenship status had zero bearing on the actors actions.