Maybe there were extenuating circumstances I don't know about. But killing a law enforcement officer, whether a detective, street cop, meter maid, or game warden just doesn't seem right.

Killing anybody just doesn't seem right, doesn't matter whether it is a LEO or not.

There are already conflicting facts on this thread. Was the second officer shot in the back, or was he shot while attempting to draw his gun? Shooting him in the back would have made it really hard for Claude to win on a self defense motive. Personally, I would think the shots to the back of the head, or the head in general would have made this murder in the first degree. At least that is the law in Maryland.

Once the threat has been neutralized, deciding to kill somebody is no longer self defense, but murder. By switching guns, Claude had the time to think, which would have put this in the first degree muder category because the LEO's deaths were premeditated when he pulled the trigger on the .22 and shot them in the head.

You also have to realize that his friend, the only eye witness to this whole thing that was still breathing, other than Claude that is, would have probably received a deal from the State's Attorney's office because he was an accessory to murder after the fact. I am sure that he didn't want to go to jail either so he would have probably been telling the State's Attorney whatever he wanted to know.

These cases are tough and they suck, but I think I would have locked the guy up for life or fried him because of the .22 shots.

Guess this is why we try people by a jury of local people (peers). They determined what the facts were and set the punishment.

The rest of us are just speculating based on incomplete knowledge.

Hawkeye,

You beat me to it. I was going to write that the problem with this thread is that it is influenced by a lot of unknows and incorrect "facts." Even at a trial, you don't get all the facts and sometimes one witness contradicts another witness, so a jury has a tough job of figuring out who to believe and who not to believe and deciding guilt or not based upon testimony the receive about what happened that night and other incidents.

I am willing to bet that most of us have heard OUR story via word of mouth, and anybody who has played telephone as a kid knows how badly that can get distorted, or we have heard the story through the TV or newspaper, and we all know how much we can trust them to tell it as it is.

So, we can all sit here and argue about whether Claude is a good guy or a bad guy, but we aren't going to get anywhere.

Personally, I think that the game warden would have shot Claude on the spot if that was what he really intended on doing. Why take away their guns and then look through the camp to see if you can find any incriminating evidence before you shoot a person if you really intended on shooting that person anyway. I just believe that if the LEO's really wanted to kill Claude, he would have been dead before he had the chance to shoot back. I also think he got away with murder.

Of course, I am basing my opinion on "facts" that I have read on this thread. Who knows if the game wardens actually took the guns away from the men. I am sure Claude and his accessory had plenty of time to work on their story while they were hauling and burying the bodies.

Twelve Good Men and True
 

Fabs:

That's right.

Presumptively, justice was done here. Twelve good men and true found facts and reached a verdict. I'm sure the State and People of Idaho were represented by adequate counsel. I don't know who or how, but Dallas seems to have been adequately represented as well, especially as it seems pretty certian he was indigent.

I believe the PC term would be 12 people since their were more women on the jury than men. Just busting your chops after a tough day of work my friend.

Well in my State where the person is shot has No bearing on 1st 2nd or 3rd degree . Other elements on the crime need to be met for each one.
This guy has spent time in South Dakota jails before and hope he remembers and stays out of this State.
There was a movie made on this and it was quite interesting and am supprised to say the least he is getting out.

Nulle,

I am guessing that you think I think that he is guilty of first degree murder because he shot the guys in the head. Quite honestly, it wouldn't have mattered if he shot them in the head or shot them in the chest after they were already down. The differentiating factor between murder and manslaughter in Maryland is that murder is premeditated. Manslaughter is just a wreckless disregard for human life (e.g., doing 120 mph in a 40 mph zone). A person I know, not a friend of mine, killed an old lady while doing 100+ in a 40 mph zone. He ended up T-boning her while she was trying to cross the intersection in her car.

In Maryland, what Claude did would have been murder or he would have been let of on self defense. Whether it would have been first degree or second depends on certain factors, but it wouldn't have been manslaughter.

Pretty much the same in this State and hope ya get your nightmares undercontrol = lol
I take it you didn't happen to see the movie ? It was pretty good and interesting . Maybe the killer will get a few $ from it to get a fresh start ?

Fabs:

1. I genereally don't get accused of being PC. :)

2. Isn't manslaughter a "lesser included offense" in a murder charge in Maryland?

H.

Oh Fabs you shoulda been a boxer....daze them ...confuse them .....you licensed in Florida...just in case??????

I have had a run in with a c.o. but each time you need to remeber
most every one they deal with has a gun so being nice may not be the best thing to do till he knows whats going on.
I would let a c.o arrest me for a bobcat pelt any day and fight it in court then risk life in prison.
I also realize i dont know much on this but wouldnt it look strang
no matter where you are if you have wild life taged frome another state.
just a exampel there are lots of areas here were you could hunt deer and walk into ohio and kill a deer if i used a ohio tag and drag it back across the line and hang it in camp in mi now if a c.o checks it i may have to prove were i killed it.

by the way i did not see the movie

You know Val to me this killer is no better then the perps. you fight against and we both know how many of these they turn loose ever day. Guess I should have a cold glass of OJ and forget it lmao.

The justice system in this country isn't perfect. I think we can all agree to that. I think we can also agree that it is one of the better systems on the planet.


Nulle,

The only nightmares that I have right now are that of my dog drowning under the ice. I don't do much criminal stuff and all of it is assault and battery or less. I have done one assualt and battery in the second degree, a couple DWI's, some DNR violations, and some traffic tickets. Most of the criminal stuff is done for people that are already business clients of mine. The serious stuff I refer out because I don't want to deal with that kind of client and I don't take any new clients that come to me with a criminal matter as their first case.


Hawkeye,

Manslaughter is a lesser included offense to murder (i.e., it has the same elements, but it lacks malice).

I did a little research and figured out why Claude could have been found guilty of manslaughter. In Maryland, and many other states, it is called the imperfect self defense theory. If Claude had proven that he acted in self defense, which would entail a person reasonably believing that they are facing imminent death, he would have gotten off completely. The imperfect self defense assertion mitigates murder to manslaughter. The imperfect self defense assertion is where a reasonable person would not be in fear for his life based upon the circumstances.

The introduction to the case reads like this:

"... when evidence is presented showing subjective belief of defendant charged with murder that use of force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm, defendant is entitled to a proper instruction on imperfect self-defense, which would enable jury to find defendant guilty of murder if it concluded defendant did not have a subjective belief that use of deadly force was necessary, to find defendant not guilty if it concluded that defendant had a reasonable subjective belief, or to find defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter if it concluded that defendant honestly believed that use of force was necessary but that subjective belief was unreasonable under circumstances..."


Val,

I wish I were licensed in Florida. The fiance's brother is having a little trouble at the University of Florida with a professor, but I can't do a single thing because I am only licensed in Maryland and the District of Columbia. It drives me crazy when people abuse their power.

Hellava note ain't it? Having LEO's going around saying that. Guess if Dallas would've pushed it, he could've got the ole boy's job...but...the threats wouldn't of went away and I'm sure it would've just made matters worse.
Sworn out in court? Pretty damning evidence right there.
Like most, I'm relatively sure if someone was saying that about me...I'd hate to see him out in the sticks with his gun drawn. Wouldn't be anything good come out of it. Don't think I'd want to wait and see if he had just been running his mouth. Don't think anyone would.
It's a shame it had to happen, ruined lives for alot of folks.