![[Marshall Democrat-News]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/nameplate-small.png){kind=small}
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (36)The Saline County Sheriff's Department reported the arrest of Garrett Sunday, June 22, after a woman said he shot a television set in her residence with a handgun.
Two Missouri State Highway Patrol troopers and a sheriff's deputy arrived at the home shortly after 1 a.m. Saturday and found a woman, later identified as Garrett's wife, Melissa R. Garrett, outside the house, waiting for them.
She told officers her husband was very intoxicated when the incident happened, but said he did not threaten her with the gun.
Officers found the man asleep in a second floor bedroom. A handgun and shell casing were seized as evidence, according to the report.
Garrett was charged under Missouri Revised Statute 571.030 (subsections 1 through 4) unlawful use of a weapon, a class D felony.
He was released after posting a cash-only bond of $4,000, on condition he is to have no contact with Melissa Garrett; in addition, the use of alcohol is not permitted.
A court appearance is scheduled for Wednesday, June 25, at 9 a.m., before Judge James T. "Tut" Bellamy.
On the Net:
www.marshallnews.com/story/1407372.html
Contact Kathy Fairchild at
it seems odd to me that in saline county you can be put in jail for shooting a tv IN your house but not too long a man decided to mount his satellite dish on the outside of his house and shot INTO his house killing his own wife in the process and no charges were filed. I know others in saline county who have been charged with the same charge for cutting furniture with a knife. The next thing you will read in this paper is someone being charged for unlawful use of a weapon because they was at a local restaurant and became aggrevated while trying to cut a tough steak with a knife.
Alright. I said I wasn't gonna crack jokes cuz I do still believe this is a serious issue with potentially devastating consequences. But...
Cali...that was stinkin' hilarious!! I believe you may well have found the answer to the Hollywood writer's strike:)
LMAO
My understanding is that he fired the shot in the middle of a TV episode that's part of a long running series.
Let's face it. This guy is a serial killer.
Nope. Just if he gets behind the wheel of a car. Just like you. Just like me. Because of what *could* happen.
cheetah,
what an imagination you have, so negative!! i guess he should be arrested everytime he drinks now because of what he could do, or you and i for that matter, huh?
Thank you, Kathy:)
To answer my own question, drinking and driving is against the law because of what *could* happen. Opinions aside, the potential exists--kinda similar to shooting up the house...
But in concession and in light of Ms. Fairchild's information, if you're sitting alone inside your house way out in the sticks and you wanna take out hallway light bulbs with an uzi, I guess you're right. No law against that. Well, except for that whole auto-matic weapon thing...but you get my drift. BUT, blow a hole through your furnace gas line and set the place ablaze in the process and good luck with your homeowner's policy...
It's against the law to fire any weapon within the city limits of Marshall, *in* your house, *into* your house, it makes no difference. Out in the county, and not in any other city with similar ordinances, it's a little different picture. But - please note subsection 4 of the state statute, which says, "Exhibits, *in the presence of one or more persons*, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner." The person charged doesn't have to threaten someone specifically to fall under this section of the law.
Then, just one question:
Why is there a law against drinking and driving? It's my body, my vehicle.
cheetah,
glad you agree, sort of! to step away from the fact that the gov. is in enough of our lives that they dont need to be in, i re-read the statutes that kathy put up, but it doesn't say in a house, but into a house. what the law says that means and you or me is probably two totally different things. i am not saying there couldn't be a tragedy from this, but there wasn't, so my opinion is you can't fry him for something that could have happened. IMHO
For once I totally agree with you, Cheetah.
In complete honesty, when this happened the first time I was one of many who cracked jokes about it. At first, yeah, seemed pretty funny. In hindsight and retrospect, my joke-making was as foolish as the action itself. No matter how you cut it or try to justify it, this is a stupid action that could easily end up in tragedy--intended or not.
As I said, semantics. But I appreciate your candor about it. I believe this bantor has come down to misstatement vs. misguided. I, too, feel pretty certain about how it'd turn out.
Let's be honest...if you, me, or anyone else starts shooting up the house for any reason--threatening or not--there's going to be jail time. At the very least, a trip to the loony bin with one of those tight-fittin white jackets. The authorities will find a charge and it will be legitimate. If there were absolutely no problem with this action, the charge would likely have been one of domestic violence. Reckless endangerment comes to mind as well. Regardless, I agree--not wise. In fact, I'd go so far as to say outright stupid.
as long as i'm in my house by myself i'm not exhibiting a weapon in an angry or threatening manner to anyone else so i feel pretty good about how that'd turn out. i'm not saying it's wise. i'm just saying it's what the law is. and you made a misstatement of the law.
Hey, news across the neocon empire, just because your precious Oprah said to vote for Osama Hussein (whoops - Obama) doesn't mean you actually have to do it. You should try thinking for yourself, or at least do a minimum amount of research about this wannabe.
I do agree that you should be able to shoot or destroy anything you own if it can be done safely. It probably was the nagging, and yelling from the woman that drove him to it. She is very lucky that he took his frustration out on the TV rather than her. Maybe when President Osama Hussein is in control, with vice president Winfrey, everyone will be one big happy family...
Yep, there's a difference.
Tell ya what, pop off a few rounds INSIDE your house. When the cops show up, tell 'em you have the right to shoot anything you want INSIDE your house and if you want to use the flowers in the wallpaper for target practice you can because it isn't illegal. Get back to us on how that pans out. You never know.......third time could be the charm:)
Toodles>)
It's not illegal to shoot a gun INSIDE of a house. It is illegal to shoot a gun INTO a house (drive-by). And yes, there is a difference.
Hey, monster, I agree with you...sort of. You want facts?
FACT #1: he fired a gun inside his house;
FACT #2: it's against the law to fire a gun inside a house.
That's pretty much it. It don't have to make sense. As ridiculous as you make think the law is, I don't think it holds a candle to the idiotic act of shooting a gun inside a house:) But hey, if you feel like it then by all means, shoot 'em up. Third time's a charm...
assumption cannot be made by the LAW, it has to have facts! my house and my tv, shoot it if i want. "unlawful" again, it was his tv, not the neighbors! if she didnt feel safe she should have left, probably just quit naggin the snot out of him! wait that is to simple!!!
women shouldnt be allowed on the phone in the first darn place...dag nabbit...right troy gilpin? yeee haaaw i hate obama too!
monster,
The law assumes the worst. It has to in order to be fair. As for people being "screwed up enough", you've pretty much proven that.
Why is shooting a TV a big deal? Well for one, it was inside the house. But let's test your imagination for a minute. Let's say you're this guy's neighbor and it wasn't a handgun but a 30-06. The bullet blows through re-runs of Laverne and Shirley, through the exterior wall into your house next door and right into your 3 year-olds skull, plastering his innocent gray matter all over Thomas the Tank decor. All of a sudden, shooting the TV becomes a big deal.
In order to be fair, the term is "unlawful use of a weapon". It does not distinguish, in this case, between handguns, rifles, bb guns, or shingshots. The law is written this way to protect even the "screwed up" people.
By the way, I can read. The article says he did not threaten her WITH THE GUN. Got a question for you genius: if she felt so safe, who do you suppose called the police?
I don't understand how shooting a television set equals a class D felony....
Hopefully TuT will do the right thing.
§
hey news,
obama sure has his bluff in on you, huh? thats it, lets vote a muslim terrorist in as our president why not!! this country and the people in it are not screwed up enough!!
notgvnasht,...you have a good point there. I bought big ol' Panasonic 42 inch, plasma TV for my wife last Christmas, and if I just absolutely had to shoot something, it damn sure wouldn't be that TV.
troygilpin, that's "President" Obama to you sonny boy! Get used to it!
From a mans point of view. I can just imagine she was probably setting on the couch like most do, running her mouth, wont clean the house, wont cook dinner, and probably nagging because he was drunk. So he got a little mad and shot his tv because she just wanted to watch tv instead of doing what she should have been doing. It didn't work the first time around so he did it a second time to prove to her he wasn't playing games but next time buddy just remember devorce cost so much because its worth it.
Take the TV out into the backyard first, wait until Obama comes on talking his BS, and then shoot the darn thing...
The story did not say what type of tv is was.if he had a nice plasma i wonder if he would have changed his mind.
Moral of the story....don't upset your husband if you live in Saline County or he will shoot your T.V.
i guess cheetah cant read either, unless " did not threaten " means something else to him/her! if i feel like killing my tv, i should be able to its mine! like alot of others, always assume the worst of people and situations!!!
Well I doubt he will do any prison time nor do I think he should -- if its a first offense. In my opinion, I would think a short jail sentence, followed by probation, and about 200 hours of community service would probably be enough to prevent a repeat of this offense -- but that will all be up to the presiding Judge and not me. Its just my opinion -- and in the end, its only the judge's opinion that matters.
However, this is going to cost Mr. Garrett far more than just the above possiblities. First off, he has a TV to replace. In addition, he now has to hire an attorney or risk being tried with only a public defender -- and history demonstrates that is not a good idea. He has, or will have, to pay a bondsman to bail him out of jail. Then there will almost undoubtably be a fine in addition to what ever punishments the judge sees fit to sentence him to -- and probably a pretty large fine at that. Then there will probably be lost wages from time lost from work for attending court sessions, jail, and perhaps for performing community service (he could even lose his job entirely as a result). And in addition to all that, there is the shame of doing such a stupid and dangerous thing he now has to live with. All in all, this is going to be very expensive for Mr. Garrett -- which leads me to one question:
When all is said and done Mr. Garrett, was it worth it? I bet it wasn't. What were you thinking when you did this crazy thing? or perhaps you weren't thinking at all!
He must have read the other story in this paper about the guy who shot his tv with a shotgun. Not very original is he.
Sure...next time this guy ties one on, kills his wife, and leaves some kid parentless, we can use our tax dollars to put the kid in foster care and eventually a needle in Dad's veins. Then, twenty years from now, we can all log on and argue the validity of the death penalty for the umteenth time...
Believe me, I'm thinking of this guy too. What sounds tougher when you're locked up and your potential life partner asks what you're in for: "I was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon", or "I'm an idiot"?
Here's the text of the Revised Missouri Statute under which Garrett was charged, and which is noted in the story:
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:
(1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or
(2) Sets a spring gun; or
(3) Discharges or shoots a firearm into a dwelling house, a railroad train, boat, aircraft, or motor vehicle as defined in section 302.010, RSMo, or any building or structure used for the assembling of people; or
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.
And, if you want to read the rest of the statute, here's the link to all of it:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599...
come on joby, lets prosecute to the fullest extent of the law for the useless death of another tv!! dont we have something better for our tax dollars?
oh no, it's an epidemic.