He got shot for rushing the witness with a deadly weapon. That is completely justified. Yes, a pen can be a deadly weapon - just as deadly as a knife.

I don't really know the situation, but my confusion is because killing someone with a pen takes some effort, and a half decent security guy protecting the witness could just take the guy down without killing him I'd say...

It really depends on the situation I suppose.

Draugnar - I just don't see how the force used was proportionate. Your an ex-marine, how would you feel if your collegues had shot and killed a civilian in one of the US peace keeping operations because they were rushed by a man with a pen? A good marine, I suspect, would have disabled the attack with a kill. Am I wrong?

*disabled the attack without a kill.

The pen can be mightier than the sword ...... you get ink in your eye and you'll know about it (until you wash it out)

Nigee is the only one in this thread with a bit of sense. Thank you.

I'm ok with this one. Don't mess around in a courtroom.

When I read this, I thought "why do they have a handgun instead of a taser."

"US District Judge Tena Campbell declared a mistrial"

@Maple - I get the seriousness of disorder in a courtroom and even though I don't personnally agree to the death penalty, you could even have that as your sanction for offenders. But the death penanlty should be after due process not on a whim because someone didn't foresee that some prisoners might be bad people. Whats wrong with bullet proof witness stands or restraining the accused in their seat for the duration? Anything, but the loss of a life so needlessless. Is life really so cheap in the US? I know you're from Canada, would such a shooting happen there?

Firstly, Maniac, you know what maple's answer is going to be.

Secondly, he charged the witness stand, apparently violently, with a deadly weapon (a pen to the throat is very much deadly), and moreover, it was a witness who betrayed him in testifying against him. I don't condone the shooting necessarily, but some course of action had to be taken, and this is the course of action they have in place for such events.

Thirdly, no, life is not that cheap in the US, but had he gotten to the witness stand, we'd have two deaths instead of one, or at least a witness seriously hurt. They saved a witness here, and while the end result is certainly not what it should be, let's not forget that.

I saw this forum topic, and as I opened it I wondered: How many bloodthirsty authoritarians will defend this murderous incompetence?

There is a tendency in the US for police forces to use more force than most people would deem necessary. It's a cost saving method not to have a protected witness stand except in extreme cases and the accused is rarely restrained without prior cause because it is considered prejudicial.

@Bo-sox - lets go with "a pen to the throat is very much deadly". If that is the case, what was it doing in the accused hands? If pens are so dangerous, and I've accepted they can be, then why isn't every prison restrained or witnesses/judges/court staff etc placed behind protected glass? If you thought any other deadly weapon was going to be used in court, surely you'd take precautions?

You're right a witness could have died at the hands of this attacker. Even more reason to shakle him, remove all pens, erect bullet proof glass etc. Are the lives of US witnesses not worth protecting? I'd feel a lot more comfortable giving evidence with physical protection in place rathar than relying on a human security agent, wouldn't you?

Randomiser - if the choice is restrain all accused (so no one is favoured/disfavoured) or allow accusers the opportunity to attack court staff an witnesses, i'd prefer the former. The Judge can direct the jur that shakling is a legal requirement in the state for everything but speeding offences and no untoward inferrence should be drawn. I'm sure the Jurors will also feel safer.

The man was trying to take another man's life and instead paid with his own. Justice served I'd say. The shame is that the assailant chose to act the way he did; not that he received due consequences for his actions.

@ckroberts
A lot.

Leave it to Libtards and morons to defend violent criminals.

Fucker got what he deserved...

Here's a hint...everyone dies. Sometimes, assholes choose the manner of their death. If Americans are soooooo notorious for killing prisoners, etc, then the fucker knew what was coming to him. No loss. No tears.

"I saw this forum topic, and as I opened it I wondered: How many bloodthirsty authoritarians will defend this murderous incompetence?"

Darn it Krellin, they finally figured us out...

@krellin - if the guy deserved to die, then go through due process and legally kill him. But don't put judges, witnesses etc in harms way, just so perps can be shot at the last minute.

I note you haven't addressed any of the other possible solutions. Why talk about spending a little on a glass screen when you can pump six shots into a guy in front of, presumably, dozens of people.

@Maniac - they DID legally kill him in self-defense when he decided to attempt to violently assault someone. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........

Yes, let's talk about alternatives blah blah blah says the libtards. Uh....your alternatives are all fine and dandy...EXCEPT in this moment, there was no glass shield, etc etc etc. It matter not...he charged someone and attempted to do them great bodily harm. His just reward was earned.

You are the type of idiot that...what? When you are assaulted by a thug in a parking lot you ask him to please stop and step back, while you re-assess the moment and do something different 2 minutes prior to protect yourself? Moron..

Such logic, much pain...

Funny the call of "blood thirsty authoritarians" by a bunch of Obama-supporting Libtards that never utter a peep as he slaughters innocents damned-near daily with his weaponized drone army...They didn't utter a peep when 200 Federal snipers surrounded a man's ranch (instead of just arresting him if he was guilty of a crime)...They don't utter a peep when the Libtards say, "The argument is over...now shut up and comply" and Americans are forced out of jobs when the authoritarian left disagrees with your personal religious beliefs. Yeah....we are all quite well aware of who modern day authoritarians are in the US.

Let's take a moment to look at the alternatives:

Shackles: do you put these on every defendant? No. That's cruel and unusual? Do you only put it on potentially violent defendants? That seems reasonable, except I highly suspect you'd see the conviction rates of defendants in shackles sky rocket. That isn't eight.

Defenses: bullet proof glass? What about walking to the booth? Protective vest? There's already a big problem getting witnesses to testify against violent/gang criminals. I don't think this would help.

Taser: yeah. Why didn't he use a taser? That would have made sense.

I can't fault the actions of the shooter, who should be commended on a difficult duty well carried out, but it does seem clear that several failings took place to allow this situation to happen.

@ abg

If you put shackles on all defendants in what sense could the shackling be considered unusual? ;)

Haha. Fair enough. Cruel, though, for sure.

Why are shackles cruel?

And again...all these "would haves / should haves" are beside the point. At the moment of death, nobody had taken these precautions and a prisoner took advantage of a situation to try to do great harm to someone....meaning someone else had the choice to either stop that harm from occuring in the quicest possible manner -- because it only takes a second to plunge a pen into your juglar...or he could have hesitated, tried to stop the on-comoing violence, etc.

All you silly cry-babies can rest assured that the various usual suspects will cry foul and proper invetigations will take place and if something went wrong, punative action may take place. In the mean time, one dead violent criminal got his just deserts.

And here is a lesson for all you kiddies out there - when you are under arret and surrounded by authority figures wtih guns BEHAVE yourself. Better yet, don't do stupid shit to get arrested in the first place.

Krellin,

I agree that the Marshall acted just as he should have. The question is can things be put in place that would prevent that situation from happening again and if so, is it worth it.

I think it's cruel and unusual to require every defendant, irregardless of the crime to be shackled in the court room. Do you disagree?