Topic: PCSD- Assault & Shots Fired Call

[matrsnot]

And the prosecutor, being as she is, will refuse to press charges against Mr. Bassett for "lack of evidence."  I am sure.  Probably no paint on th etruck, matching the lawnmower to substantiate the claim and her obvious stance against any citizen protecting themselves with a firearm.  5 shots in the front of the truck would be enough for me to draw a LOGICAL conclusion based on that and other facts.  Too bad she is on his side in this case.  Upon arrival by police, I would have said something to the effect that I wanted him arrested for attempted murder and then asked for my lawyer.  Then shut up.  My rounds would have been a little higher placed on the vehicle is someone rammed my on my mower.  this is serious stuff and the truck was used as a deadly weapon.  Justice is not exactly blind is it?

[Coyote]

Snakes serve a good purpose in keeping mice away from the house.  There is no reason to kill them because they will slither away if they feel threatened.  I've never heard of a person on a mower being bum rushed and attacked by a snake.  Most of them are non-poisonous anyway. 

Then you go ahead and treat those snakes like Obama treats terrorists.  Talk nice to them and they won't bite you then. 

[Waynesvillian]

Snakes should sue christianity for all the hardship they have brought down on them.

[tpgunbiz]

it is against the law to kill a snake in missouri
 

I was gonna call BS on this one until I looked it up. It is illegal to kill ,molest, possess, and many other funny verbs, any snake turtle and lots of other animals in Missouri. I had no idea.

[darrellmaurina]

Special Treatment
Special Treatment
Special Treatment
Special Treatment
Special Treatment
Special Treatment
Special Treatment
Special Treatment
Special Treatment
Special Treatment
Special Treatment
Special Treatment
Special Treatment

I don't know for sure who you are referring to with this comment, but if it's me, from my prior reporting on the "unspecified Dixon businessman," he likely would be surprised to hear that I have given him special treatment. At least that's the case for "positive" special treatment; he might feel I have targeted him the other way, though that's not the case, either.

Personally I have no idea what he thinks of me, and as for my opinion of him, I have neither animosity nor favoritism toward him.

Now responding to this item from Sheriff King:

Reference the "favoritism" shown to suspect #2 who was not identified. My policy has been to release the name etc. only after the person has been charged. My feeling is that once in a while a suspect is arrested and no charges are filed so I am going to lean in the direction of protecting that person’s name and reputation. BUT I will also say that my policy is far more restrictive than the current law allows. My release of a suspect’s name etc. is usually done by me on a volunteer basis in that I am making a general news release and seldom does anyone complain or ask for the info. In this case the Dixon Pilot newspaper wanted the name of the second suspect. I explained my policy and why I had that policy to them. I did not give them the name. The Dixon Pilot called back later that day (after speaking with a media attorney, probably from the Associated Press) and gave me the request again while quoting the correct Sunshine Law information. At that point I had no legal choice but to give them the name of the second suspect that we had arrested. I might also add that the name was already a matter of public record in the PC statement for the charges filed in the gun incident part of this matter several days before.

So just to make it clear if you are arrested I CAN release your name, age, address, charge, and booking photo on a volunteer basis. If there is a DEMAND or REQUEST made then I must release the info. The Sunshine Law states that I must operate with the same “openness of records” as other public agencies. In our last Sunshine Law training session some months ago the speaker from the Missouri Attorney General’s Office made it clear that the best policy was, when in doubt, release the record. DTM will probably chime in on this part because it is in his media/legal alley.

Sheriff King is correct on the law. When the Dixon Pilot requested the name of the person arrested, he had no choice. And if I were the publisher of the Dixon Pilot, I probably would do the same thing. This businessman is a major "public figure" in that community. ("Public figure" is a formal legal term from libel law, by the way, and it has a major impact in how I have to handle the potential risk of a lawsuit.)
 
I have been debating back and forth on this issue whether I should print the name and so far I have decided not to, mostly because it will set a precedent I will need to follow in the future. Also, because this person's name can easily be found elsewhere, I don't see a compelling need to do it myself.

News media do not routinely report the names of crime victims. There are very good reasons for that.

Let's change this situation a little bit and change some key facts to more closely resemble a different situation south of Dixon a few years ago.

Let's hypothetically say this were a 25-year-old Army wife who had been stalked by a man who, like Mr. Saunchegrow, already had an ex parte protection order filed against him. Let's say the man had come onto her property in a riding lawnmower, took out a gun, and started shooting at her pickup truck as she came home. The woman's husband is deployed and she has two kids in the house with a babysitter, so she can't just drive off and leave her kids in the house. All she can do is ram the lawnmower with her pickup in an attempt to defend herself from immediate danger and defend her family from potential danger.

Now is there anybody on this board who thinks I should report that woman's name unless charges are filed against her? Or is there anyone who would disagree that the prosecutor needs to investigate very carefully before deciding whether or not to file charges?

I didn't think so.

Change the situation to rape. Almost no newspapers report the names of rape victims. Anybody want me to start routinely reporting the names of rape victims?

I didn't think so either.

On the other hand, if the Dixon businessman were a major business owner in St. Robert or Waynesville, or if he now held some of the public positions that he previously held, I would have reported his name already. I also checked today, and he is not a political contributor to any of the candidates around here with contested races, so that's not an issue, either.

It also **WOULD** be news if somebody attacked the wife of a major business leader in this community. Depending on the situation, I might report the name but probably only after speaking to the family to find out their thoughts. They wouldn't have the final say in the decision -- I make that call -- but I would take the family's opinion into account.

So far this case has not risen to the level that I feel compelled to release the name of a crime victim. But if I were in the context of the Dixon Pilot and their readership, my decision probably would be the same as theirs.

I hope that helps explain my policy. What I'm doing is pretty standard in the news media. It is not universal, however, and the rise of the internet has made it possible for people to find out and widely disseminate facts that in the past were only known to a small number of media and law enforcement personnel.
 
Since I run an internet newspaper, I'm no position to say it is a bad thing for individuals to be able to get news off the internet without going through the "gatekeepers" of newspaper editors and broadcast radio or TV news directors. I really do believe the ability of the general public to find out information for themselves is a good thing.
 
But things were sure a whole lot easier in the "old days."
 
It used to be that competing news media in a town could get together, establish a consensus policy on how to handle things like this, and then pretty much guarantee that most things on the "do not report" list would never become widely known to most of the public. Just about the only item left on that "do not report" list that nearly all media agree should not be reported is the names of rape victims, and even that is probably going to change in the future. Personally I would consider that to be a very bad change, but there is not a thing in the world that I or anyone else could do to stop it if somebody decided to create their own website and report in lurid detail every single rape case in Pulaski County, along with the names of all the victims.
 
The really sad thing is that a website like that would get huge numbers of readers because no matter what people say they want to read, "good news" doesn't get read and bad news does. I wouldn't have spent more than an hour this afternoon driving up to Crocker and back to photograph a rollover wreck if I didn't know that people like to read about things like that.
 
So what's the difference? Legally, there's none. It's only a matter of where I choose to draw the line, based on my belief about the need to avoid re-victimizing victims.
 
And so far, the Dixon businessman is considered by the the court system to be a crime victim. That won't change unless charges get filed.

[matrsnot]

Darrell, I understand why you have done what you have done.  My feeling is that the PA is the one showing prejudice in the case. 

[Chas]

DTM
In you’re hypothetically scenario I would agree with you. However you changed the situation more than a little bit.
Let's hypothetically say this were a 25-year-old Army wife who had been stalked by a man who, like Mr. Saunchegrow, already had an ex parte protection order filed against him. Let's say the man had come onto her property in a riding lawnmower, took out a gun, and started shooting at her pickup truck as she came home. The woman's husband is deployed and she has two kids in the house with a babysitter, so she can't just drive off and leave her kids in the house. All she can do is ram the lawnmower with her pickup in an attempt to defend herself from immediate danger and defend her family from potential danger.
Are you saying that hypothetically of course that Mr. Saunchegrow fired shots first then was rammed? Now I as understand it there is an ongoing feud between these two people and the “victim” doesn’t have ex parte order against the suspect. The “victim” rammed the suspect with a vehicle which is a deadly weapon then the suspect fired at the truck.

[darrellmaurina]

You may want to read my article a little more closely. There are two victims in the Saunchegrow case, not just one, and the second victim did have an ex parte protective order against Saunchegrow. Saunchegrow faces a total of three charges -- one felony and two misdemeanors -- for three separate incidents at three different times. My article does not identify the second person who was the misdemeanor victim and so far no other media have done that, either. I hope they don't.

Sheriff King says he's submitted a probable cause statement against the Dixon businessman. Today is a state holiday and the courthouse is closed, so we can reasonably expect this will be held until at least next week. If the prosecutor files charges this will all be a moot point. If she doesn't, then I need to decide what I am going to do.

DTM
In you’re hypothetically scenario I would agree with you. However you changed the situation more than a little bit.
Let's hypothetically say this were a 25-year-old Army wife who had been stalked by a man who, like Mr. Saunchegrow, already had an ex parte protection order filed against him. Let's say the man had come onto her property in a riding lawnmower, took out a gun, and started shooting at her pickup truck as she came home. The woman's husband is deployed and she has two kids in the house with a babysitter, so she can't just drive off and leave her kids in the house. All she can do is ram the lawnmower with her pickup in an attempt to defend herself from immediate danger and defend her family from potential danger.
Are you saying that hypothetically of course that Mr. Saunchegrow fired shots first then was rammed? Now I as understand it there is an ongoing feud between these two people and the “victim” doesn’t have ex parte order against the suspect. The “victim” rammed the suspect with a vehicle which is a deadly weapon then the suspect fired at the truck.

[Yankee Trader]

Have faith.  If the prosecutor does not file charges it can be like the hundreds of other cases that were not filed on by her in the last almost 4 years or like 2 Felony cases I am familiar with that had changes of venue to Phelps County 9 months ago and have had NO action. For reference of those see 09PH-CR01258 and 1259.

Fortunately there is a good chance with the upcoming election we will get a prosecutor that will prosecute and alot of these old cases that were not filed can get revisited and perhaps some charges filed. 

[Chas]

DTM
I went back and read the article again. I must be missing something. How are there two victims in this case against Saunchegrow?  There are two separate cases case against him. The woman with the exparte against him and the separate incident between him and Basset. This is still nothing like your hypothetically scenario where the person with the gun shot first then was rammed.

[Chas]

I don’t see where the woman with the ex-parte has anything to do with it.

[demo.dave]

So what your saying is its perfectly fine to put an ex parte on someone then go near their house, and the other guy gets in trouble.  Sounds pretty lame to me. Obviously the protection order was warrented and the person who took it out was scared enough to take out an ex parte but go near the mans house. Its funny we let police sort this stuff out, obviously they are the smartest people in the world.  Birdsong will get this guy off no problem, this is a joke.

That makes no sense. Thats not what happened here. Read first. Respond later.
 
And i quote...

That’s not the only legal trouble faced by Saunchegrow. According to court records, he also faces two Class A misdemeanor charges accusing him of stalking one of the businessman’s relatives at her Dixon-area office two different times and violating a court order protecting her, once by “repeatedly driving by the office” on the day of the lawnmower-pickup incident, and again violating the order on Sunday after Saunchegrow bonded out of jail.

The businessman’s relative had previously sought an order of protection which was granted on April 16; according to a Dixon police report filed with the circuit court, the businessman’s relative has kept a log of Saunchegrow “driving by and around” the businessman’s office and also said that on Sunday morning, “Saunchegrow stopped his vehicle in the roadway, where there is not a stop sign, and sat and stared at her for several seconds after she got out of her car.” Those claims are corroborated in the police report with a third person who said he saw Saunchegrow drive by the office “four or five times in a short time span” on the day of the lawnmower-pickup incident, and also saw him drive by again on Sunday morning.
 

Now as you see the relative had an order of protection out against Mr. Saunchegrow. Mr. Saunchegrow then drove by this relatives office repeatedly the day of the incident. Then after he bonded out it states he stopped in the middle of the road and stared at her. She had the order of protection and he stalked her. This is a dixon pd investigation. Totally different from the assault charge incident with county.
 
I think this guy has a lot of problems and isnt a victim of any sort.

[Valor7]

That makes no sense. Thats not what happened here. Read first. Respond later.
 
And i quote...
Now as you see the relative had an order of protection out against Mr. Saunchegrow. Mr. Saunchegrow then drove by this relatives office repeatedly the day of the incident. Then after he bonded out it states he stopped in the middle of the road and stared at her. She had the order of protection and he stalked her. This is a St. Robert pd investigation. Totally different from the assault charge incident with county.
 
I think this guy has a lot of problems and isnt a victim of any sort.

    Order of protection cases were presented to the PA by the Dixon City Police Department.

             JB

[demo.dave]

    Order of protection cases were presented to the PA by the Dixon City Police Department.

             JB

Damn i even read that but they said st robert earlier in this thread and i still typed that out. Im guilty. Thanks.

[Chas]

I agree that he has problems, and the two are unrelated.  I disagree that he isn’t a victim of any sort.  IF he was rammed first then he is just as much of a “victim” as the guy he shot at. They are both hotheads that need to be in trouble with the law.  I don’t think that is going to happen.  I also think that one got preferred treatment and I will continue to believe that, until JB or the PA can say otherwise.  I understand there may be reasons for what happened and that JB can’t talk about it. But from what has been written on this board it doesn’t make a lot sense on how this was handled.
As to JB public comments there are certain points I do not understand.  Point 3 and 4, I understand why there may be a bias about gun calls that’s got to make a person nervous.  But both parties used deadly force.  Once they are both in custody, why the different there? That is what gives this the appearance of “favoritism”.  So you have after a delay sent something to the PA and now she has to file charges.  Point (5). So it is a matter of jumping through hoops to get information that by law you have to give out. If a person doesn’t quote the correct sunshine law information even though you know they are entitled to it, you’re not going to give it to them.
As I have said before isn’t speculation fun!!!!

[Valor7]

I agree that he has problems, and the two are unrelated.  I disagree that he isn’t a victim of any sort.  IF he was rammed first then he is just as much of a “victim” as the guy he shot at. They are both hotheads that need to be in trouble with the law.  I don’t think that is going to happen.  I also think that one got preferred treatment and I will continue to believe that, until JB or the PA can say otherwise.  I understand there may be reasons for what happened and that JB can’t talk about it. But from what has been written on this board it doesn’t make a lot sense on how this was handled.
As to JB public comments there are certain points I do not understand.  Point 3 and 4, I understand why there may be a bias about gun calls that’s got to make a person nervous.  But both parties used deadly force.  Once they are both in custody, why the different there? That is what gives this the appearance of “favoritism”.  So you have after a delay sent something to the PA and now she has to file charges.  Point (5). So it is a matter of jumping through hoops to get information that by law you have to give out. If a person doesn’t quote the correct sunshine law information even though you know they are entitled to it, you’re not going to give it to them.
As I have said before isn’t speculation fun!!!!

   Same deputy did both PC statements. As I said we get busy and this was nothing more than time issues. Still yes to gun bias in my opinion.

As to point 5 I stuck to my policy. The Dixon Pilot and I went off the record on the name but they wanted it and when the request was correctly presented I complied. I might add that the Editor and I had a very nice discussion of the issues involved. So the smell to some is that I gave him favorable treatment which helps balance the accusation I recieved that his arrest was strictly "political" in nature.

As to the delay of the PC on the truck issue, the first press release clearly said a statement "will be" sent to the PA. We knew there would be a delay and said so at the start.

  JB

[I.M.CURIOUS]

Snakes serve a good purpose in keeping mice away from the house.  There is no reason to kill them because they will slither away if they feel threatened.  I've never heard of a person on a mower being bum rushed and attacked by a snake.  Most of them are non-poisonous anyway.

  I live in Dixon too,carry a handgun everywhere legal,including mowing and it's for 2 legged Dixon snakes,not the common variety

[Chas]

Thank you for answering.

[Valor7]

  I live in Dixon too,carry a handgun everywhere legal,including mowing and it's for 2 legged Dixon snakes,not the common variety

   Having become acquainted with many of those "Dixon snakes" may I suggest that you also carry lots of extra ammo.

          JB

[matrsnot]

Think about 65 rounds should be enough?

[Valor7]

Think about 65 rounds should be enough?

   If that (65 rounds) did not do the trick then avoid me for I shall have laughter to "share" with you.
          JB

[I.M.CURIOUS]

Think about 65 rounds should be enough?

When brush hogging or cutting firewood,I also carry a .303 Enfield and my handgun.Between the Dixon snakes and the feral hogs(Russian Boar hogs,not Petunia and Porky Pig types),life gets interesting here in the County outside the  Dixon city limits.

[okie the thread killer]

you must live down pp...at least that's where i hear the hogs are the thickest.

[Valor7]

When brush hogging or cutting firewood,I also carry a .303 Enfield and my handgun.Between the Dixon snakes and the feral hogs(Russian Boar hogs,not Petunia and Porky Pig types),life gets interesting here in the County outside the  Dixon city limits.

  Off topic but full size .303 or carbine?

[♥♣ ~Maynard~♣♥]

   Having become acquainted with many of those "Dixon snakes" may I suggest that you also carry lots of extra ammo.

          JB

Well that comment just lost you a bunch of votes in Dixon, But I bet you gained a bunch in the rest of the county for saying that        

[okie the thread killer]

 

Well that comment just lost you a bunch of votes in Dixon, But I bet you gained a bunch in the rest of the county for saying that        

  please dont talk about me like that......

[♥♣ ~Maynard~♣♥]

  please dont talk about me like that......

Hmmmm whats that old saying??
The first smeller is the feller     

[I.M.CURIOUS]

you must live down pp...at least that's where i hear the hogs are the thickest.

Are we talking about the pigs or the women?

[okie the thread killer]

dude, where did that come from....but then again, i dont think i will answer just in case....you must have better info.

[♥♣ ~Maynard~♣♥]

dude, where did that come from....but then again, i dont think i will answer just in case....you must have better info.

Their are a few oinkers in Dixon (maybe more than a few)
But then their are beauties like you to make up for it Okie!!         (((hugs)))