Watch: Shootout Leaves Two Bounty Hunters and Wanted Man Dead – War on Drugs Continues to Kill

| |

Top Tier Gear USA


The war on drugs has claimed three more lives.

On Monday, a shootout between two bounty hunters and the fugitive they were tracking left all three men dead.

The three men were identified on Wednesday as Gabriel Bernal, 33, Fidel Garcia, 54, and Raymond Hutchinson, 49, of St. Paul, Minnesota.

Bernal and Garcia worked with F.N.G. Security and Investigations of Corpus Christi and went to a Nissan dealership in Greenville, Texas, to apprehend Hutchinson.

Hutchinson had an outstanding warrant for failure to appear on a first degree drug charge from the Hennepin County Sherriff’s Office in Minneapolis.

Hutchinson was in an office in the dealership with another person when he was approached by Bernal and Garcia, reports KLTV.

Bernal and Garcia drew weapons and began giving Hutchinson commands. Officials say Hutchinson attempted to pull a pistol from his waistband, but dropped it on a desk. A scuffle followed, and he was able to grab his gun and reportedly began firing. Bernal and Garcia fired back.

About 20 shots were fired within approximately 6 seconds. The entire confrontation didn’t last long, and was caught on video.

All three men suffered multiple gunshot wounds and were pronounced dead at the scene.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Lily Dane of The Daily Sheeple.

Lily Dane is a staff writer for The Daily Sheeple. Her goal is to help people to “Wake the Flock Up!”

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • BW83

    So, they attempt to restrain the guy after he fumbles a weapon, we can assume both were probably trained in some way to deal with such a scenario (ex LEO or military). All three die as a result of the two men taking half measures. How many people here argue with cops not taking non-lethal measures in arrests for involving a weapon? Well, here’s a reason they don’t, and shouldn’t.

    Again, when the bad guy shows himself to have a weapon, it’s prudent to escalate to lethal force. The bad guy has already made the choice that it can’t end peacefully.

    • varlog

      There is a time and place for everything. Not prudent to try and apprehend someone inside a car dealership with innocence bystanders all around. Yeah he was a drug dealer (although he is innocent until proven guilty) and needs to go to court, but all the bounty hunters were concerned about is getting their money. So what if some innocent bystanders get taken out, I guess its just collateral damage to them. As long as they get their money.

      • The innocent until proven guilty was proven to be bullshit a long time ago. When an innocent person has to sit in jail or buy their way out before they even get to face their accuser, it doesn’t indicate that the system thought they were innocent before they got a chance to be found so.

        • David E

          That’s why they should use a summons unless someone proves they will not show up for court.

          • Who is authorized to suspend the bill of rights based on their suspicion that the defendent won’t appear?

          • David E

            maybe you should review the 8th amendment, which clearly allows for bail as long as it is not excessive.

            I would prefer your view, but that is just not what the bill of rights says.

          • Who gets to define excessive? That is the problem with the Bill of Rights, it has no enforcement clauses. OathKeepers could fulfill that function if they become less apocryphal.

          • David E

            And I am not talking about a suspicion he will not appear, I am talking about a proved track record of not appearing.

          • Which lead to a probable cause for a presumption, or suspicion, that the defendant will not appear. This suspicion is not allowed, under the law, to determine whether the defendant is incarcerated or not. That is determined by the flight risk versus the potential for harm if it occurs.

          • David E

            flight risk=chances of not appearing. It’s the same thing, dood.

            I just happened to read U.S. v Salerno just this last week. Whats the last case you’ve read?

          • I have never read a case in which I was not involved, but I’ve read a lot of case law, and there is a difference. Of course it is the same thing since one is the definition of the other. None of that changes the flowchart that an officer has to follow to determine whether a person must be incarcerated or issued a summons to appear.

          • David E

            The officer does not decide whether to issue a summons or a warrant. The court does.

          • It depends on whether it is a probable cause arrest or not.

          • David E

            now you are contradicting yourself. earlier you said one could only arrest with two sworn witnesses, which is well beyond probable cause. You also said that the 8th amendment has no enforcement clause, and implied you therefore held it invalid. But there is no enforcement clause for the treason clause either. This is besides the fact that none of the bill of rights has any enforcement clauses, yet you regularly complain the bill of rights is violated when you should be arguing (if consistent) it is all void for lack of an enforcement clause.

            all arrests must be on probable cause, whether an officer makes a warrantless arrest or the court issues a warrant.

          • David E

            So, what was the last case you read, and what was it about?

          • Minor v Happersett was about a woman who wanted to vote in Ohio. I didn’t read the case for that. I read it for the incidental finding where they defined natural born citizen, and Obama, Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal aren’t one.

      • BW83

        He had a chance to prove his innocence and chose to skip out on it instead. Kinda what made him a fugitive….

        It wouldn’t be collateral damage to them either, it would be murder. Again, the FUGITIVE is the one that chose to make the situation a gun fight. How you people continually twist things to make the criminal seem the good guy would make the BLM group proud.

        • David E

          Ummm have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? The accused doesn’t have to prove jack.

          The bounty hunters chose to make it a gun fight by going after him with guns. No bounty hunters, no gun fight.

          • BW83

            Yeah, as a matter of fact I have. However, if you’re set to appear in court and you choose not to, you’re now guilty of a crime. Something “the accused” didn’t have to prove because everyone knew he didn’t show. Court would be quite worthless otherwise. So by your standard I can murder someone, not show up for court, and live my life unfettered because I don’t have to prove jack? Innocent until proven guilty right? Since I’m innocent why bother going to a courtroom?

            Jesus Christ. You’re really gonna make this a “what came first, chicken or egg” argument aren’t you? HE WAS A FUGITIVE. By very definition that he never showed up to court, and instead gets found in another state is pretty compelling evidence that he himself knew he was in the wrong.

            The guy had a past record of violence as well, something a bounty hunter would have known. Run from the law they will come after you. Had he not done that in the first place or had he not broken the law initially by selling drugs none of this would’ve happened, bounty hunters would’ve have had to find him, they wouldn’t have had to point guns at him, and a gun fight would have never occurred.

          • David E

            No, you can’t murder people and claim that the court proceeding, warrant, and bounty hunters are acting illegitimately is not legitimate because MURDER IS A LEGITIMATE LAW.

            I never said Murder was unconstitutional, which means you are using a strawman argument. You have to change what I say to be able to defeat it.

            Instead, drug laws are unconstitutional. They have no effect, meaning, protect no-one, and no-one is authorized to act under them, and that is true from the day they are enacted, not the day the court says it is unconstitutional.. That includes courts and bounty hunters.

            Now make your argument that courts can grab people and boutny hunters can shoot them under no law at all, because that is the case you have to make here to defeat my argument.

          • BW83

            Under no law at all? Pretty damn sure, actually positive, they were acting because he had broken laws.

            Straw man argument? No, trying to help illuminate your misunderstanding of how things actually work.

            By all means, if you have such compelling evidence that drug laws are against the constitution then present it to a court, go through the proceedings, and get them changed. You won’t do that however, you’ll just cry about it on the internet. Still doesn’t change the fact he pulled a gun on two men attempting to take him in for skipping court (both of which are illegal as well).

          • If he doesn’t have a license to practice law or the authority to practice before the Court, he can’t even petition them for cert.

          • David E

            I could if it were my own case.

          • Only with a rider attorney.

          • David E

            Horseshit. In Gideon v Wainwright, Gideon petitioned for cert pro se and even with a petition written on toilet paper.

          • The key is whether he was granted it.

          • David E

            You really have no business arguing law if you are unfamiliar with landmark constitutional law cases like Gideon. Of course he was granted cert. If not, there would be no opinion of the court, and if there is no opinion of the court then we wouldn’t be able to know the facts of the case, except in rare instances when there is a dissent from denial of certiorari

          • I can argue anything I want under the First Amendment.
            If you came to a group without lawyers looking for lawyers to argue law with, you must be pretty desperate to find them.
            I wouldn’t have any business arguing law as a professional because I am only a semi-retired truck driver with a mail order paralegal diploma. No J.D., LL.M., or S.J.D. here.

          • David E

            You are becoming purposefully stupid here. Go read Norton v Shelby County where you will learn that an unconstitutional law is no law EVEN IF the government is acting as though it were.

            “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton

            “That act was therefore as inoperative as if it had never been passed, for an unconstitutional act is not a law, and can neither confer a right or immunity nor operate to supersede any existing valid law.”

            Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Ry. v. Hackett

            “All persons are presumed to know the law, and if they act under an unconstitutional enactment of the legislature, they do so at their own peril, and must take the consequences. Should we not cease regarding the legislature with such suspicion and let those persons whose rights are violated assert the unconstitutionality of the statute? So far as the courts are concerned the government starts the race with a handicap. ”

            Sumner v Beeler

            “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

            An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

            Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

            A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
            An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

            — 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

            This means that when the police, courts, bounty hunters, violate the man’s liberty on the grounds of an unconstitutional statute, THEY ARE THE CRIMINALS, i.e., the “bad guys”

            And au contraire, I am very involved with active cases to have the statutes declared unconstitutional so government thugs will be forced to stop pretending the law valid.

        • varlog

          I made the criminal out to be the good guy? Do you work for cnn?

          Just because the bounty hunters are supposed to be the alleged good guys doesn’t give them a free ride. If the cops had done that most of the people on here would be up in arms.

          • BW83

            What law did they break exactly? Detaining a guy with a warrant for arrest? Waiting at a car dealership? All are perfectly legal last I’ve checked.

            Dealing in illegal drugs. Assaulting a police officer. Disarming a police officer. Failure to appear in court. All illegal, but that wasn’t the bounty hunters was it?

          • varlog

            You’re going to defend 2 guys going into a car showroom full of people with guns drawn to apprehend someone who they apparently were treating armed and dangerous? It’s a miracle nobody else was hurt. But as long as they get their guy, everybody else is collateral damage.



          • We’ll never know since they are dead.

          • David E

            I may have made a mistake, If he had additional charges like assaulting a police officer then the procedure is valid. It was my belief this case was only about drugs.

            If only about drugs, I am correct. But no-one thinks assaulting cops is an unconstitutional law.

          • BW83

            Watch the video. He was known to have assaulted and disarmed an officer prior to. Something the bounty hunters would’ve known, and would have prepared for

          • David E

            I see now that I saw it right the first time and your comments were misleading. He was only charged with the drug offense. assaulting an officer was a charge (not necessarily a conviction) in his past. considering the drug laws are void ab initio and not merely voidable, everything that follows after is also void under an “if not for” chain of reasoning. The court had no jurisdiction because no law was broken or alleged to have been broken, that makes any contract with bondsmen void being agreed to under duress of having his liberty unlawfully taken from him; and any texas bounty hunter laws do not apply because the foregoing makes the bounty hunters not legitimate bounty hunters.It makes them attempted kidnappers.

            The BHs approached him with guns drawn, that makes them the initiators of an inherently dangerous felony and the guy had the right to defend himself.

          • BW83

            Justify it however you want. The guy is still dead, nothing will be done about it, and the underlying “problem” you see in this situation won’t change.

            Fact remains, had the guy shown up to court none of this would’ve occurred. I’d also bet my house that the worlds a better place without him. I’m under no illusion the two of us will agree, so there’s no point in running in circles.

          • David E

            I agree this is pointless, but it is pointless because you wish to replace an education in law, which you obviously do not have, with the brainwashing of propaganda.

            Thus you support your own subjection to tyranny. Like I said, sucks to be you, justifying two kidnappers and murderers saying the guy should have shown up for court when he has no duty to hale himself into court when there is no valid case.

            Since you refuse to acknowledge our real law, even when quoted and cited to you, I must leave you to the dangers of your own willful ignorance.

          • BW83

            Again, it’s a law on the books. Constitutional or not people are held to it until its challenged and overturned.

            By all means, feel free to get it changed. Until then, don’t complain about the results of it unless you’ve willing to take action. Griping about it on an online forum doesn’t make you part of the solution.

          • David E

            1) I have cited cases for my position. You have not said a word about it.

            2) I don’t need to get anything changed, my position is based on the current status of the law. Instead it is YOU who has to have something changed to support your position. Now, instead of just spouting your uninformed opinion on the internet, go do something about it OR cite an authority that your position is correct.

            3) You have no idea whether or not I am trying to get drug “laws” (non-laws) changed. You should quit making up facts and making an argument against your imagined facts. It is a strawman argument wherein you make up my position, which is in turn an argument against yourself which you are losing. That is sad.

            4) Once again, being on the books is not what makes a valid law. Being in compliance with the constitution is what makes a valid law. You have been shown citation to this, and you are ignoring it. Once my position is proved, you have two choices:
            a) confess your mistake or
            b) show how my cited law has been overruled, distinguished, or otherwise incorrect.

            anything else is nonsense, and you’re just proving yourself a troll over and over again with your argument that there is no rule of law, just your tyrannical approach to law and order. I’ll bet you cannot even define rule of law correctly but think it is the same thing as “law and order.”

    • One of the main reason why LEOs like doing narcotics interdictions is because they know the majority of small time traffickers aren’t either violent or gunners. The bad gut probably didn’t have as many innocent victims to his name as the bounty hunters did. Bounty hunters aren’t about anything but making money and busting up people who can’t get away with defending themselves for fun.

      • BW83

        Yes, they are about making money, it is a job after all. Likewise, they had little say in how the guy was sentenced.

        Either way, the guy CHOSE to become a fugitive and CHOSE to start a gun fight in a public place. He was far from innocent.

        Agree with a law or not, if you break it you’re no longer by definition innocent. It isn’t a moral issue at that point. Don’t like the system, change it. You don’t change the system by breaking its rules then crying foul when the system drops the hammer on you.

        • I guess you have never heard of murder by bounty hunter.
          It is very similar to suicide by cop.

          • BW83

            Which we have no proof that it’s the case in this instance. What we do have proof of is a guy drawing a weapon on two men apprehending him for being a fugitive.

          • They aren’t apprehending him for being a fugitive. They are apprehending him so they can collect the bounty. Bounty hunters are not altruists. They are strictly in it for the money. If they can’t judge the danger involved in arresting a fugitive, they aren’t protected by the law.

          • BW83

            The bounty which exists because he’s a fugitive…

            I don’t do my job because it directly helps others, I do it because it directly helps me, and I’d bet your similar.

          • And there isn’t very much work for bounty hunters anymore because most fugitives aren’t dangerous enough to pay most bounty hunters to chase them. Fugitives aren’t generally very bright. They tend to hang around where they were originally arrested, and there is no point in paying bounty hunters to do what cops are already paid to do.

          • David E

            Sucks to be you. I do my job because it helps others and I will not work if the primary purpose is not helping others. Nothing else deserves getting paid for and is parasitic. If you wouldn’t do it anyway, regardless of getting paid, you’re just a selfish parasite.

          • BW83

            Here we go, a true social justice type it seems. Selfish parasite? My job helps others, however, it helps others because it also benefits me. That’s how the world works.

            No one would work if it didn’t feed and cloth them.

          • David E

            Plenty of people work for free. Just not the selfish ones.

          • Since they didn’t have an arrest warrant, he was lawfully defending himself.

          • BW83

            Varies state by state. In Texas, from what I can find, they don’t need an arrest warrant. They wouldn’t be allowed to break into his private residence without one, but he was in a public place that while private property, the owner didn’t barr them from being there.

          • I guess you aren’t very familiar with the Fourth Amendment (“persons” isn’t confined to private property) or Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1, or Article 4, Section 4, in toto.
            These provisions apply to those who act as agents for a government subordinate to the Constitution, such as bounty hunters. Even if not, they are still subject to 42USC1983.

          • BW83

            Perhaps you should talk to the Texas government then. I’m not the one allowing it. As it stands, apart from possibly misrepresenting themselves as agents, they followed Texas law

          • The first question to be asked is was he a fugitive from a Texas court? If not, they probably couldn’t have gotten a warrant within that state, which is a true bill jurisdiction.

          • BW83

            Yes, all three were from Minnesota, hence why they didn’t need a warrant under Texas law so long as he was immediately removed from Texas following the apprehension.

          • All three of them would be considered felons under the law.
            Without the assent of the state government, which would be obtained through the Texas Rangers, they are the same as kidnappers trying to kidnap. They have neither jurisdiction nor authority to make an extrajudicial arrest in Texas.

          • BW83

            Again, under Texas law bounty hunters without a warrant in the county/state of the “arrest” don’t need a warrant if they remove them from Texas to the place in question (this case Minnesota).

          • That would work out fine as long as they don’t run afoul of the law for any other reason, such as concealed weapons, breach of the peace, etc. Bounty hunters have a long reputation for being generally arrogant and that is likely to put them in opposition with a local LEO or Ranger in Texas.
            Texas Rangers have an equally strong reputation for staying out of the way unless you get into theirs, and my experience is that wouldn’t be a pleasant place to be if you aren’t well known to them beforehand.
            Pulling guns and shooting at people at auto dealerships wouldn’t be considered to be peaceable conduct by any Texas Ranger or LEO.

          • David E

            Or, you could simply be ignored until you learn enough law to be capable of having a reasonable conversation about it.

          • BW83

            Take your own advice there partner.

          • David E

            You see, if we were having a reasonable conversation about something youw ere knowledgable about, at this point you’d be explaining how I have mistaken Norton V Shelby County and 16 Am Jur. 2d. Since you aren’t it appears you cannot comprehend legal issues and are just one of those people who are too immature to admit they may be wrong.

            If you can cite cases to the contrary, with precedential value, I will gladly admit I am wrong.

          • Why would s/he need precedential (sic) value when we are taking about matters of constitutional and statutory law? Precedential authority is persuasive at best, unless it is on point, and you haven’t established that it is.

          • David E

            Its not precedent if not on point, and to persuade me, BW83 needs to show court opinions that would show the ones I cited to have been overruled, or some other issue showing I am making a mistake.

            I’m not trying to be snarky here, and you know I do my best to be polite, and you know we are generally on the same page as far as result goes, so this isn’t any kind of ad hominem, but I think your mind is slipping. Maybe you should go see a doctor? I am saying this out of concern and mean well. In some cases some fixable things like aneurysms can cause dysfunction. You seem to be mixing things up backwards a lot, and you seem to be doing a lot of this meaning well and in good faith. Please go get checked out.

          • BW83

            Perhaps I don’t want to read each chapter of the book you’re writing. Especially seeing instead of concentrating it in one post you’ve spread it over 7+. I have other things to do versus listen to you justify a contradiction, like my job I do because they pay me to

          • David E

            Then please do shut up by all means. You haven’t moved the conversation along in seventeen posts, just repeating the same thing over, and over, and over and refusing to appreciate someone trying to help you better understand our law for free.

          • BW83

            Or you could read the actual Texas laws concerning bounty hunters and see I’m right. Simple google search

          • David E

            You’re right except the last sentence. Only state actors can act “under color” of state law.

          • Anyone can violate 42USC1983.

          • David E

            Well, technically true, but you have to be sufficiently acting under the authority of the state and under color of state law. That anyone could conceivably wind up in those circumstances is true. But if say I go snoop around in your house as a private citizen, you cannot sue me for violating your 4th amendment rights. If on the other hand, I did it because the cops paid me to or otherwise encouraged me to, then perhaps (court opinions vary) I might be held to be a state actor. Since “anyone” could become a state actor, you’re technically correct.

          • If I were to catch you snooping around in my house and used a pretense that you were acting in an official capacity, you would be violating 42USC1983 whether you were or not. If you didn’t cop the pretense, you’d be a common burglar, which is easier to prosecute. In my state, you’d legally be made a corpse.

          • David E

            snooping isn’t burglary. TO be committing a burglary, I’d have to have the intent to commit a theft or other felony. Looking through your stuff isn’t a felony.

            So, you see, rather than confessing that there are instances when a person is not violating 1983 although violating your rights, you try to divert the discussion into something new, hoping I will bite on whether or not you could legally shoot me for snooping. This way you get to pretend you were right. You do this all the time. Please stay focused.

          • Breaking and entering is a crime. If the actor takes anything that doesn’t belong to them, they commit burglary. If they take something that doesn’t belong to the possessor, they are either a repossessor or doing an eviction.

          • David E

            my example didn’t involve taking anything. Nor did it have to be breaking and entering.

        • Since when are you guilty when you break a law when you used to be innocent until proven guilty?

        • David E

          Sure you can. Lots of cases have changed the system exactly like that.

    • David E

      what bad guy? The only bad guys I see are those illegally restraining liberty over a made-up and unconstitutional offense, and shooting people when they don’t comply.

      • BW83

        This isn’t an issue over legality of drugs, it’s an issue not using the appropriate amount of force. I’m not trying to justify illegality of narcotics, but for now they ARE illegal. Hence, the guy breaking that law (not to mention the other assault charges he had) makes him the bad guy like it or not.

        Simply stating the guys went to restrain someone who made the personal choice to escalate the situation to a deadly encounter, and all three died because of it. Had they just shot the guy when he fumbled his draw there would be two less people dead.

        • David E

          An unconstitutional act is no law for any purpose, and it is no law from the date it is enacted, not the date the courts get around to admitting it; and that is straight from the mouth of the Supreme Court.

          I’d agree with you if they were enforcing a legitimate law.

          • BW83

            The Supreme Court has been mighty silent about doing anything to stop the war on drugs….

            Again, not justifying why the guy was a fugitive. Simply stating he was, knew he was, and made the choice to escalate the situation to violence. Can we at least agree on that much?

            I’d much rather no one die because of a drug law, but that isn’t happening anytime soon. If this guy had not drawn a gun the situation would have ended much differently. Had they shot him without home drawing a gun I would be totally on board with your opinion.

          • Can you tell us when anyone has applied to the Court for cert regarding the war on drugs?

          • David E

            Well, actually yes. raich v Gonzalez did that. Problem is, the issue they chose (congress has no power) failed under a warped view of the interstate commerce clause.

            The S. Ct will soon be getting cases under a substantive diue process argument, unless all the circuits agree the drug war is unconstitutional. If the circuits agree then we do not need the S Ct to declare it so, the lower court ruling will stand.

            In Raich II, the 9th circuit agreed but applied their “give the states and congress a little more time” rationale merely because they believe it “more democratic” to hint at it and let them act on their own. The end of the drug war is in sight under substantive due process.

            And that is why the S Ct never got involved before; not because the drug war is constitutional, but because there was no circuit split.

            The last time they got a case before Raich, they held federal marijuana laws unconstitutional, in 1970.

            Nixon and the congress then passed a different statute operating under a different theory.

          • S.Ct? What court are you talking about, because that isn’t the Court, which doesn’t need a split to consider administrative law, which is most law.

          • David E

            S. is short for “Supreme” and Ct. is short for “Court.” If you REALLY read caselaw you would know this because it is a standard citation for the reporters. There are three–the “U.S.” reporter, the “S.Ct.” reporter, and the “L.Ed.” reporter.

            The court technically can accept cases for any damn reason it wants, but a split amongst the circuits is one of the most important reasons that they tell us is a major criteria for case selection, regardless of what kind of case.

            In this instance, we are taking about criminal and constitutional law, which is not administrative law.

          • Most attorneys don’t refer to courts by the name of their reporters, and they refer to it as the “Court.” The caps say it all. Administrative law constitutes the majority of the black letter law, and it isn’t subject to review in an Article 3 court until after all administrative review has been crossed, which is the beginning of most of the reporters’ records of it.

          • David E

            You really do not know what you are talking about. any attorney knows S. Ct. means the Supreme Court, whereas “the court could mean ANY court and need clarification. Once again you have it exactly backwards.

            Now, please cite a case describing all your “administrative law” nonsense and back your opinion up for once. Since this discussion began, I have read five cases on point and cited several of them. You have not pointed me to a single one.

          • I’m not an attorney, just a paralegal. Perhaps you can’t tell the difference because of a lack of education or a surplus of ego.

          • David E

            I didn’t say you were an attorney. There you go again diverting the subject.

            Said subject most recently being what the “S. Ct.” abbreviation means, which a paralegal would recognize as well.

            You do not become a paralegal by finding a crackerjack box “degree” online.

            Funny how come nobody ever asks YOU if you’re a lawyer like they do me, for instance, in the last thread we were discussing, that of the dabz “rape” case.

          • A paralegal wouldn’t refer to the Court by its reporter’s name, outside of a citation.

          • David E

            Yes I would.

            Go find something useful to do, like cleaning out your belly button lint.

          • So now we know the truth. You are un underemployed paralegal, probably as a result of verbose exaggeration of your professional incompetence, if not your failure to suck up to an attorney.

          • David E

            Only if the truth is that which is formed by your imagination.

            Now, what is the point of these ad hominems? If you have one please get to it. You are far afield from the story.

          • Your truth seems to be a tissue of poorly-denied inference.

          • David E

            The situation would be much different if the bounty hunters had not acted illegally. Since they drew first, it is their fault.

        • Maybe the bounty required a breathing prisoner. Kill him and he is no longer a bounty, just a victim of murder.

      • But the bounty hunters aren’t illegally restraining liberty. They are doing something very similar to those who run a jail, for similar reasons. It is just a little bit more exciting than feeding and managing unarmed and outnumbered inmates.

        • David E

          Jails don’t restrain liberty? What exactly is it they DO, then?

          • They incarcerate prisoners remanded by courts of competent jurisdiction.

          • David E

            so you mean to say “incarceration” isn’t a restraint of liberty?

          • Having done a couple of days in a pre-arraignment situation, most restraints of liberty don’t come with three hots and cot gratis. You asked what jails do and I told you. How would your sans jail justice system work?

          • David E

            You could simply say yes or no. Now becuase you have avoided the question, I have to ask:

            So you are now claiming the full extent of liberty is “three hots and a cot?”

            You are also building a strawman. I never claimed there should be a justice system sans jails. You made that up.

            I simply asked you whether jails restrain liberty, you said no, they “incarcerate” I asked if incarceration is not a restraint of liberty, and now you are quibbling over three hots and a cot.

            I require a broader definition of liberty for my life than three hots and a cot, but if I cited the bill of rights you’d probably argue there is no enforcement clause and therefore it is invalid.

          • No, I’d argue that the Bill of Rights are amendments to a document that was never meant to apply to anyone but those who work for the federal government or subordinate state governments, which weren’t subordinate in 1789.

          • David E

            Yet I note elsewhere that you’re claiming you have 1st amendment rights.

          • No one gets any rights from the Bill of Rights.
            Are you a proctologist?

          • David E

            talk about off point.

            See a doctor, you appear to be having a mental breakdown

          • What would a proctologist know about mental breakdowns, unless they were caused by cranial rectalitis?

  • Uncle Sham

    but remember, drug users are non-violent. lmao

    • BW83

      Dang right they are. Just simple, humble folk that want nothing more than to get high in peace lol, or make money from the destruction of other peoples lives.

      • Glenn Frey was never a drug smuggler, but he wrote one of the most accurate song lyrics about it in music history.

    • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

      Remember, “drug violence” begins and ends with Prohibition.

      It would seem that the bounty hunters drew first. Too much blood in their THC system, I’d bet.

      • Uncle Sham

        fair point, but you left out the part about addiction and drugs costing money… and addicts doing whatever they can to get their fix, such as violent crimes…regardless of whether that drug is legal or not…

        • The cost of illicit drugs drop precipitously any time they become licit. That is the reason why the CIA wants to keep opiates illegal, so they can derive black market profits from them to finance their black projects. They even had the temerity to admit that they had introduced crack cocaine into Los Angeles.

          • David E

            unless the state keeps the price artificially high by taxing it after legalizing it.

          • That would put it back into the black market paradigm. Government has never succeeded with price fixing and never will.
            I don’t want it legalized, I want it decriminalized like it used to be.

          • David E

            of course it does, that is one reason it should not be taxed.

            I think youa re confusing decriminalization with legalization.

            under decriminalization, it is still illegal, you just can’t be arrested for it. decriminalization allows for fines and confiscation, and of course a host of other civil restrictions. LEGAL means nobody can do anything at all over it.

          • I think you are confusing felony with civil. If doing something is not criminal, how can it be a crime?
            Overtime parking is not criminal, and few people complain much when they stupidly get a parking ticket, unless the fine is excessive. Traffic offenses aren’t criminal either, but the officer has to arrest you to serve you with the summons for your appearance in court, and if you don’t appear, you can be incarcerated. Legal means it can be regulated by law, which means it can be taxed, which means it can be criminalized at the will of the law enforcers. If it isn’t it isn’t.

          • David E

            decriminalization isn’t a crime, but it is still subject to civil activities like confiscation.

          • How could removing the criminality from something be a crime? Would you like to rephrase that so it don’t appear to be gibberish?

          • David E

            If you are reading gibberish you need to see a doctor. I have at all times said decriminalized things are no longer crimes. It does however, in contrast to legalization, mean there are still civil (which means not criminal) penalties, like confiscation and fines.

          • You wrote “decriminalization isn’t a crime,” which isn’t different from “decriminalized things are no longer crimes?”
            Everything is decriminalized by default.

          • David E

            No. Decriminalization takes things that were once supposed crimes and converts them to civil matters that still have penalties for violation.


            “There’s a lot of confusion and misinformation about marijuana legalization and decriminalization. The two concepts are not the same, and understanding the law in your state and states you travel in can help you avoid accidentally getting ticketed or arrested for possession of marijuana.

            “To be clear, decriminalization of marijuana is not the same as legalization of marijuana. Decriminalization means that a state repealed or amended its laws to make certain acts criminal, but no longer subject to prosecution. In the marijuana context, this means individuals caught with small amounts of marijuana for personal consumption won’t be prosecuted and won’t subsequently receive a criminal record or a jail sentence. In many states, possession of small amounts of marijuana is treated like a minor traffic violation.”

            Your usual tactic after I have cited is to claim somehow my cite is invalid (apparently based on your position that you won’t admit being wrong) or switch the subject.

            How about this time you say, “oh, thanks for enlightening me, I was making a mistake.”

          • The only relevant enlightenment that you could provide is the name and number of the guy who sold you what you are smoking.

          • David E

            You’ll have to find your own contact. Meanwhile, why don’t you read the explanation of how people confuse decriminalization with legalization which I provided above, with a link.

          • Because it is of no interest to me, being completely off point.

          • Uncle Sham

            not true. otherwise opoid pills would be cheaper than heroin, which it isnt

          • If both were decriminalized and free market, nobody would want the heroin.

          • Uncle Sham

            like in Mexico?

          • Very little of the heroin coming from Mexico originated there. Most of the CIA’s heroin comes from Columbia, where it is made from the opium poppies that were harvested in Afghanistan, that are being defended from the Taliban by ignorant American soldiers.

          • Uncle Sham

            is that declassified?

          • It never was classified, just covered up, but it is easy to discern from leaky propaganda.

          • David E

            I don’t much care for opiods, but if I did, I’d choose the heroin so I could smoke it and avoid an overdose. Can’t smoke the pills.

          • Death by heroin overdose is very rare. The adulterants are what does the killing, and they are absent from pharmaceutical research grade opioids, which are regulated by the DEA. There is a company in the city where I live that makes them, and I supervised the installation of environmental cabinets where they store them.

          • David E

            And if you smoke heroin, adulterated with fentanyl, for instance, you will immediately fall asleep after the first hit and stop smoking and thereby avoid an overdose, instead of injecting the whole huge amount (if fentanyl) and dying because you have introduced too much drug to your system in one fell swoop.

          • And it would be the fentanyl that killed you, not the heroin.

          • David E

            It wouldn’t kill you if you smoke it instead.

    • Usually but not always. This wasn’t based on a non-violent offense, but on flight from prosecution, which is almost always treated as a capital offense by LEOs, just a click less than shooting one.

  • Anon Q

    Bounty hunting should be illegal.

    • Only for fugitives from victimless crimes. Beyond that, they should be held to the same responsibilities as professional LEOs who do the same work, which they aren’t.

    • It wouldn’t need to be if the government would stop paying bounties.

      • David E

        Bondsmen pay the bounties in order to cut their losses. The government rarely issues a reward for someone’s capture these days.

        • And since bondsmen aren’t imbued with competent jurisdiction or any appropriate authority, they are basically hiring hit men to return their non-compliant debtors to jail or a morgue, as appropriate.

          • David E

            more or less

  • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

    Shortly before Michigan passed it’s concealed carry law, a Detroit Free Press writer (now retired), Hugh McDiarmid, a vehement opponent of all things 2nd Amendment, opined relentlessly about how Michigan’s streets would become a blood bath of old west style shoot outs between citizens. Since the law has passed, countless lives have been saved and, to my knowledge, there have been no such shoot outs as Mr. McDiarmid envisioned. Interestingly, we have innumerable stories of shoot outs and cold blooded murders committed almost daily by so called law enforcement and their proxies such as these bounty hunters. Not a single word of protest can be heard by the shills who call for further limitations or even outright abolition of our rights-not even an acknowledgement that ordinary people have more to fear from those wearing badges than from their lawful, peaceable neighbors.

    • I would bet against Hugh McDiarmid having any education in the relative safety and peacefulness of the so-called Wild West, which had the lowest crime rate of any time in American history. Granny probably carried three guns herself, a derringer in each garter, and a six-gun in her purse. There were no serial rapists or killers.

      • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

        Good ol’ Hugh wasn’t interested in objectivity or facts about guns. He just plain old didn’t like guns-or the 2nd Amendment.

        • He should have received the treatment that Alan Berg got because he was more deserving of it. If and when we get control of our country again and rewrite the Constitution, propaganda should become an act of treason.

      • David E

        There were a few killers, but it is badly blown out of proportion. And of course rapes were few and far between because bordellos were largely allowed.

        • Bordellos are another victimless criminal that should be liberated by common sense. Rape wasn’t low because of prostitution. It was low because the potential victims hadn’t been disarmed and were at least as dangerous with a knife as a doctor was. Lorena Bobbitt was a lightweight.

          • David E

            well, no doubt the girls being armed helped too. Don’t believe the feminsit nonsense that rape is about power. It is about sex, and yes bordellos help keep rape down.

            You’re absolutely right they should be legal.

          • If you were to study criminology, you would discover that the professionals don’t consider sex to have anything to do with it, because rapists are about gaining control, not getting their rocks off.

          • David E

            Don’t believe it. Control could be asserted in many many ways without sex. That’s feminist criminology you’re talking.

          • Why are you mislabeling a simple restatement?

          • David E
          • About as well as Snopes could.

  • A two for one ratio of greedy tyrants versus druggie isn’t such a bad balance, IMO.

  • Paladin

    Very unprofessional to try and take a fugitive in a business with customers and employees present. Would of been best for them to wait and tail him to his resident. Also the dealership stated that they would of asked the bounty hunters to leave if they have known they were not federal agents, however knowing that their customer is a dangerous wanted fugitive they still tried to do business with him in an office with a salesman with other sales people near by. A lot of things wrong in this situation. It seems to me that people are getting less professional and less intelligent about how they do their job.

    • Bounty hunters are a lot like private investigators, and both will play any pretense to accomplish their goal.

  • Gil G

    Now that’s what 2A run society should look like.

  • James Wood

    A car salesman? That was enough to shoot him.

  • Steve

    What a bunch of morons here. Hutchinson gets arrested. Regardless of whether the law that placed him in custody was right or wrong is beside the point. Obviously, he called a Bail Bondsman to get himself out of jail, and made a contract with that bondsman, (who put up their OWN money), to free him. Hutchinson agrees to appear at ALL hearings and stay out of trouble, in exchange for his freedom. But then Hutchinson takes off. Only way for Bondsman to get their money back is to deliver Hutchinson back to Jail. Bondsman sends Bounty Hunters to collect Hutchinson and deliver him back to jail, so they can recover the bond money. BUT, it would appear in this case they sent the keystone cops, who couldn’t properly do the job they were given. And now all 3 are dead.

    • David E

      Not true, they can sue him for breach of contract.

      You can’t go shooting people who breach contracts.

    • It isn’t obvious that he called a bail bondman or that he was incarcerated. If he was issued a summons and didn’t appear, that is a totally different issue from whatever arrest began the circus. Unfortunately, all were old enough to have already procreated, so this can’t even operate as natural selection.

  • Beauzy

    Good fucking job you pig shit bounty hunters.
    Take a mans liberty when no one was harmed anyway.
    Shoot the pig dogs

  • BW83

    That’s your version? Is it really the best you can do? Drawing a concealed or holstered weapon isn’t “surrendering” it in anyone’s world but yours.

    The same “you weren’t there” logic applies to you as well. Seems we’ll just have to stick with witness accounts then, you know, the accounts that paint the fugitive in the wrong

  • BW83

    Never said they were. By the same token you can’t say the situation would have ended any differently had it been cops that made the same mistake.

    Responding to a lethal threat with non-lethal means is idiocy