New Details in Shooting of Tx State Trooper: Officer Fired First
Alex Jones
News in cooperation with the Austin American-Statesman
New details emerge in shooting of state trooper
By Jason Spencer and Andrea Ball
American-Statesman Staff
Posted: August 5, 2000
KYLE -- State trooper Randall Vetter squeezed off two shots at his
attacker before a bullet crashed through his windshield and hit the
officer in the head, authorities said Friday.
Texas Department of Public Safety officials initially believed Vetter,
28, failed to take his semiautomatic pistol from his holster during
the Thursday morning shootout with Melvin Hale, 72, near San Marcos,
said DPS spokesman Mike Cox. Vetter was critically wounded in the
exchange.
The new conclusion "is based on finding two empty shell casings
identified as coming from the trooper's weapon," he said. Cox said he
did not know whether the shell casings were found Thursday or Friday.
Hale had previously vowed to kill any officer who attempted to arrest
him -- a threat Vetter never heard about, Cox said. Vetter had only
been working in Hays County about a month before the shooting. It is
not standard procedure for supervisors to warn new troopers about
people who have threatened to injure officers, Cox said.
"We do not believe Vetter knew who he had stopped," Cox said.
Texas Rangers investigating the shooting also now believe Hale fired
more than one shot from his semiautomatic rifle, Cox said. On
Thursday, authorities said they thought Hale fired only once.
Vetter remained in critical condition Friday at Brackenridge Hospital
in Austin.
Authorities have said Vetter stopped Hale for not wearing a seat belt,
although they have not said how they came to that conclusion. Vetter,
whose driver-side door was open, did not notify his dispatcher that he
was making the stop, and he had not started writing a ticket, Cox
said.
Troopers are advised to radio their dispatcher before stopping a
vehicle, but it is not required, said DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange.
Law officers swarmed to the scene moments after Hale used Vetter's
police radio to report the shooting. Police arrested Hale after
shooting out the tires on his car and tackling him on the Interstate
35 frontage road at Yarrington Road.
Hale remained in jail on $1 million bail Friday, charged with with
attempted capital murder of a police officer.
"I did it," Hale told a crowd of reporters Thursday as Texas Rangers
escorted him into the Hays County Jail. "I'm a law-abiding citizen. I
Iike to drive down the road without being arrested."
Vetter's friends and supporters continued to stream into Brackenridge
on Friday.
"Everyone seems to be going to the hospital or has already been," said
Tim Tierney, executive vice president of the Texas Highway Patrol
Association.
The association has set up a trust fund for the Vetter family. That
money -- which can be dropped off or mailed to any Compass Bank
location -- is earmarked for the family's food, housing and
transportation.
Hale, a retired rancher and crane operator from Kyle, threatened
another trooper earlier this year with a rifle and promised to shoot
any law officer who tried to arrest him, according to a memo written
in February by state trooper Trampas Gooding.
"Subject also stated he had not paid taxes since 1984 and does not
believe in them," the memo said. "He informed me that he 'would give
the business end of his rifle if anybody tried to arrest him.' "
"There is nothing unique about that memo," Cox said. "Police officers
are always exchanging information on people they think might be
dangerous. There is no indication that anything at all contrary to
policies or procedure happened."
Also Friday, the Hays County district attorney's office subpoenaed the
American-Statesman and at least three Austin television stations,
seeking access to the tapes, notebooks, interviews and other material
related to the trooper's shooting. Officials from television stations
KVUE, KXAN and KTBC confirmed they had received subpoenas.
The newspaper challenged the subpoena in a letter to District Attorney
Mike Wenk.
"It is not surprising that reporters might be less aggressive in
investigative reporting when faced with the constant prospect of
responding to investigative demands from law enforcement authorities,"
the letter said.
---
The material that appears on Austin360.com is for informational
purposes only
Ragnar
> another trooper earlier this year with a rifle and promised to shoot
> any law officer who tried to arrest him, according to a memo written
> in February by state trooper Trampas Gooding.
What? And the kook wasn't arrested for that? Geez....
Ragnar
on any subject, value, or norm.
"Volt" <Volt...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39ad6903...@news.mindspring.com...
> See Waco.
>
> Texas gun loons are out of control
>
> Ecrasons l'infame
>
> Join the War on Right Wing Ignorance
> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
> Campaign 2000
> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/campaign2000.html
>
> ===============================================================
> "This is two weeks of record heat. This is unbelievable. I tell
> ya, I was sweating like Dick Cheney at a Nelson Mandela prayer
> breakfast."
>
> --Jay Leno, just getting warmed up
> ===============================================================
D. Staples
Ragnar wrote:
--
The door to my web page: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
For forestry commentary see bionet.agroforestry and alt.forestry news groups,
as well as http://www.delphi.com/ab-forestry/ for a continuing conversation on
forestry.
Daniel T. Fahey
Xian Right? KKK?
D. Staples <dsta...@livingston.net> wrote in message
news:39901E76...@livingston.net...
D. Staples
rational thought that he may have added to the discussion. Sort of like
you.
James D. Nicholson
>
> I'd like the board to know that I in no way, shape or form agree with Volt
> on any subject, value, or norm.
Welcome to the club.
--
Jim Nicholson - http://www.tsra.com/
If misplacing a trigger lock key = leaving a loaded gun accessible to a
minor, we're going to have to start jailing all of these people without
total recall.
Tom S.
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 19:05:13 -0500, "James D. Nicholson"
> <jam...@akamail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ragnar wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd like the board to know that I in no way, shape or form agree with
Volt
> >> on any subject, value, or norm.
> >
> >Welcome to the club.
>
> stopping him to give him a ticket?
>
> That Officer has died leaving behind a wife and infant child.
>
> The nut case will be tried for capital murder.
>
> You NRA whores must be so proud!
>
Has the NRA issued a statement, or are you a pimp?
Randy Howard
says...
> Texas, Tommy.
>
> Why don't you buy a drink for your souse Heston and start scrubbing on
> those bloody hands.
Yes, they do. It's a permit to carry a licensed handgun after a
background check. This guy had a rifle. There has been no report
that he had a handgun permit either. So, you're as usual, wrong
and spewing forth persiflage without regard for reality or the truth.
--
Randy Howard
James D. Nicholson
>
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 19:05:13 -0500, "James D. Nicholson"
> <jam...@akamail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ragnar wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd like the board to know that I in no way, shape or form agree with Volt
> >> on any subject, value, or norm.
> >
> >Welcome to the club.
>
> So you think this nut case was right to shoot a DPS officer for
> stopping him to give him a ticket?
Only a leaky mind could come to such a conclusion. You really need to
get that thing patched.
D. Staples
"Tom S." wrote:
> "Volt" <Volt...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:39c36b35...@news.mindspring.com...
> > On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 19:05:13 -0500, "James D. Nicholson"
> > <jam...@akamail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Ragnar wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'd like the board to know that I in no way, shape or form agree with
> Volt
> > >> on any subject, value, or norm.
> > >
> > >Welcome to the club.
> >
> > So you think this nut case was right to shoot a DPS officer for
> > stopping him to give him a ticket?
> >
> > That Officer has died leaving behind a wife and infant child.
> >
> > The nut case will be tried for capital murder.
> >
> > You NRA whores must be so proud!
> >
> Has the NRA issued a statement, or are you a pimp?
--
Don Staples
Volt wrote:
The NRA loves that law.
Volt
Ecrasons l'infante
View Left Wing Ignorance
http://clusterfuck.home.mindspring.com/
Randy Howard
> >Yes, they do. It's a permit to carry a licensed handgun after a
> >background check. This guy had a rifle. There has been no report
> >that he had a handgun permit either. So, you're as usual, wrong
> >and spewing forth persiflage without regard for reality or the truth.
>
> truck, Randy.
Or a car, or a motorcycle, or tricycle, or a skateboard, or boat, or
a shoulder or just walking down the street. What's your point?
It's state law, and has been that way since we kicked Santa Anna back
over the river. What does a truck have to do with it? The guy in
question wasn't even driving a truck. Is this just a lame attempt to
throw a Texas redneck stereotype into your dribble?
> The NRA loves that law.
Really? Why? Have they published something on the topic? Or is it
only because the NRA usually upholds constitutional laws, be it at
the national or the state level that you start frothing at the mouth?
> This Looneytarian nut case killed that officer because he didn't want
> to wear a seat belt.
I'm aware of the circumstances of this, in fact I believe I was the
first person to post anything about it in this newsgroup. I am,
however, completely nonplussed at your usage of the "word"
'Looneytarian' above. I suppose you find it funny in your dark little
room, but I can only guess you are implying that those in favor of
minimal government (i.e. Libertarians) are crazy. By that yardstick,
George Washington was the mad hatter.
The only thing we seem to know about the guy was that he was cranky
about property taxes and seatbelts. Nothing about his voting record,
or politics has been made public to my knowledge, except for a rumor
(unconfirmed) that he had something to do with the "Republic of
Texas" movement.
> Keep scrubbing on those bloody hands.
No need yet, as it's still a while until Dove season opens.
--
Randy Howard
AFTech
>On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:50:29 -0500, "James D. Nicholson"
><jam...@akamail.com> wrote:
>
>>Volt wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 19:05:13 -0500, "James D. Nicholson"
>>> <jam...@akamail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Ragnar wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I'd like the board to know that I in no way, shape or form
>>> >> agree with Volt on any subject, value, or norm.
>>> >
>>> >Welcome to the club.
>>>
>>> So you think this nut case was right to shoot a DPS officer for
>>> stopping him to give him a ticket?
>>
>>Only a leaky mind could come to such a conclusion. You really need
>>to get that thing patched.
>
>I'm the one asking why the NRA supports the state of Texas allowing
>folks to carry shotguns and rifles in the cab of a truck.
>
>That DPS officer left a widow and an infant child behind because
>some violent Looneytarian didn't want to wear his seat belt.
>
>Start scrubbing on those bloody hands.
>
>And pour a drink for Charlie Heston while you are at it!
>
> Volt
>
Supporting the right to carry is not the same as supporting improper
use, you ignorant asshole. Murder is already against the law and I
think you'll find the NRA fully supports laws against murder.
I suppose you find it more acceptable that your wife (if there be some
woman desparate enough to marry you) be found raped and butchered in an
alley rather than allow her the ability to defend herself.
I suppose you would have preferred the young lady in Tampa to have had
her throat cut by the mentally ill intruder rather than have the
intruder dead. After all, how can he continue dementia driven killing
spree?
What a fucking hypocrite you are.
--
Don't squat with your spurs on.
**AFTech...@crosswinds.net (cut the cheese to e-mail)
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Randy Howard
> >Or a car, or a motorcycle, or tricycle, or a skateboard, or boat, or
> >a shoulder or just walking down the street. What's your point?
>
So can Israelis. It works well for them as well.
> Is Santa Anna still lurking around San Marcos?
If you're stupid enough to ask that question, I probably shall
not bother with any further invectives you come up with.
> Does he tube the river?
See above, also totally irrelevant to any discussion ever posted
in this newsgroup. You are a waste of oxygen. Help save the
planet and commit suicide today. If you are in need of a firearm,
I can loan you one.
> >> The NRA loves that law.
> >
> >Really? Why? Have they published something on the topic? Or is it
> >only because the NRA usually upholds constitutional laws, be it at
> >the national or the state level that you start frothing at the mouth?
>
> You have a constitutional right to drive around with easy access to a
> loaded firearm?
You still have not answered *my* question. What evidence do you have
that the "NRA loves that law". Also, WHAT LAW? There is no law on
the books that says "You can drive around with a rifle in your car".
There is simply no law that says you cannot.
> Care to cite that Supreme Court decision, Randy?
I don't need a Supreme Court decision, it's in the US Constitution,
has been since the very beginning.
> >'Looneytarian' above. I suppose you find it funny in your dark little
> >room, but I can only guess you are implying that those in favor of
> >minimal government (i.e. Libertarians) are crazy. By that yardstick,
> >George Washington was the mad hatter.
>
> How many DPS officers did Mr. Washington shoot, Randy?
Interest intentional misunderstanding of the statement Dolt. The point,
as you well know, was that George Washington was a believer in the
idea of a much smaller government than we have today. The point was
that he must be crazy, since you seem to think that all libertarians
are "looney". It's also quite interesting to note that Mr. Washington
could not have shot a DPS officer during his lifetime. The idea of a
permanent group of people to run around enforcing laws about what lane
your horse should be ridden in didn't really exist, in that libertarian
time. Seems like we've lost some freedom since then.
> You mean he wasn't on his way to an ACLU meeting?
Doubtful, even he isn't that crazy.
> >No need yet, as it's still a while until Dove season opens.
>
> Is that what you gun whores are calling DPS officers now, doves?
No, El Densito Maximo, a dove is a bird.
--
Randy Howard
Michael Ejercito
Volt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 21:42:21 -0500, Randy Howard
> <rhowa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <39aebe20...@news.mindspring.com>, Volt...@mindspring.com says...
> >> >Yes, they do. It's a permit to carry a licensed handgun after a
> >> >background check. This guy had a rifle. There has been no report
> >> >that he had a handgun permit either. So, you're as usual, wrong
> >> >and spewing forth persiflage without regard for reality or the truth.
> >>
> >> It is legal in Texas to carry a rifle or a shotgun in the cab of a
> >> truck, Randy.
> >
> >Or a car, or a motorcycle, or tricycle, or a skateboard, or boat, or
> >a shoulder or just walking down the street. What's your point?
>
> Texans can drive around heavily armed.
Good. It will deter your racist buddies from committing
racially-motivated hate crimes.
> Is Santa Anna still lurking around San Marcos?
>
> Does he tube the river?
>
> >It's state law, and has been that way since we kicked Santa Anna back
> >over the river. What does a truck have to do with it? The guy in
> >question wasn't even driving a truck. Is this just a lame attempt to
> >throw a Texas redneck stereotype into your dribble?
>
> Stereotype?
>
> >> The NRA loves that law.
> >
> >Really? Why? Have they published something on the topic? Or is it
> >only because the NRA usually upholds constitutional laws, be it at
> >the national or the state level that you start frothing at the mouth?
>
> You have a constitutional right to drive around with easy access to a
> loaded firearm?
Yes. There is nothing wrong with it, unless you are a white
supremacist looking for some non-Aryan to beat or murder.
Michael
_
Anonymous
>
> The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it says, Randy.
>
Wow, what an ignorant asshole you are.
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
Johnny Johnson
Handgun Control Incorporated Psychopolitician/Propagandist to
Usenet in HCI's `Operation Alienate' Gun Control PsyOps program;
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:50:29 -0500, "James D. Nicholson"
> <jam...@akamail.com> wrote:
>
>> Volt wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 19:05:13 -0500, "James D. Nicholson"
>>> <jam...@akamail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ragnar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like the board to know that I in no way, shape or form agree with
>>>>> Volt on any subject, value, or norm.
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the club.
>>>
>>> So you think this nut case was right to shoot a DPS officer for
>>> stopping him to give him a ticket?
>>
>> Only a leaky mind could come to such a conclusion. You really need to
>> get that thing patched.
>
> I'm the one asking why the NRA supports the state of Texas allowing
> folks to carry shotguns and rifles in the cab of a truck.
The NRA supports the Texas Constitution, Jimmy Ed:
---- Begin Included Text ----
The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful
defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law,
to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
<http://capitol.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000100-002300.html>
---- End Included Text ----
If you don't like the Texas Constitution, Jimmy Ed, feel free to try to get it
changed. Otherwise: accept the fact that Texas's founding fathers were pretty
sharp in what they set up for Texas as a nation/state (the "Carpet-Bagger
Constitution" notwithstanding).
Hale was legally carrying his rifle for "lawful defense of himself", but he
chose instead to misuse that which he lawfully possessed. No one in this thread
has stated in _any_ way that that misuse was acceptable conduct; now have they?
Using Jimmy Ed's theory (ban/confiscate an item because it might be/has been
misused): every computer in the land should be banned and confiscated because it
_just_might_ be used in the production and/or distribution of kiddy porn. (In
Jimmy Ed's case: that just _might_ be true <g>). And all cars/trucks should be
banned and confiscated because they _just_might_ be used in a criminal episode:
including vehicular homicide.
I, for one, wouldn't want to live in Jimmy Ed's "perfect world": would you?
BTW: how does one `wear' a shotgun or rifle?
--John Johnson/TX Peace Officer (17+ Years) supporting the
Texas and U.S. Constitutions, the BoR, the 2ndAmnd and the RKBA
"Gun Control: the political AIDS of a free society"
--Ian Underwood, 13Sep98
"There is no direct correlation between the nubmer(SIC) of guns
and the frequency of shootings and/or massacres."
--LtC James Albert Isham, USA(R)
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything
you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."
--Col. David Crockett; member of the Tennessee legislature
(1821-1822/1823-1824); member U.S. House of Representatives
(1827-1831/1833-1835); and Texas Hero of the Alamo (1836)
"If we accept the view that the American people cannot be trusted with
the material objects necessary to defend their liberty, we will surely
accept as well the view that the American people cannot be trusted with
liberty itself. Why should a man who can't be trusted to refrain from
murder be trusted with the much more difficult and morally subtle task
of choosing his leaders responsibly?"
--Dr. Alan Keyes
"It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and everywhere,
to assume...that every citizen is a criminal. Their one apparent purpose,
pursued with a relentless and furious diligence, is to convert the assumption
into a fact. They hunt endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs are lacking,
for mere suspicions. The moment they become aware of a definite citizen,
John Doe, seeking what is his right under the law, they begin searching
feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him."
-- H.L. Mencken
Randy Howard
> >> Texans can drive around heavily armed.
> >
>
I don't know and don't really care, but I doubt it. They have
some of those Looneytarians in charge over there I think.
> >> Is Santa Anna still lurking around San Marcos?
> >
> >If you're stupid enough to ask that question, I probably shall
> >not bother with any further invectives you come up with.
>
> So where is you [sic] justification for driving around ignorant and armed,
> Randy?
I don' think there is one Volt, which is why if you live in Texas,
we need to pass a law to exclude you.
> Do you think I want to touch something that has spent all that time up
> your ass?
I hope not, but if you try, you better bring your body armor.
> >You still have not answered *my* question. What evidence do you have
> >that the "NRA loves that law". Also, WHAT LAW? There is no law on
> >the books that says "You can drive around with a rifle in your car".
> >There is simply no law that says you cannot.
>
> And if someone tried to pass one the NRA would have a litter of
> kittens.
A large portion of the Texas residency would have a litter of
kittens, and rightfully so, with or without the NRA.
> >I don't need a Supreme Court decision, it's in the US Constitution,
> >has been since the very beginning.
>
> The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it says, Randy.
The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on what laws violate the
constitution. They have overstepped the bounds of their power,
and we as citizens have allowed it to happen. The "Supreme Court"
is not a "Supreme Being" it is just a collection of men and women
that make mistakes like everyone else. Tomorrow afternoon they
could make a decision which would reverse the last 200 years worth
of opinions, and that would be "law" as well. The Constitution is
a document which was amply debated by the people living in this
country at the time. The wrote a lot about it before it was completed.
Try reading the Federalist Papers sometime. I KNOW you will learn
something if you can comprehend the words.
> Are you expecting the British to invade San Marcos any time soon,
> Randy?
No. They're too busy worrying about the proper method to serve
high tea in house with an odd-numbered address to be a risk to any
foreign power currently.
> Or do you just have a list of people you want to shoot based on their
> race or politics or sexual orientation?
No. I think if you pay attention to the thread about Kilborn/Letterman
and snipers, you can easily determine which political group thinks
it would be useful to kill off their opposition with a gun. That's
usually reserved for people being threatened directly (i.e. self defense)
or for people who have no other way to make their point (liberals).
> >> You mean he wasn't on his way to an ACLU meeting?
> >
> >Doubtful, even he isn't that crazy.
>
> He killed a DPS officer because he didn't want to wear a seat belt.
>
> He is a member of the McVeigh Wing of the Redneck Fools of Texas!
Thank you for making my point. All of these things are reprehensible,
but you have to be insane to be an ACLU member. Millions of people
are criminals, only a few hundred thousand are nutty enough to join
that group.
> >No, El Densito Maximo, a dove is a bird.
>
> El madre es puta.
>
> Isn't Spanish fun?
>
> Volt
How would you like to come spend Christmas vacation with my family?
--
Randy Howard
Randy Howard
Ok, it's pointless. I'm diving off of your Ad Hominem freight train
now. You don't make any points, you just make ASSumptions and slanderous
remarks. I suppose if you had the ability to make a point, you would
have done so by now. Fine.
*plonk*
--
Randy Howard
AFTech
>Johnny Johnson: Protecting McDonalds and calling it law enforcement!
>
> Volt
>
I see you support the right of criminals to not have to fear for their
lives while committing a crime. You would have been satisfied had the
McDonalds employee been shot instead.
I see Josh still has his hand up your ass, puppet.
Bama Brian
So the trooper shot first.
And the cops are subpoenaing the news media. The cops can't seem to do
their own investigations.
And an allegedly nutty 72 year-old rancher with a large ranch which is
likely to be worth serious money, who has a dispute going with the local tax
collector, starts getting pulled over for not wearing his seat belt.
You mean cases of harassment from civil government don't happen? Maybe,
just maybe, somebody in Texas thinks that by getting the old coot
institutionalized or dead, there'll be a cheap ranch available.
This one isn't over yet.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
NRA Life
GOA Life
Libertarian
Voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL voting for an evil.
Vote Libertarian. You'll be glad you did.
.
"Alex Jones" <ajo...@infowars.com> wrote in message
news:o2ptosgd29mshc2v8...@4ax.com...
> Hale, a retired rancher and crane operator from Kyle, threatened
> another trooper earlier this year with a rifle and promised to shoot
> any law officer who tried to arrest him, according to a memo written
> in February by state trooper Trampas Gooding.
>
