One day ago, a shooting happened at the bowling alley located midway between Scottville and Ludington.  It wasn't initially clear what exactly happened, but here was one of the initial news accounts of the incident:

MCP Suspect in custody following bowling alley shooting:  May 23, 7 PM

A male suspect is in custody following a shooting at the Spartan West Bowling Center, 2253 W. US 10-31, Tuesday afternoon. Law enforcement personnel were dispatched to the bowling center just before 5 p.m. for a report of shots fired inside the building, according to Mason County Sheriff Kim Cole.

“According to the initial dispatch information, there was an argument inside the building between employees,” Cole said. “At some point objects were thrown and then there were gunshots.” Several people then left the building, Cole said.

“Nobody got hurt and we are treating this as a domestic situation,” Undersheriff Jody Hartley added.

Overnight, nothing much else was publicly released other than the fact that the sheriff's office was seeking a warrant for the shooter:

COLDNews Warrant sought for reckless discharge of firearm in bowlin...:  May 24, Noon

Police are seeking a warrant on a charge of reckless discharge of a firearm following a  Tuesday evening incident at the Spartan West Bowling Center on U.S. 10. 

No one was hurt, Mason County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Oscar Davila said at the scene.

Objects were thrown and shots were fired, according to Mason County Sheriff Kim Cole, but no one was hit.

Contrary to normal protocols, and perhaps as a result of not getting any more information, the Mason County Press' Rob Alway interviewed somebody other than the police that were involved:

MCP Bowling alley owner tells his side of shooting story  May 24, 5 PM

Donn Slimmen, owner of Spartan West Bowling Center, 2253 W. US 10-31, said the shooting incident that took place on the business property Tuesday was the result of an argument that he was having with his son, Bernard “Beamer” and that the gun was never in the building nor were there any gunshots in the building or in the parking lot.

“Beamer and I had an argument and it escalated. I put him into a bear hug and we ended up falling to the ground,” Donn said. “He thought he had hurt me and he ran out of the building. He was frustrated and grabbed his registered handgun out of his vehicle and went out back and shot two or three rounds from the gun into the ground. My wife, Karen, and an employee got concerned and ran out after him. That’s when someone called 911 and that triggered the police to respond.”

Donn said Bernard is a US military veteran and was working through some issues...

When law enforcement arrived, they eventually located Bernard, Karen, and the employee. Donn said he told the police that no one was armed at that point, but everyone was initially detained. He said he was told by law enforcement that they needed to detain everyone as a precaution in order to sort the situation out and confirm that no one was armed...

Bernard was taken to Spectrum Health Ludington Hospital and evaluated. He has been transferred to a Grand Rapids facility, Donn said.

“We just ask that people pray for our son. He served our country, is a dedicated husband and father, a good son and just a great person, ” Donn added

ANALYSIS:  Presuming that everyone is telling the truth at this point, a stance made stronger by noting the two stories presented by Donn Slimmen and the MCSO are not inconsistent, should "Beamer" have been arrested for the crime of reckless discharge of a firearm?

Presuming the police agencies find 2 or 3 bullets outside in the back of the lanes where there is no customer parking, and determine through ballistic forensics that they were fired exactly as Donn said they were, into the ground, then would that meet the basic elements of the crime?

There are two types of reckless discharge of a firearm charges.  The first type, where the discharge kills or maims a person (MCL 752.861), clearly does not apply here, as nobody had been hit.  If this element had been present, Beamer would have stood to look at up to 2 years in prison for the misdemeanor.

The other (MCL 752.862) says:  "Any person who, because of carelessness, recklessness or negligence, but not wilfully or wantonly, shall cause or allow any firearm under his control to be discharged so as to destroy or injure the property of another, real or personal, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor..."

Had Beamer shot the wall of the bowling alley, his father's car, or some other object due to his frustration, then this charge may be applicable, if the owner of the property wished to press charges.  But even though the dirt in back of the bowling alley is effectively 'real property', there would be no damage done unless he hit some underground tank or something. 

For this, the Mason County Sheriff's Office wishes to prosecute a veteran with a wife and kids for a misdemeanor which does not seem to apply, but could land him in jail for three months or up to a year if the MCSO decides the divots created did more than $50 of damage to the turf.  Potentially worse, if Beamer is an avid hunter, he may lose such privileges for three years.

Is this really what we want to do in this case, absent further investigation that otherwise indicates Beamer did something other than what has been alleged?

Views: 495

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I sure don't agree with you on this one. So some wacko gets pissed at a co worker and things got out of hand. one throws a bowling pin the other starts shooting ,this time the ground. Whats next , his boss ,wife , kids. He needs a mental evaluation , take his guns away and being in the military don't mean crap.There's tens of thousands of military vets that don't act out with weapons.  It used to be when you had a disagreement , came to the point of out of control you would punch or get punched in the nose. Now its get out the gun.  A gun owner has to be responsible, this guy is far from that.

I think we're more in agreement than you think.  You may be operating with more inside information than me, but I believe we can both agree that almost everything that happened in the 'domestic quarrel' was inappropriate, and that shooting a gun, even into the ground, was very inappropriate.  I think we can agree that an evaluation is mandatory here, and that counseling for Beamer, and maybe even the family, is appropriate.

Where we may differ is considering what is an appropriate response by the police and the criminal justice system.  I do not personally know Beamer Slimmen or the exact circumstances of the situation or his mindset when he fired the shots, that's why we have an investigation and an evaluation. 

So after a preliminary investigation and an apparently incomplete evaluation, a charge is brought forth by the MCSO with the prosecutor to charge this man with a serious misdemeanor charge, the elements of which do not apply here.  It is not illegal to shoot into the ground in Amber Township, and it isn't otherwise a 'reckless' discharge if the threat of damage to people or property was never part of the shooting. 

If the sheriff's otherwise proper response to an inappropriate use of a firearm is to use the laws and justice system inappropriately, then that needs to be questioned, and it should be justified to the community to the fullest extent possible.  Why use an arrest and imprisonment of an otherwise productive citizen on a specious charge, when they would likely have a better result through waiting for an evaluation and determining what might be best for society and for Beamer?

Some people punch people,some people punch walls, some shoot their guns into the ground. At least he had the common sense not to injure anyone. It could have turned out bad if his thought process was different. His behavior was reckless and could have possibly turned worse if challenged. He was blowing off some steam his way' Frightening customers was uncalled for. Glad their were no injuries to him or anyone else. Maybe Chief Barnett can say a prayer for him. Kim Cole can bring him to church and let God guide him. I hope he gets good medical attention and can recover from this incident and move forward peacefully in his life. He should still be held accountable for his actions after he is deemed fit to be released from his evaluation. On a lighter note, I wonder how many and, how recently  Ludington's cops have been evaluated. 

LPD Defective Aaron Sailor's long history of police brutality lawsuits with at least three episodes chronicled in federal court of beating up and injuring innocent individuals deserves more of an evaluation than Beamer's indiscretion.  Chief Barnett imported Sailor from his old department, and not only found him a job, but promoted him to chief defective in order to evaluate social media posts to see whether they could be considered the least bit threatening to public officials.  This is why I feel safe.

I agree that no crime had been committed however I'm certainly not comfortable with having someone with a temper and quick access to a firearm being able to retain his "right" to that firearm until he can be evaluated to determine how far over the edge he may go. This incident could have turned ugly very rapidly if he had gone back into the building to confront his father with the firearm.  We could be discussing a homicide right now. 

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service