CNN.com: Federal agents nationwide eye ATF agent murder trial

[Destino]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/25/virgin.islands.atf.agent.case/index.html?hpt=T1

Washington (CNN) -- Is Will Clark a villain or a hero?

Was the off-duty federal agent brave and chivalrous, or did he overreact when he intervened in a heated domestic argument and shot a man five times, killing him?

A U.S. Virgin Islands jury this week will hear the case for and against Clark, a nine-year veteran of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, now charged with second degree murder.

The prosecution of Special Agent William G. Clark for the 2008 shooting death of Marcus Sukow has enraged many federal law enforcement officers, who say Clark was heroically coming to the defense of a battered woman.

Federal authorities were so incensed by the Virgin Island's prosecution of Clark -- and so concerned other federal agents could similarly be prosecuted -- that they removed all ATF agents from the Virgin Islands in 2008, a policy that continues today, the agency said.

If this article can be believed I'm surprised this man has been charged with anything. The man he shot:

- had a blood-alcohol content of 0.29
- had barbiturates and morphine in his blood
- had a history of violent assaults

That alone makes me doubt the dude was being friendly and nonthreatening. Add the following if the defense can be taken at their word:


When Clark first encountered the fighting couple, Sukow was naked, intoxicated and shouting threats at his girlfriend and racial slurs at a neighbor who had come out during the commotion.

At one point, Sukow went into his condo and returned wearing gym shorts, and then pelted his girlfriend's car with landscaping stones.

Sadly however it seems that Duncan (the woman he claims to have been trying to help) will be testifying AGAINST him.

Whatever the truth is I hope they find it. If I were on a jury I'd have to hear some amazing evidence to get me to convict a man of murder for shooting a man that was drunk, high, and had been beating on a car leading up to the shooting.

[mmzznnxx]

Whatever the truth is I hope they find it. If I were on a jury I'd have to hear some amazing evidence to get me to convict a man of murder for shooting a man that was drunk, high, and had been beating on a car leading up to the shooting.

I hate to come off as rude, but is inebriation and destruction of property really all you need to justify five shots? Clearly the guy was no angel and in need of repercussion, but wasn't the girl going to be escorted by him to the gates? And it also mentions him going into his house to put on shorts or something, unless I have the timeline mixed up, isn't that ample time to get out of there? You could never really know without being there but I have to believe there were better options to deal with it. I won't argue he didn't have a right to self-defense, because it sounds like he does, but I feel it was excessive. If the lady who was being harassed is testifying against, I have a hard time believing she doesn't feel it was excessive as well. Thoughts?

[No_Pressure]

Harry Callahan: Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.

The Mayor: Intent? How did you establish that?

Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross...

[walks out of the room]

The Mayor: He's got a point.

[Dan T.]

This comment goes more to why Agent Clark fired:
"After Duncan sought refuge in Clark's car, Sukow charged at Clark's open driver door, the flashlight -- a heavy-duty, 18-inch metal one -- raised 'like a tomahawk,' poised to strike Clark." Also the intoxicated Sukow weighed 260 pounds.

[Larry]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/25/virgin.islands.atf.agent.case/index.html?hpt=T1


If this article can be believed I'm surprised this man has been charged with anything. The man he shot:

- had a blood-alcohol content of 0.29
- had barbiturates and morphine in his blood
- had a history of violent assaults

That alone makes me doubt the dude was being friendly and nonthreatening. Add the following if the defense can be taken at their word:



Sadly however it seems that Duncan (the woman he claims to have been trying to help) will be testifying AGAINST him.

Whatever the truth is I hope they find it. If I were on a jury I'd have to hear some amazing evidence to get me to convict a man of murder for shooting a man that was drunk, high, and had been beating on a car leading up to the shooting.

Wow, you're right.

The law clearly states that it's legal to shoot people for being drunk.

And vandalism, too? WTF are they thinking?

[Larry]

This comment goes more to why Agent Clark fired:
"After Duncan sought refuge in Clark's car, Sukow charged at Clark's open driver door, the flashlight -- a heavy-duty, 18-inch metal one -- raised 'like a tomahawk,' poised to strike Clark." Also the intoxicated Sukow weighed 260 pounds.

Now that sounds like a much better reason. To me, that's "assault with a deadly weapon".

(I'm not one of those believers that says that if the attacker's weapon isn't a gun, then you aren't allowed to use one. IMO, all that's necessary to justify shooting is a reasonable belief of a threat of death or serious injury.)

Although, admittedly, it's a lot easier to prove "a reasonable belief of a threat of death or serious injury", if the dead guy has a gun.

[Thiebear]

.29 intoxicated (that is HUGE)
barbiturates and morphine in his blood on top of that (probably keeping him concious
260pds with a history of violence

that was naked and seemingly violent.... threatening 3 seperate people, throwing paving stones... (small or large?).
And brandishing a metal 18" flashlight.

(This man was no longer acting in his own accord at this point in my opinion just based on the autopsy.)


People put themselves in horrible situations and expect cops to figure it out for them?
I don't believe in the death penalty, but i believe in cops getting the benefit of the doubt until proven they are lying.

[Larry]

(This man was no longer acting in his own accord at this point in my opinion just based on the autopsy.)

Unfortunately, you cannot kill people based on their autopsy.


People put themselves in horrible situations and expect cops to figure it out for them?

Two (admittedly contradictory) observations.

1) Nobody asked this guy to "figure it out for them". He wasn't on duty.

2) That said, though, I remember reading some stats, long, long, ago, about cops killed in the line of duty. According to those stats, the most dangerous job police officers do, in terms of "what are the odds of me dying on this call", is "domestic dispute".

[Fergasun]

I don't understand why this upsets people. The facts are for a jury to decide. Is the attitude I sense from other ATF agents that they can shoot someone 5 times and not have to undergo any scrutiny or inquiry? I don't believe the way the MSM frame these stories. This story was given to CNN by the defense lawyer, and favorable press was given to the ATF. Notice the way the facts are presented. This case is going to come down to the jury's definition of "reasonable" vs. "excessive". I don't see how anyone can say that he was on official duty in this case.

Who believes that women-beaters deserve 5 bullets without due process? I guess the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association does...

[Fergasun]

Here's an earlier article (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/atf-agent-trial-murder-us-virgin-islands/story?id=11012073&page=2):

It was not until after Clark was charged in 2009 that a witness account emerged in which Sukow was charging at Clark and swinging his flashlight before he was shot. The witness who provided the account said she had given local police this account at the time of the incident, but the local police did not make it part of the official record.

There were only 4 ATF agents in USVI when they were pulled out as well. Also, Federal Agents there don't have peace officer status which would allow them to intervene not on official duty.

There's also an issue of US prosecution of a local VIPD officer which may be driving the AG in the case to try this locally.

[DCsportsfan53]

.29 intoxicated (that is HUGE)
barbiturates and morphine in his blood on top of that (probably keeping him concious
260pds with a history of violence

that was naked and seemingly violent.... threatening 3 seperate people, throwing paving stones... (small or large?).
And brandishing a metal 18" flashlight.

(This man was no longer acting in his own accord at this point in my opinion just based on the autopsy.)



I agree, the only thing I would wonder (and obviously it's much easier here than I'm sure it was at the moment) is was 5 shots really necessary? Guy's clearly drunk and out of control, put one in his shoulder and cuff him. Again, that may have been impossible in the situation, who knows, but while I'm not opposed to using a gun against a blunt metal object, it would seem on the surface that 5 shots might be excessive.


People put themselves in horrible situations and expect cops to figure it out for them?
I don't believe in the death penalty, but i believe in cops getting the benefit of the doubt until proven they are lying

This part I completely disagree with. Cops are humans, humans with a lot of power and authority (two things which tend to corrupt and attract the corrupt). I view them very skeptically and think that they're often given way too much benefit of the doubt. Why is it that we are so mistrusting of politicians because of the power they're given but so ready to trust cops and prosecutors with similar powers? Don't they deserve as much scrutiny? Isn't the risk for corruption just as high?

[Larry]

I don't understand why this upsets people. The facts are for a jury to decide. Is the attitude I sense from other ATF agents that they can shoot someone 5 times and not have to undergo any scrutiny or inquiry? I don't believe the way the MSM frame these stories. This story was given to CNN by the defense lawyer, and favorable press was given to the ATF. Notice the way the facts are presented. This case is going to come down to the jury's definition of "reasonable" vs. "excessive". I don't see how anyone can say that he was on official duty in this case.

Who believes that women-beaters deserve 5 bullets without due process? I guess the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association does...

I do agree with you about the "let's wait for the trial".

Maybe I just have a lot more faith in juries than is justified. But I do think I'll take the judgment of 12 people who spent days looking at all aspects of a case, and then unanimously decided, over people (including myself) who read four paragraphs of a newspaper article, which was leaked by one side or the other.

I'm perfectly willing to say "let's have a trial, and as far as I'm concerned, whatever the jury says, that's the truth."

[frostyj]

I agree, the only thing I would wonder (and obviously it's much easier here than I'm sure it was at the moment) is was 5 shots really necessary? Guy's clearly drunk and out of control, put one in his shoulder and cuff him. Again, that may have been impossible in the situation, who knows, but while I'm not opposed to using a gun against a blunt metal object, it would seem on the surface that 5 shots might be excessive.


5 shots is not excessive in this situation. It takes less than a second to cover about 10ft, so the agent should fire a shot and wait to see what happens? A 260lb man charging at you with an 18" flashlight filled with 'D' batteries is a great weapon. In close range knives and blunt objects are often more deadly than a gun.

What disturbs me is the local police not putting the statment of a witness in the report. (if true)
Will just have to see how it plays out.

[Dan T.]

I agree, the only thing I would wonder (and obviously it's much easier here than I'm sure it was at the moment) is was 5 shots really necessary? Guy's clearly drunk and out of control, put one in his shoulder and cuff him.



Winging a guy in the shoulder only happens on 1970's TV detective shows and bad westerns. Next someone will suggest the agent should have shot the flashlight out of his hand.

[Thiebear]

This part I completely disagree with. Cops are humans, humans with a lot of power and authority (two things which tend to corrupt and attract the corrupt). I view them very skeptically and think that they're often given way too much benefit of the doubt. Why is it that we are so mistrusting of politicians because of the power they're given but so ready to trust cops and prosecutors with similar powers? Don't they deserve as much scrutiny? Isn't the risk for corruption just as high?

I lived in the police barracks (army) for a year in Turkey way back 1988..
My father was a cop, a 96pd woman on PCP kicking his knee backwards. Injuring 11 others.. In a police station.
My brother is a cop in NC...

People are constantly putting lives at risk and expecting cops to make the exact right decision in every instance. They are human. your right.

Don't drink with morphine and other drugs at the same time while throwing paving stones naked.
The cop was probably drinking a coffee and driving around at that time... not helping this man take a shot. (okay poor choice of words).

[Larry]

Winging a guy in the shoulder only happens on 1970's TV detective shows and bad westerns. Next someone will suggest the agent should have shot the flashlight out of his hand.

Agreed.

You either aim for the center of mass, or you don't shoot.

(For two reasons. One is that either you're justified in shooting, (and the only time you're justified in shooting is when your or somebody else's life is on the line), or you aren't. The other is that shots that miss are a danger to other people.)

[Larry]

Don't drink with morphine and other drugs at the same time while throwing paving stones naked.

Boy, you're really stuck on this concept that the punishment for drunk in public is execution without a trial, aren't you?

[DCBnG21]

Does anyone know what he was shooting? I searched but couldn't find it... I'm guessing it was a 9MM though, in which case this dude was so hopped up that he probably didn't even feel the first 3 shots. The agent probably just fired at him until he went down; it's not like once the gun was going off he was checking to see what hit and didn't.

Interestingly enough, if you read the articles, the "witness reports" seem to be trying to say that he shot him while he was standing up/still with his hands at his side, not threatening or menacing. I have a hard time believing that someone who was calm and coherent enough to not threaten the agent, took 5 shots from even a 22 while standing still listening to instructions.

Charging forward, out of his mind, violent & out of control having lost the capacity to feel pain due to everything in his system? I can believe he took 5 before he fell.

I have a hard time believing that if this dude was calm & coherent enough to not attack the agent, and was standing there all calm like when he got shot, that the witness reports aren't saying that the cop was standing over him pumping the rest of those shots into his body.

Obviously I wasn't there so I can't say with certainty, but it certainly sounds like he attacked & got shot until he went down.

[China]

Winging a guy in the shoulder only happens on 1970's TV detective shows and bad westerns. Next someone will suggest the agent should have shot the flashlight out of his hand.

Or New York City:


One shot knocked the gun from the man’s two-handed grip, piercing his right middle finger and grazing his left hand, according to the police. Another shot hit the lock on the front door, jamming it. The gunman tried to flee, Mr. Browne said, but could not get the door open.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/nyregion/26salon.html?_r=1

[Larry]

Or New York City:

Well, now, that settles it for me.

The fact that once, somewhere in the universe, a bullet hit a gun, is all the proof I need to conclude that it's possible for police officers to do it any time they want to.

(Searching for a news story about a guy who won a lottery.)

:)

[Thiebear]

I thought we had us a Sharpshooter:
She emptied her revolver AT the suspect from 12 FEET away.
1 bullet hit his finger holding the gun.
1 bullet hit the door jamming it.
3 bullets went who knows where.

This is not the example you thought it was reading the details.

[Dan T.]

I thought we had us a Sharpshooter:
She emptied her revolver AT the suspect from 12 FEET away.
1 bullet hit his finger holding the gun.
1 bullet hit the door jamming it.
3 bullets went who knows where.

This is not the example you thought it was reading the details.

If you read the article you would know, too, that the suspect was also firing at her. With a .44 caliber Magnum. I can't imagine the chaos and adrenaline. So I hope you're not denigrating her marksmanship because not all of her bullets found the target. This woman should be commended for her bravery.

[Larry]

Deleted post.

[Destino]

Wow, you're right.

The law clearly states that it's legal to shoot people for being drunk.

And vandalism, too? WTF are they thinking?
Violence is threatening no matter what the target of that violence may be. If a drunk stumbles around smiling people laugh. If a drunk proceeds to scream at everyone and destroy things in his path they start to worry... if he suddenly comes at them they feel threatened even though all he is guilty of is vandalism. Your behavior suggests your intent. Vandalism, screaming, threatening another human being, and obvious intoxication makes every logical person IN THE SITUATION correctly perceive you as a threat. The concept of self defense is acting PRIOR to being harmed the only thing I'd be looking for as a juror is did have have reason to feel threatened by this individual. Drunk, high, and violent makes it hard for me to say no.

I don't really care if after the fact a better course of action was available. In life there is always a better way or an improvement when you look back on things but locking good people up because a person can suggest an alternative solution isn't justice. If anything should have been done differently it was not getting high and drunk enough to be causing a scene NAKED in public (that's really drunk and high I might add) and then proceeding to hurl stones and otherwise attack a car with a person inside of it.

[Larry]

Vandalism, screaming, threatening another human being, and obvious intoxication makes every logical person IN THE SITUATION correctly perceive you as a threat.

Wrong.

Threatening another human being makes you a threat. Screaming makes you guilty of disturbing the peace. Obvious intoxication is probable cause for a breathalyzer test, which might lead to a ticket.

Having a blood alcohol that's over the legal limit is not a justification to kill someone. And suspicion of being drunk certainly isn't.

This guy's drunkenness wasn't enough of a reason to give him a ticket. (To give him a ticket, they have to have proof.)

Now, frankly, I assume that this cop had what he thought was a good reason. But his blood alcohol level and his prior arrests are not among them. For several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that at the time of the shooting the cop was aware of none of them.

[Destino]

Wrong.

Threatening another human being makes you a threat.

Having a blood alcohol that's over the legal limit is not a justification to kill someone. And suspicion of being drunk certainly isn't.
You're right being drunk alone isn't enough reason to feel threatened... I think I made that point clear in my last post. "If a drunk stumbles around smiling people laugh" Separating out aspects of the situation immediately negates the validity of what your saying because no one can do this in the real world. You can't choose to deal with "violent" or "drunk" when dealing with a violent drunk. The two individual situations aren't the same animal as the two combined.

[Larry]

You're right being drunk alone isn't enough reason to feel threatened... I think I made that point clear in my last post. "If a drunk stumbles around smiling people laugh" Separating out aspects of the situation immediately negates the validity of what your saying because no one can do this in the real world. You can't choose to deal with "violent" or "drunk" when dealing with a violent drunk. The two individual situations aren't the same animal as the two combined.

There is, however, one difference.

"Violent" justifies shooting someone.

"Drunk" is completely irrelevant.

If it turns out after the fact, that he had kiddie porn on his computer, then that's irrelevant, too.

He may have been a violent Cowboys fan. That doesn't mean that Cowboys fan is important.

"Violent" is a justification. "Violent with a deadly weapon" is an even better one.

"His blood alcohol level at his autopsy was . . . " is simply "trying to make the victim look bad, after he's dead".

[Thiebear]

If you read the article you would know, too, that the suspect was also firing at her. With a .44 caliber Magnum. I can't imagine the chaos and adrenaline. So I hope you're not denigrating her marksmanship because not all of her bullets found the target. This woman should be commended for her bravery.

I read the article, thats how i got the details.. I'm not doubting her courage.
Im just pointing out she didn't sharpshoot his gun and then jam the door intentionally.
Try and keep up.

[Prosperity]

There is, however, one difference.

"Violent" justifies shooting someone.

"Drunk" is completely irrelevant.

If it turns out after the fact, that he had kiddie porn on his computer, then that's irrelevant, too.

He may have been a violent Cowboys fan. That doesn't mean that Cowboys fan is important.

"Violent" is a justification. "Violent with a deadly weapon" is an even better one.

"His blood alcohol level at his autopsy was . . . " is simply "trying to make the victim look bad, after he's dead".

violence w/o deadly force does not justify deadly force self-defense, let alone defense of someone else, at least not in most of the US

[Thiebear]

Boy, you're really stuck on this concept that the punishment for drunk in public is execution without a trial, aren't you?

Yes Larry, thats exactly what i said: Kill the man, he's drunk even though i don't believe in the death penalty.
I'm very bipolar that way. His behavior had nothing to do with it.

[DCBnG21]

There is, however, one difference.

"Drunk" is completely irrelevant.



Not true - drunk & hopped up on an assortment of drugs & morphine is not irrelevant at all. Have you ever seen someone go violent in this state? Super human strength & a singular focus on destroying everything around you is a terrifying thing to deal with. In fact, it's just the sort of thing that gets you stopped by someone who pumps bullets into you until you fall down - because there is nothing else they can do. You can't fight or control this person with regular strength; multiple bigger dudes often can't even contain a person in this state.

There is a reason why many guerrilla groups get tweaked before they go into battle. Being drunk and on drugs is not a reason for someone to shoot you, but if you lose your mind in that state; there is a real chance it will have an impact on the outcome.

[Dan T.]

I read the article, thats how i got the details.. I'm not doubting her courage.
Im just pointing out she didn't sharpshoot his gun and then jam the door intentionally.
Try and keep up.

I misread the intent of your post. I'll try harder to keep up.

[Larry]

Yes Larry, thats exactly what i said: Kill the man, he's drunk even though i don't believe in the death penalty.
I'm very bipolar that way. His behavior had nothing to do with it.

Tell ya what.

1) You go through this thread and find every post saying that the shooting was justified, that mentions that he he assaulted someone with a deadly weapon.

2) I'll find every post saying that the shooting was justified, that mentions that he was drunk.

Which one do you think we find more references to?

(Note: Some of the references in group 1 will be from me. In fact, I suspect that more than half of the posts in group 1 will be from me.)

[Thiebear]

I misread the intent of your post. I'll try harder to keep up.
You should, nobody else ever misreads my posts.... ;)

[Destino]

There is, however, one difference.

"Violent" justifies shooting someone.

"Drunk" is completely irrelevant.

If it turns out after the fact, that he had kiddie porn on his computer, then that's irrelevant, too.

He may have been a violent Cowboys fan. That doesn't mean that Cowboys fan is important.

"Violent" is a justification. "Violent with a deadly weapon" is an even better one.

"His blood alcohol level at his autopsy was . . . " is simply "trying to make the victim look bad, after he's dead".
You're separating things out again that can't be done in real life. When confronted with a violent drunk you can't say "allakhazam you are now sober!" and deal with the violence on it's own. Intoxication usually will make a violent person that much more violent with the added fun of removing their ability to think clearly or be reasoned with easily. That's why the drunk part matters.

Also you don't need a blood alcohol level to figure out a guy standing naked in a parking lot fighting a car door is under the influence. Sober people don't usually walk outside raging only to remember to go back inside and put shorts on.

[Larry]

You're separating things out again that can't be done in real life. When confronted with a violent drunk you can't say "allakhazam you are now sober!" and deal with the violence on it's own.

You can't wave a magic want and make his t-shirt change, either.

That doesn't make his t-shirt the primary justification for shooting him.

You don't go from "well, he was wearing a gay rights t-shirt and committing assault with a deadly weapon" to "The guy deserved to die because of the t-shirt".

[Dan T.]

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: Murder Charge Against ATF Agent Dismissed

News 10NBC [Rochester, NY] has learned the case against an ATF agent with ties to Rochester has been dismissed. This is according to Congressman Chris Lee’s office and the FBI. Special Agent Will Clark was on trial for murder in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Special Agent Will Clark was charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of his neighbor. It happened on the island of Saint Thomas in 2008 where Clark was on assignment. One morning on his way to the gym, he intervened in a domestic dispute between a man and woman. The man lunged toward Clark with a large metal flashlight - and Clark shot him.

Clark was cleared by a U.S. Justice Department review panel, but the local court in the Virgin Islands wanted to go forward with the criminal case. Clark had argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals that his case belongs in federal court where he could be granted immunity under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Third Circuit court rejected that argument.

Yesterday fellow federal law enforcement agents protested outside the U.S. Virgin Islands Governor's office in Washington, D.C.The case has had a ripple effect on law enforcement in the Virgin Islands. The ATF has pulled all of its agents from the U.S. territory in protest.

Ironically, Clark and others were sent to the Virgin Islands to assist in the growing problem of gun violence there. The agent has a fiancé and a child here in Rochester.


http://www.whec.com/iteam/stories/S1812682.shtml?cat=572

So far, that's the only hit on the dismissal on a Google News search...

[Larry]

One morning on his way to the gym, he intervened in a domestic dispute between a man and woman. The man lunged toward Clark with a large metal flashlight - and Clark shot him.

Sounds OK to me.


Clark had argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals that his case belongs in federal court where he could be granted immunity under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Huh?

There's a clause in the US Constitution that says that ATF agents are immune from prosecution for murder?

----------

Really don't like the legal argument. However, sounds to me like the guy brought a flashlight to a gun fight, and where should we send the Darwin Award?

[Dan T.]

I heard from someone else that at the trial today, the defense made a motion for dismissal, and the judge granted the motion.

[Larry]

"You won't shoot me."

"Yeah? Why not?"

"You are a policeman. There are rules for policemen."

"Y'know, you sound just like my Captain."

[Dan T.]

Here's a Washington Post article. sounds like it was dismissed with prejudice (meaning he can't be retried) after a defense motion on a technicality - proper procedure was not followed in identifying the body of shooting victim Marcus Sukow to the medical examiner.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/28/AR2010102804907.html

[Thiebear]

As i said I give the cop the benefit of the doubt until you find him lying.

This decision by the judge caused the tin foil hats to be dusted off.
I find this outrageous as it makes the people scared of law enforcement.

Either prove it was a justified shooting with that exact statement and WHY.
or burn this cop to the ground to show they are held to a higher standard.

peasants like myself don't know how a technicality in identifying the body can end the trial.
He is dead.. go back and look again, i'm sure you can figure this out...

[Larry]

Yeah, I can understand how there's gonna be comments about "the cops accidentally lost the evidence against the cop".