Kent sentenced to prison; Arndt family files civil suit
By Gwendolynne Larson (Contact), Bobbi Mlynar (Contact)
Originally published 03:06 p.m., August 12, 2008
Updated 12:49 p.m., August 13, 2008
Christine Arndt addresses Chief Judge Merlin Wheeler during the sentencing of Theron Thomas Kent Tuesday, Aug. 12. Arndt spoke with a photo of her son setting on the podium.
Theron Thomas Kent will spend nearly three years in prison for killing Beau Arndt, but his time in the court system is far from over. The Arndt family filed a wrongful death suit against the 57-year-old Topeka man about an hour before the sentencing hearing began on Tuesday.
Kent was convicted June 30 of involuntary manslaughter and two misdemeanors — criminal hunting and criminal discharge of a firearm. The charges stemmed from the Dec. 15 shooting death of Arndt. The 18-year-old was hidden in a blind while hunting geese with friends when Kent fired a single rifle shot into the field in northwest Lyon County. The shot hit Arndt.
Kent told investigators and later jurors that he was firing at a coyote from the road. His conviction and sentence also means he’ll never hunt again.
During the sentencing, which lasted about an hour and 15 minutes, Wheeler heard from Kent as well as a medical professional and two character witnesses for him. He also heard from Bob and Christine Arndt, Beau Arndt’s parents. The big question for the standing-room-only crowd of supporters on both sides was whether Wheeler would depart from the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines and grant Kent probation instead of the prescribed prison sentence.
Before issuing his decision, Wheeler heard from a Topeka social worker who said he’d been treating Kent for three months for depression and anxiety. Jim Woodward testified that he believes Kent suffers from post traumatic stress syndrome. Wheeler also heard from a fellow district judge, Dan Mitchell of the Shawnee County bench, who said he’s known Kent for 20 years.
“He is a man of honesty,” Mitchell said of Kent, “a man of character, and I believe given the opportunity of probation, he could do everything in his power to satisfy the conditions of probation.”
Kent’s sister, Sheila Remy, apologized to the Arndt family on behalf of her family and told Wheeler that she worried about what would happen to her mother’s health if Kent went to prison. Her brother, she said, helps their mother.
On the stand himself, Kent told Wheeler he was worried about what would happen to the 14 employees of his company, Kent Fence Co. in Topeka. Those 14 and their families depend on their jobs for their livelihoods, he said, and there is no one else who can take over the company. Also, he said, he would need income from the company to pay any ordered restitution in the case.
Said Don Hoffman, Kent’s attorney, “This case is based on negligence. ... This is a no-intent crime that has resulted in a horrible tragedy.”
That’s an issue that will come up in the civil suit, filed by Emporia attorney Monte Miller on behalf of Robert and Christine Arndt. The suit accuses Kent of negligence and wanton conduct in connection with Arndt’s death.
The negligence count in the civil suit states that the gunshot wound Kent inflicted on Beau Arndt had caused the 19-year-old “tremendous pain and suffering before he died from those mortal wounds.”
As a result, the suit states, the teen’s heirs have suffered economic loss, including funeral expenses, loss of filial care, services, attention and protection, as well as non-economic loss, such as mental anguish, suffering and bereavement, loss of society, comfort and companionship, and the loss of earnings Beau Arndt would have contributed to his parents during the remainder of their lifetimes.
The second count in the suit accuses Kent of wanton conduct and claims that the defendant “recklessly without regard for the safety of others fired a rifle ... and the bullet shot from that rifle struck Beau Arndt.”
Kent’s actions were wanton and reckless, and presented risk of danger to Beau Arndt and to others, the suit stated.
Each count in the suit asks for judgments in excess of $75,000, for the costs of the action against Kent, and for any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
During the sentencing hearing, the Arndt family countered Kent’s arguments, contrasting a picture of a son who was raised to know there were consequences to his actions with an adult who has never admitted that he killed Beau Arndt.
Christine Arndt, Beau Arndt’s mother, pointed out the irony of being advised to make a victim statement that speaks “from the heart.”
“I can’t speak from my heart,” she told Wheeler. “Ever since Beau died it has been broken.”
She reminded the judge of all the milestones of life that her son will miss as well as the ways friends and strangers have made sure his life will not be forgotten. Then she turned to her perception of Kent’s accountability, beginning with a quote from Maya Angelou — “without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue.”
“If Mr. Kent had had the courage to stop the truck and help my dying son, if Mr. Kent at any time had had the courage to step up and take responsibility for the shot that ended by son Beau’s life, if Mr. Kent had had the courage to be honest with my grief-stricken husband, then I, too, would have the courage to forgive.”
Bob Arndt followed his wife, telling Wheeler about his son’s character, particularly stressing Beau’s sense of accountability. Wheeler picked up on the same trait while explaining his decision.
The Kansas Sentencing Guidelines mandate prison for involuntary manslaughter, although Wheeler would have the discretion to suspend a prison sentence for probation. In the end, the judge declined.
“Whether you were firing at a coyote is immaterial to me today,” Wheeler said. “You decided to pull the trigger and that decision ultimately led to the death of a young man.
“I cannot in good conscience condone such actions. A man of your age and position as a hunter should have had no idea in mind of firing anywhere on property which you did not have permission to hunt.”
Kent’s official sentence is 32 months in prison followed by 24 months of post-release supervision. He also was ordered to pay court costs as well as $11,274.79 in restitution to the Arndt family. He also was ordered to register as an offender for 10 years after his release from prison and is prohibited by federal and state law from “possessing or carrying a firearm for any purpose whatsoever, even lawful pursuits such as hunting,” Wheeler said.
He then denied a request from Hoffman to stay the sentence for 10 days to allow Kent to get his affairs in order. The request drew a quiet comment from Arndt’s supporters — “he’s had seven months to do that.”
Lyon County Attorney Marc Goodman agreed, telling Wheeler the state opposed the request.
Once Wheeler recessed the hearing, Kent was taken into custody by courthouse security to be taken to Lyon County Jail. As he was led away, one supporter called out, “We love you, Tommy.”
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
madpoet (anonymous) says...
Sounds like justice has been served. He'll have plenty of time to think about what his careless action caused. I'm very pleased he can't hunt with a gun again. That may protect others. Nothing will restore Beau to his family and friends but at least the man responsible for his death is being punished. I hope this will serve as a reminder to others to be very careful with guns and always check their backstop.
August 12, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
I agree. I didn't want the man executed for what he did, but I wanted him harshly punished and justice served. It sounds as if both were done. And that was just in criminal court! Now comes civil action. Ouch! I suspect Mr. Kent will go to his grave regretting that morning of poor choices.
August 12, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
If you want probation instead of jail time, you plead your case out. Don't make the prosecutor, judge, and victims family sit through some BS trial, where you present evidence about the fact there were other hunters in the area, similar rifles made, etc.
You wasted the courts time Mr. Kent, now go waste three years of your life. If you would have plead, you would be 6 months into your probation by now. Dwell on that one.
Seems to me your attorney did not do a very good job representing your best interests. If you wanted probation, he should have talked to the prosecutor before going to trial. But, then again, he wouldn't have got his name in the news as much.
August 12, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
soldiersgirl (anonymous) says...
Is three years really a fair amount of time for this man to sit in jail, when an 19 year old boy LOST his life? I really do not think so. Sure the man will never be able to hunt again, but Beau will never be able to run, laugh, drive, or even learn again. His life was taken because this man wanted to kill something unlawfully and he ended up killing a young man who had the rest of his life ahead of him.
I really hope that Mr. Kent is remorseful for his actions and will never be able to forgive himself for what he has done, because Beau's family will never have their son, grandson, brother, nephew, or cousin back. They will never have the same life again. Mr. Kent will get to live his again after being released from prison. I ask, is 3 years and a life of not being able to shoot a gun, really justice for Beau? I DON'T THINK SO!!!
August 12, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
d23_66801 (anonymous) says...
an innocent mistake beau was young but that is all your looking at ignorant fools
August 12, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Maybe someone can interpret d23_66801's post for me. I haven't the slightest idea what he/she is saying.
I don't know that much about court proceedings, but I certainly can see the possibility that Mr. Kent hurt his chances for leniency by forcing a trial that had no reasonable chance of success.
August 13, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fairsfair (anonymous) says...
Kent's only other option was to plead guilty, and he probably would have received the same sentence (the maximum allowed for involuntary manslaughter) that he received yesterday. So it made sense for him, and his lawyer, to go to trial. Fortunately, the wise people who made up the jury were able to see through the defense arguments.
August 13, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jdd4592 (anonymous) says...
As far as wasting a trial. I'm sure if I had made the mistake, there would be a side of me that was wishing it wasn't true. Hoping agianst hope that it was really a bullet from someone elses gun and I just happened to be there at the same time. Wishing that someone would come forward and say "I saw someone else"
Doing so wouldn't make me any less sorry that this tragedy occurred.
As far as pleading, I think fairsfair pretty well hit this one on the head. Even if the guy wanted to plead, the prosecution doesn't have to offer them anything. I suspect that was the case here. For those making judgements, you might want to open your minds to the possibility that there was more at play here than you know.
Just my 2cents.
If any of Beau's family or friends are reading this, I sincerely hope you find the peace you deserve when this is all over.
August 13, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rdgrey (anonymous) says...
I believe we have seen a true justice system here and not a circus type of trial. This was very well done and a job well done by the judge. Both families did pay a price and both will have a fair settlement.
August 13, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pollyanna (anonymous) says...
Just a gander here, but I'm guessing both families didn't have a "fair settlement". One man's going to jail for a few years..whooptedoo. One young man is in the ground and his family will miss him until they rest with him. No amount of money will right that wrong.
August 13, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
steakbuffet (anonymous) says...
Am I the only one confused as to why the Kent Fence Company can not continue to operate? Surely there is a valued employee or foreman that knows the ropes. Eventually Mr. Kent will return, Beau will not. Beau was born three days before my child, they were friends in high school and college. Many folks on both sides are hurt by this tragic event.
August 13, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heloves (anonymous) says...
If any man be overcome with a fault, Ye who are spiritual restore such a one with a spirit of gentleness. Condolences to the Arndt family, but we live in a world of enough non-forgiveness as it is. The one hurt most by a spirit of non-forgiveness is the possessor, but it can make life miserable for all concerned. None of us are above making tragic mistakes and part of doing to others as we would have done to us would hopefully be forgiveness. Civil penalties are part of life but holding another hostage emotionally is a realm only God has the right to do and as I don't read He does neither should we. It's not always easy but that is why God asks us to rely on Him and not our own understanding.
August 13, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Jayhawker: I was able to translate the post of d23_66801. What he said was: "Duh. Me not smart and not doo well in skool and me like Kent. He my rellitiv." I hope that helps.
August 13, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hottopics (anonymous) says...
Justice was fair. He didnt mean to kill anyone but he was doing wrong and a life was lost. Three years isnt a long time in comparision to all the years Beau will never have. Kent will have a life after his sentence, Beau will not. Kent's family and Beau's family will never be the same. It only takes one bad split decision to cause a irreversible out come.
I have prayers for both sides. No one wins in this.
August 13, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
destiny (anonymous) says...
heloves- I agree 100% My prayers to both families who have both experienced two different losses.
August 13, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
socialmancan (anonymous) says...
Well, well, well. What a mess. First off, my sympathy goes toward each family. I don't know the exact feelings that are occurring in your hearts, but I can only imagine the pain and suffering that both have. Both have literally been through so much already that this trial has only a marginal impact in how the rest of the families lives are going to play out. This is just a shocking, heart-breakening, irreversible event that unfortunately had very deep and tradgic effects. I just hope that both families can forgive the other and that both are able to be at peace once again, without any grievances or hatred. Lastly, i'm going to end with a bible verse that is directed for everyone in this case and whoever is reading this comment. Revelations 22:21 - The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
August 13, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Bjnemp: Thanks. I think that was exactly what he was saying.
August 13, 2008 at 11:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
srose95709 (anonymous) says...
His mother owns the company, and has 2 other brothers who could run it
August 14, 2008 at 5:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Beau Arndt and his friends were hunting legally. They had their licenses and proper waterfowl stamps. They had permission from the landowner to be hunting where they were HUNTING.
Tommy Kent, his brother, and one of Kent's employees came to Lyon Co to stay in a relative's cabin and to shoot their guns. They only had permission to shoot and hunt on the land the cabin sits on, which is a very small acreage. They had and have done this many times in the past including during deer rifle hunting seasons. This was admitted by Kent during the trial. They left the cabin the morning of Beau's death to drive around the countryside with their firearms looking for wildlife to shoot at knowing full well they did not have permission on any of the land they would be driving by and shooting onto. This is called road hunting by those that practice the method, although it is not a legal form of hunting. Kent claimed in the investigation and in court that he stopped to shoot at a coyote. He claimed he got out of the truck to shoot. The employee who was sitting beside him in the truck, told investigators that Kent fired the gun from inside the truck at geese in the field(Geese were actually Beau's decoys). Using a rifle to shoot at geese is a Federal offense.Shooting from the vehicle and from the road are both violations of Kansas hunting regulations and state statutes. The employee was granted immunity from prosecution to testify against Kent In the trial. The employee suddenly had selective memory loss when called to testify. He couldn't remember what was said or what happened the day Beau died. His mother was removed from the court room for coaching him on his answers while he testified. End of Part One.
August 14, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Part Two-Both Beau and one of his friends closest to him in the field were watching the Kent truck approach, slow down and stop. All three of the hunters in the field would have been able to recognize a coyote, none of them saw one that day. Kent admitted in court seeing the other hunters and their vehicle after firing the shot but he did not stop to see if they were okay or for shooting in their direction. Kent claimed that they went on "hunting" the area while enroute to Emporia to get his truck tires fixed. They went shopping at Bluestem for supplies for his business, then returned to Topeka. Before heading home, he hid the rifle he used under a mattress in the cabin, and supposedly placed the specific spent rifle shell that killed Beau in the same room. Kent claimed he had no idea that he had done wrong or his group was being sought, that he didn't know a man had been killed until several days later just before LYSO Officers came to his house and told him even though nearly every media outlet in the state was reporting the incident. During the trial, Kent's defense tried to lay blame on everything and everyone but Kent, they tried to create doubt that his shot was what had killed Beau, that was his Lawyer's job to do. Their witnesses, testimony and evidence were less than credible, the jury saw thru the smoke. During the sentencing phase, they painted Kent as an honest law abiding upstanding member of society. They had a District Judge testify on his behalf.(who admitted Kent had a tendency to embellish facts/stories in the past) They tried to convince the Court that Kent needed to stay out of prison to take care of his ailing mother, to help other Kent family members, to run his business properly so 14 employees could maintain their jobs. They said he suffered mental anguish, post tramatic stress was offered from someone that is not qualified to diagnose such a disorder. Kent testified he had health issues which required alot of medications, he was depressed because of the incident and the trial. He claimed no one else could run his business. The Judge informed Kent that he did not support their claim that this was an accident, that Kent was old enough to know better than to shoot onto land he did not have permission to do so on. He sentenced him to prison and denied probation. End of part Two.
August 14, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Part Three- Kent and his lawyer asked for 10 more days to get his affairs in order before going to jail. He has not been in custody once since December 15th, he has had ample time to do so already. The Judge denied the request. Could it be that the Defense plans to appeal the sentence and conviction, which has be done no more than 10 days after sentencing? I suspect that is exactly what will be done, as will a request be filed asking for a appeal bond to keep Kent out of jail pending hearings that would be scheduled later further delaying Kent from serving any time.
Thirty Two months in prison compared to the time that the Arndt family and Beau's friends won't have with him is not justice, but that is what Kansas law says the penalty will be for such a senseless and very avoidable crime. Had Kent stopped that day after the shot and after seeing the other hunters stand up to see if everyone was okay and to apologize for shooting in their direction, I would have a whole different opinion of Mr. Kent and his passengers. I believe Kent knew he was in trouble and fled the area leaving the gun at the cabin so he wouldn't get caught with it in his possession if pulled over that day. He may not have known he had shot and killed Beau that morning, but he knew by that afternoon and evening that it had occurred. I know for a fact this wasn't the first time the group had road hunted in this area and it has been Kent's common practice to hunt unethically according to people both Kent and I know. All the excuses and claims Kent and his Lawyer have used to try and keep Kent out of prison are no less than what they are, failed attempts at trying to make the public feel sorry for Kent and to try to justify Kent's actions and unethical behavior. End of Part Three
August 14, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Alot of people in this area drive around the countryside looking for wildlife including myself. I enjoy seeing wildlife and often take my camera and binoculars with me to stop and view or photograph them. I leave my weapon at home or in a secure gun or bow case. When I have a weapon along, it is not loaded. I do not shoot from the road even if I have permission on adjacent land, there's no good excuse nor reason for doing so. Many local residents, farmers, ranchers as well as out of towners shoot at game and predators from the road onto property they do not own. Many of these shooters are under the impression that it's okay to do so because "everybody does it". Farmers and Ranchers shoot at predators to reduce the risk of livestock being attacked by the animals. That is somewhat understandable, but it is still an opportunity for them to be in Kent's shoes one day should they end up shooting an individual on the property. Many people who are normally law abiding citizens and hunters, break the same game laws that Kent broke when they decide to road hunt, trespass or shoot onto land where they know they don't have permission to be on.
August 14, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Every year during the Firearms Deer Season we experience game law violators on our family land. Last year, on opening day, within 30 minutes of legal shooting light, I witnessed six vehicles stop and point their guns at deer on our property. The land is posted with No hunting signs, purple paint has been used as well to designate it as no hunting without written permission, and I was sitting in plain view in my truck along the road in an access driveway. Five of the six vehicles turned around and sped off in the other direction throwing gravel and driving like moonshiners when they became aware of my presence and dislike for their actions, they did not want to be identified nor charged. The sixth vehicle was occupied three old men. Two of them got out of the truck, aiming their rifles at the deer until I hollered "HEY" at them. They got back in the truck and headed my way. The driver who had not gotten out of the truck to shoot mouthed the word "Sorry" while holding one hand up like he was saying "oops". The other two were smiling and laughing like it was funny what they had done and I'm quite sure they continued doing the rest of the day. Everybody knows someone that violates the game laws while road hunting. I imagine many who are reading this recognize themselves in my description of roadhunters, it's far too common. I just hope Beau's death will help folks recognize that practice is dangerous and needs to be stopped before another life is taken prematurely.
As for Mr. Kent, I will not hold bad feelings towards him personally. He committed a crime, now it's time for him to do the time. He made the decision to roadhunt illegally, he needs to accept that an honest honorable man admits to his mistakes and takes his punishment that is due. I will never respect his passengers, I feel they got off far too easy and should have been charged for aiding and abetting the crime.
I miss Beau very much, I hate that such a fine young man was killed so senselessly. I hope the Arndt family can put their lives back together, because life must go on. I wish the Kent family did not have to go thru all of this as well. None of us would have if better decisions were made, commen sense was employed, and there were no such thing as road hunters.
Please do not road hunt, report those that do, and help prevent painful consequences that result from careless shooting and actions.
August 14, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Neighbor
Thanks! This city/county needs more neighbors like you!
August 14, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporian (anonymous) says...
Nice job neighbor. I wish we had more hunters in the area like that. It seems like even the ones who see the violations are reluctant to report them because they dont want to get involved. I have the GW phone number for all the counties I regularly hunt programmed into the speed dial on my cell phone.
I wish we could get more stings in this county using things like the robotic deer. I know several landowners in the Olpe area have approached the KDWP about doing this. Last time they did it on the Olpe/Hartford road it costs some guys big time. It would pay for itself I reckon.
Its everyone's responsibility to report road hunters.
Check out this website
http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/Other-Ser...
As for Mr. Kent, I think what he had coming. If he would fessed up maybe he could've plead down and got probation. Instead they have to go find him and then put the Beau's Family through this trial. I hope a jury awards the Ardnt's the entire Kent Fence Co. business. Money is no consolation but hopefully it serves as a message to others.
August 14, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Thank you for the kind words netloafer.
In recent years, I have lost three people that were close to me to roadhunting related incidents. I have always been against the practice, have spoke out against it and have went as far as seeking out roadhunters with both my cameras and cellphone to gather evidence against them. Usually, you cannot get close to the vehicles committing the crime, they take off fast when anyone approaches their location, I refuse to put myself in harms way or act negligently by driving like an idiot to catch up with them violating the law myself. When I was able to get proof of violations, I reported them to KDWP and LYSO. As I wrote above, I am forced to stand guard at our land during the firearms seasons to try to stop the roadhunting game slobs from doing their thing. I also watch neighboring property owner's land and report violators to them. I have been rediculed and cussed from strangers, friends and coworkers who believe roadhunting is acceptable, even after incidents like this. I have been amazed to hear and read such mindless comments such as "Arndt should have been wearing orange", "they should have put up signs", and other similar claims. More laws will not stop roadhunting, there are many in place already that obviously didn't prevent it from happening. Forcing more regulations on those that obey the rules does not prevent people like Kent from breaking them. Had the rules been followed by the Kent party in the first place, we wouldn't be discussing this issue.
Read some of the comments posted on the Topeka paper website at the link. I'm glad to see they are not claiming this was a witch hunt because he was not a resident of Lyon Co and that many recognize that Kent had done wrong.
http://cjonline.com/stories/081308/lo...
August 14, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sunflower70 (anonymous) says...
Was it ever brought up that he may have been covering for someone? Maybe a minor, family member, or friend of the family. Since he was thought of as such a fine upstanding member of the Topeka community and a business owner, maybe he thought he could get away with it.
August 14, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slipandslide (anonymous) says...
since he has post traumatic stress from the event it doubtful he s covering for someone. this is tragic for everyone involved and i feel sorry for both sides. i dont think kent is someone who would purpously shoot someone and it s too bad someone was killed
August 14, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sunflower70 (anonymous) says...
Post traumatic stress diagnosed from someone that wasn't qualified to give that diagnosis (from a post earlier). I also believe that Kent would not do it on purpose but.....He is a grown man who knows the law and the consequenses of breaking the law. I don't feel sorry for him and his sentence is not long enough.
August 14, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
No, thats one excuse or claim they didn't use Sunflower. They did try to blame it on other local legal hunters in the area and on anyone that has a rifle of the same caliber as Kent's even though they weren't at the site of the shooting like the Kent party was.
I would like to offer that the claim that Kent will never be able to own a firearm or be able to obtain a hunting license is not accurate. Just like the hunting regulations being written with loopholes that allow variations of the rules, convicted felons can get their records expunged after seven years I believe it is, then they can continue as before their convictions.
August 14, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Weltha (anonymous) says...
I don't know alot about the expungment thing but, Doesn't it have something to with what you did as to whether or not you can be expunged? I do know if you are convicted of a felony, even if you get it expunged you can NOT get the concealed carry license. I can't remember from the paper work if its gun related felonies or all. I would (think) taking someone's life accident or No that, that would not be able to be taken off record.
August 14, 2008 at 8:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
myleia (anonymous) says...
Loss of earnings Beau Arndt would have contributed to his parents during the remainder of their lifetimes.
Why would his family be worrying about this. I can't believe anyone would stress about the loss of their son's earnings instead of the loss of their son. HOW SAD IS THAT?
December 29, 2008 at 3:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )