Charges filed in shooting death
By Gwendolynne Larson (Contact)
Originally published 05:14 p.m., January 2, 2008
Updated 06:28 p.m., January 2, 2008
Photo by Carly Pearson
Theron Thomas Kent enters the Lyon County District Court on Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2008 to surrender on a felony count of involuntary manslaughter and three misdemeanors in connection with the Dec. 15, 2007 shooting death of 18-year-old Americus teen Beau Arndt.
A Topeka man surrendered Wednesday on a single felony count of involuntary manslaughter in the Dec. 15 shooting death of 18-year-old Beau Arndt of Americus.
Theron Thomas Kent, 57, also faces three misdemeanor charges. He was released on $25,000 bond. His preliminary hearing is set for 9 a.m. Feb. 27.
In an affidavit filed with the case, Kent told investigators that he was hunting coyotes with his brother, David Kent, and an employee, Nick Wise. Theron Kent, who is known as Tommy, owns Kent Fence Co. in Topeka. The three had stayed at a cabin at Roads 240 and D that is owned by another Topeka man.
According to the affidavit filed by Lyon County Sheriff’s Detective Travis Mishler, investigators first heard of the cabin from a person who called the sheriff’s office after the shooting.
“The caller reported seeing lights on in the cabin this weekend and felt that we needed to know that there were hunters staying at the cabin,” Mishler wrote.
According to the affidavit, all three men told investigators that after leaving the cabin on Saturday morning, Dec. 15, they stopped with a flat tire. They then drove about four miles when Tommy Kent stopped and shot. Both Tommy and David Kent said Tommy got out of the pickup truck and fired a single shot at a coyote. Wise, who was sitting in the middle of the truck’s seat, said Tommy Kent, who was in the driver’s seat, rolled down the window and fired near geese in a field.
Wise did not recall seeing any people in the field. But Tommy Kent later said he’d seen a man.
“Kent went into detail how he shot at the coyote and later saw decoys and a man standing in the field as he drove away,” wrote Mishler in the affidavit filed in the case. Mishler was writing about the videotaped statment Kent gave investigators on Dec. 19.
When Kent fired the shot, Arndt and two hunting buddies were in their blinds among the geese decoys in a field at Roads 310 and D. Arndt was killed by a gunshot wound to the chest and abdomen caused by a .25-caliber bullet, according to the autopsy. Kent went with investigators to the cabin where a Weatherby .257 rifle was recovered. It shoots a .25-caliber round, Mishler wrote.
After his 15-minute first appearance in Lyon County District Court on Wednesday afternoon, Kent was taken to the Lyon County Jail where he was finger-printed and photographed before being released on a surety bond signed by his attorney, Donald Hoffman of Topeka.
In court, Hoffman argued against the bond requiring cash or surety, asking instead that Kent be released on his own recognizance, meaning he could simply sign a document promising to appear for future proceedings.
“Mr. Kent is a lifetime resident of the state of Kansas,” Hoffman told Wheeler. “He has extended family throughout Kansas. He has a successful business which he has operated for many years in the Topeka community. He employs at certain times of the year scores of employees. He owns real estate and has a generally good reputation in our community.
“I’m saying to you, he represents an absolute no risk for flight.”
In addition, Hoffman added, Kent cooperated with authorities “from the get-go.”
Lyon County Attorney Marc Goodman agreed with Hoffman that Kent had cooperated with authorities, including appearing voluntarily at the court hearing. Still, he said, the case was charged as a homicide.
“I don’t think there’s any risk to the community,” Goodman said. “But I think there must be a surety of some kind.”
In the end, Wheeler agreed, requiring Hoffman to sign the bond until Kent could put up enough real estate to guarantee the $25,000 bond amount. The real estate used must be owned outright by Kent alone.
In the complaint filed in the case, Kent is charged with involuntary manslaughter — that Kent “did unlawfully, feloniously and unintentionally kill Beau M. Arndt.”
The state also filed two alternative charges of involuntary manslaughter, alleging that the killing was done recklessly either:
• while committing, attempting to commit or fleeing from committing criminal discharge of a firearm; or
• while committing the “lawful act of hunting in an unlawful manner.”
Kent also faces three misdemeanor charges — attempted unlawful methods of taking wildlife, criminal hunting and criminal discharge of a firearm.
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.
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope they call me to be on this jury. I would throw the book at him and set an example. Just the other day a gentleman was glassing geese with his highpower. Someone else will get shot by these folks unless we all make a stand.
Posted by nay (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds fishy to me.First of all,he knew it is illegal to shoot from a vehicle.If he didn't shame on him for even owning a gun! Secondly, I'm guessing that two of these people are related due to both having the "same" story, and the other giving a different statement.HMMM, which one is the true "story"? Last but not least, YOU DON"T EVER SHOOT INTO A FIELD WITH A BLIND SET UP!!!
If they couldn't see that blind, they have NO business "hunting". What they were doing is called ILLEGAL! GUILTY....
Posted by railroadhorn (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So the passenger disagrees with the Kents and says Tommy blasted away from the driver's seat of his pickup. If that's true he deserves more than manslaughter charges. And if it took him four days to cooperate, that's not coming forward in my book. The Arndt family is forgiving and that's good. But this man should spend the rest of his life in prison.
Posted by nay (anonymous) on January 2, 2008 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree!!!
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 1:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
“Mr. Kent is a lifetime resident of the state of Kansas,” Hoffman told Wheeler. “He has extended family throughout Kansas. He has a successful business which he has operated for many years in the Topeka community. He employs at certain times of the year scores of employees. He owns real estate and has a generally good reputation in our community.
“I’m saying to you, he represents an absolute no risk for flight.”
In addition, Hoffman added, Kent cooperated with authorities “from the get-go.”
If he's such a fine upstanding citizen who cooperated from the get go, why did law enforcement have to hunt him down? Why didn't he stop and check to be sure he hadn't hit someone in the field after the shot when he saw a hunter out in the field? Why did he and his brother fabricate a story that he got out of the truck to shoot at a coyote that didn't exist? The third passenger in the truck, and the two surviving hunters out in the field will prove he lied on that claim. How many property owners did he have permission to hunt on? After all, he came down for a weekend of coyote hunting supposedly. I'll bet he had none, road hunters and game violators don't worry about such things. Why would an upstanding member of a community, a successful businessman, a respected member of society, show up in court on a serious felony charge in a flannel shirt and a pair of bib overalls? Most likely because he was told to do so by his lawyer, to give off the good old boy appearance in an attempt to sway the public and court's opinion of him. Consider all that has taken place, and the fact that if this guy has no prior criminal record, he won't see the inside of a jail, it's sickening to me.
Posted by nay (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 6:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wish them luck on finding jurors that haven't heard or read about this! I really hope that Fish & Game jumps in. I think he will pay in one form or another,for the publics sake I hope it's a long time in the "good ol' boy" jail house.If nothing else, he should NEVER be allowed to own or purchase another firearm!
Posted by olddog (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Had they been hunting LEGALLY this would have never happened. It also seems like the guys were given plenty of time to come up with a story. First it was they were shooting at Geese, now Coyotes... hmmm either is ILLEGAL from the road and or vehicle...... Just because he is a business owner gives him the right to break the law, take a life and get a slap on the hand. WOW! They were even given the opportunity to spend the holidays running loose knowing crimes had been commited. SAD!!!
Sounds a little fishy ..... by the way why hasnt Fish and Game stepped in?
Posted by olddog (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.wibw.com/kakeheadlines/headli...
Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
marc goodman took his time getting his paperwork together before he filed charges, maybe its an indication that he was taking time to file charges hes most likely to win against the defense.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's his job S&S, to put together a solid case, I respect that part of the delay.
I'd like to see the message be conveyed to the Court and to law enforcement, that these kinds of incidents, reckless discharge of firearms, roadhunting and poaching, will not be tolerated any longer like it has been for ages. Please express this to the Courts, your Legislators, and to the law enforcements agencies.
Old Dog, had Beau been shot by welfare abusing trailer trash, the charge and punishment would be the same if they were not out to intentionally kill somebody.
KDWP was involved in the investigation and are where the game violations originate from. They could not have done anything different than what has been done by the Sheriff's Office and KBI. They all enforce the same Kansas statutes(laws) that define what makes this a crime and what sentencing the accused will face.
Nay, hopefully he will be a man and plead guilty to the charges, but I doubt he will plead to all of them. When convicted of a felony, he will lose the right to vote, be able own or have in his possession firearms for a few years, but he will be able to reclaim those rights later. If convicted on the game violations, he will lose hunting rights in Kansas as well as in states that are part of the compact agreement between states banning game violators from getting licenses.
Posted by nay (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm aware of all of this, but I don't think he's a "real" man because he would have been hunting LEGALLY and whose to say that he even had a license to begin with? He sounds like some MORON just out looking for something to shoot and therefor this awful thing happened! And if I'm correct, everyone IN the vehicle should have had license's, also if they were there & knew that he was road hunting (which they did) what charges are they looking at?
Posted by hartford (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
neighbor: You said if these person was trailer park trash he would have gotten the same sentence. Well that may be true but had this person been trailer park trash, or of a differant race, they would not have gotten a fair of a trial as an upstanding citizen as this guy will probably get. If you don't think that is true then wake up brotha!!!!
ANd as as him being a man and pleading guilty, I hope he does to all charges, but if he has a snake,,,,, I mean if he has any kind of a good defense lawyer he will strongly advise against it!
Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad someone is being charged with the death of Beau Arndt. Nothing will bring him back, though. No matter what punishment is given out, his friends and family will always have a hole in their lives. Having the person responsible behind bars may give some consolation. I hope they do ban Kent from hunting and owning a firearm ever again. That would be a just punishment. People like that are everywhere. They think they can hunt or fish wherever they are. I had to chase people off our pond who decided to just stop and fish without asking permission. Poachers live in Lyon county too. I have heard first hand accounts of people hunting without permission etc. We need to all look out for these idiots and help get them arrested. Maybe we can prevent another horrible accident that way.
Posted by houndi (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
$25,000 bail for killing a human being get real.
Posted by mythoughts (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So...he either got out of a truck to shoot at a coyote that the geese didn't seem too concerned about, or he stayed in the truck to shoot at geese that weren't moving and then drove off REAL fast rather than staying to see if he'd hit any of them? Whaaa? Is that what passes for fun for Topekans? What did this supposed coyote ever do to him, anyway? Is it coyote season? Was he trying to save the geese from the jaws of a coyote by shooting at them? These guys had to be drunk. That's why they took so long to fess up--they had to detox first. Poor Beau, it just wasn't his fault that these yahoos were so stupid, it's just so wrong...
Posted by woody (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the sounds of these postings, I don't think Mr. Kent should receive a trial in Lyon county - you'll never get an objective juror there. I know the emotions are raw and run deep but I admire the young man's father for taking the high road during such a personal tragedy. It would be easy for him to lash out during something like this. We have to remember that Mr. Kent has to live with the fact that an 18 year old died because of his actions. I'm not saying that is enough punishment in itself but that has to be pretty hard to live with.
Posted by huntered (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As the street coner attorneys keep posting please look up the laws of Kansas. It is leagle to shoot coyotes from a moving car or truck in this state. As you all noticed there were no charges filed for shooting from moving from a vehical. I have known Mr. Kent for may years and also know that he is handicaped again allowed to shoot from a vehical. In the last 4 years of all of the times that i have seen him only 1 time was he not in bibs. I have taught hunter ed. in kansas for 20 plus years and this is a very rare occurance. I belive that 3-5 years ago there was a man shot thru his truck window while driving down the road in kansas. The shot cme from 1.5 miles away on a missed deer. This is why i always preach to people to wear orange. If you are visable you will be seen. Some one wrote that if he sees the coyote he could see the blind, Not always.
I also have talked to his family and tommy turned himself in as soon as he was made aware of the acident. And also met with the faimly.Let the courts decide what happened before you pass judgment on your fellow man not knowing all of the facts.
Posted by nay (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are you actually telling me that you think it's legal to hunt from a moving vehicle??? I'm going to say this one more time.....It is not only Illegal but it's not Ethical!! If you require more information on Ethical Hunting Please contact this # 1-877-426-3843.
Posted by nay (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Before I go,If he is disabled, he should have a permit for that, therefore he wouldn't also be charged with,
1. Criminal hunting
2. Criminal Discharge of a fire arm
3.Attempted USE of an UNLAWFUL METHOD of taking wildlife
Let's get our "facts" straight!!!!!
Posted by rbradford (anonymous) on January 3, 2008 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
huntered,
If he had been drunk driving and killed an 18 yr old would you defend him? He f-ed up and now he must reap the the consequences. He screwed up plain and simple. Shooting at a coyote in the goose spread. Give me a break. He was gonna shoot him a goose with his highpower. Thats what this amounts too? Did he even have permission to hunt there? My sources say no and I have some good ones. I am no balistics expert but when I am in my layout blind I am 14 inches off the ground at my highest point so he shot low at the decoys. I hope the throw the book at the SOB. Just 2 days ago there was a gentleman looking at geese through a highpower rifle's scope. Whether you want to admit it, this happens alot. 3rd hunter killed like this in 2007. Not all from Kansas, but this is an quickly becoming a problem.
As for wearing blaze orange during goose hunting, give me a break. A flag in the layout blind is a good idea, but I shouldnt have to worry about getting shot by some poacher from the road while partaking in a perfectly legal activity.
Posted by MelissaE (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 12:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rbradford--
Totally off topic, but we graduated together. bdprotheroe said he saw you recently at a wedding. My maiden name begins with a D.
Just wanted to say HI. :) I hope you all are doing well. You can email me (if you want) through the Gazette.
Melissa
Posted by huntered (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 5:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kansas hunting reg. 115.5 this is copied from regs you can shoot coyotes from your vehicles you also do not have to have permission to shoot coyotes from the road in kansas from the land owner who it is on.
furbearers and coyotes.
(7) The use of motor vehicles for taking coyotes shall be permitted while hunting
coyotes.
(8) The use of radios in land or water vehicles shall be permitted for the taking of
coyotes.
nay i don't know what your phone # is too, but read the laws or talk to a coyote hunter
Posted by nay (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did you read those charges? #1,2,3 ????
He wasn't out there to shoot coyotes.................
Unlawful method method of taking wildlife.
Kinda says it all!!!!!!
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I apologize, rbradford was logged in on the computer I was using, so that message was mine. Again I apologize to rbradford. I forgot to make sure I was the one logged in.
Posted by Hillbilly (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
huntered, let me tell you a couple of things that YOU might want to know before you get near any of my land, YOU BETTER DAMN WELL HAVE PERMISSION FROM ....ME.....,TO SHOOT AT ANYTHING , let me type that again, SHOOT AT ANYTHING,ON MY LAND.
UNTIL YOU PAY THE INSURANCE PREMIUMS THAT I HAVE TO EVERY YEAR, PAY THE INSURANCE TO TO COVER IDIOTS LIKE YOU, until then ,YOU DAMN WELL BETTER JUST DRIVE ON DOWN THE ROAD PAST MY LAND. I don't give a damn if its legal to shoot a coyote from a vehicle, that has to be one of the most stupid things that the Fish & Game has not changed. I remember when YOU IDIOTS who hunt coyotes use to just drive right through a farmers fence to satisfy your sport of hunting coyotes, usually with a fifth of booze beside you in the truck seat, what a hunter, yea yea, tell me about how many coyotes there are, hell, I listen to them every night, SO REMEMBER, IT MAY BE MY LAND THAT YOU ARE SHOOTING AT, and I want you to say to yourself, DO I FEEL SAFE TODAY?????????????
REMEMBER, HUNTERED, you have taken it upon yourself to support kent and to also make excuses for him taking a life of a young man for NO reason, with that said, STAY OF MY LAND AND DO NOT EVEN AS MUCH THROW A PEBBLE ONTO IT FROM YOUR VEHICLE. GO BUY YOUR OWN LAND so that ***** like you and the likes of kent can have a place to kill, makes you feel so big to kill don't it..
if you feel this is a directed towards you and your like, thats your problem now isn't it. ITS JUST A REMINDER of what I said above in case you didn't understand, maybe you should read it again huntered
To everyone else. I am sorry for getting off topic here, but this joker has done went and pi$$ed me off. I do hope someone on here does expose who this IDIOT who claims he has been a HUNTER ED teacher for over 20 years, so that NO ONE will ever have him teach their children to hunt in Kansas.
This is such a tragedy that should of NEVER of happened and God willing, it will never happen again.
Posted by nay (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well said Hillbilly!! As far as him being a hunters ed teacher, if ya look real close hell he can't even spell correctly. Thats what the preview comment button is for. I'm really also having a problem with him defending Kent, I still think the WHOLE story sounds a little FISHY!
My heart really goes out to the Arndt family, I couldn't be as forgiving.
Posted by olddog (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Huntered --maybe you should read a few of these links …… not only is people in lyon county upset
But lots of other states and counties as well!
Of all the articles that have been in the news this is the first to mention coyotes.
All others mention "Geese". The story seems to have changed!
Just type in "hunting accident in lyon county" in your search bar. You will find MANY articles on this
and none of them mention coyote hunting! I have posted a few .. the list could go on and on ...
Poaching Incident raises questions ......
http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/12788...
But Brooks said he’s not sure federal charges are applicable in this case because
what the shooter aimed at turned out to be decoys, not geese.
http://eastcoasthunter.com/forum/index.p...
http://www.kansas.com/news/state/story/2...
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/121607/k...
http://www.ktka.com/news/2007/dec/16/lyo...
http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/taah-s...
http://www.biggamehunt.net/forums/viewto...
Also an article stated that the man had been located by authorities?
The break in the case came when investigators went through county tax rolls.
A light left on in the cabin led them to locating the cabin owner and
the owner was who led law enforcement to the hunters that had occupied the cabin for their weekend of hunting.
All 3 men were here for hunting purposes.
According to KVOE they found the truck, and are interviewing the prime suspect in the shooting.
So how can you say he turned himself in..... The law had to hunt him down!
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_...
There was another hunting incident this year as well. In the month of December as a fact!
http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/12601...
If these hunters don’t start getting punished it will only continue to happen more and more!!
Posted by kansascop (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If "huntered" is a hunter safety instructor God help us!! Obviously Kent was one of his students!! Amazing that anyone would try to defend this piece of human derbis.
Well said hillbilly.
Posted by nay (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Some one mentioned being about 14 inches off the ground at their highest point in their layout blind. OKAY, if this situation is similar then a coyote stands some what higher than 14 inches!!!!!! Still don't add up! There was NO coyote!
Well huntered, how ya gonna explain that one?
Better yet, DON"T!
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do the kids of Shawnee Co or whatever county you happen to live in a favor HunterEd, burn your Hunter Ed Instructor Certificate. I hope KDWP staff and or Hunter Ed administration is reading this and can determine who you are and do it for us. It's no wonder road hunting and poaching is bad when there are H.E. instructors like yourself teaching these kinds of things. You may want to take look at all the hunting laws before relying on your fur harvestors regulations you posted above. You come shoot a coyote off my land or my families land and you too will find out the consequences in court.
You say he and his family claim he turned himself in. Why is it the cops had to track him down and find him FOUR days after the shooting? It was being reported on every TV and radio station in Topeka, statewide for that matter the night of the shooting. It was in all the papers. The claim he turned himself in is as believable as his claim he was shooting at a coyote.
I'm betting Mr Wise, who honestly told the investigators that your buddy was shooting at geese from inside the truck, would be able to testify that the two brothers were well aware of what happened well before the law came knocking. The brother's claim that Kent got out of the truck to shoot was moot anyhow, he would have been standing in the road(illegal without ownership or permission on both sides of the road)he was using a rifle(Federal Offense for shooting at waterfowl with a rifle), would have had to cross the fence and be on the property the geese were on(Trespassing) to be legally hunting and shooting. There was no coyote, if Beau was alive he'd tell you your buddy is lying trying to save his skin. The two surviving hunters in the field will testify there was no coyote in the field with them. Young Mr Wise knows there was no coyote. I'd say the law enforcement and the County Attorney know this coyote claim is untrue based on the charges that were filed.
Posted by fairsfair (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope the Arndts have a good attorney. This guy should lose everything he ever had.
Posted by afriend (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First, my deepest sympathies go out to the Arndt family. I cannot imagine the emotional pain they must be going through. I am, however, also feeling a profound sadness for my friend of nearly 2 decades for what he is now going through. I am sure it is easy for those of you who don't know Mr. Kent to throw stones based only on what you have read and the gossip going around. First of all, to all of you who claim "his" story changed from decoy to coyote, remember, until law enforcement actually spoke with Tommy it was merely assumed by everyone that he was shooting at the decoys. Second, I hope that each and every one of you can look at your own lives and the lives of every one of your friends and not find a single moment when you said "I wish I could take that back or live that moment over again so I could do things differently." If you can't, which I believe is certainly the case for most people, you should them try to remember the phrase, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." I can assure you, Mr. Kent is a "good 'ol boy" but in the nasty way you have insinuated. I know his heart and I know how it is aching for what has happened as a result of this accident. YES, I believe with all MY heart that it was an accident. A horrible, tragic accident, but an accident none the less. I, like MANY, MANY others who really know Tommy, will be standing by him through the painful days ahead. Perhaps those of you who seem hell-bent for vengance and retribution should take a lesson from Beau Arndt's father......
Posted by afriend (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A correction to the previous post-..but NOT in the nasty way you have insinuated.
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hillbilly, I am with you on that. That guy huntered really grinds my gears. I hope people aren't calling him (Mr. Kent) a hunter, cause this guy was a poacher. As a hunter I strive to leave peoples porperty how I found it, not tresspass, and hunt ethically and legally.
People please dont call them hunters. Folks who do this thing are poachers but get lumped in with us law abiding hunters giving us a bad rap.
Posted by fairsfair (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd like to say something to "afriend".
Was it an "accident" that Mr. Kent's rifle was loaded? Was it "accidentally" raised and sighted? Was the trigger "accidentally" pulled? What if someone drove by Mr. Kent's home and "accidentally" fired a bullet through a darkened window, and "accidentally" hit someone? Would that be an accident too?
After he killed Beau Arndt, why did Mr. Kent go back to the cabin and hide the rifle, as he admitted to the Emporia Police? Why didn't he come forward on December 16, when he knew exactly what he had done?
Instead of coming forward, what did he do? He called his lawyer. What a man!
Posted by nay (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think if I was the person "afriend" I wouldn't be admitting it on here.
Posted by kansascop (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amazing how the bleeding hearts like “afriend” like to characterize this as an accident. Kent and Kent alone made the choice to break numerous laws that resulted in the death of an innocent young man and now the bleeding hearts want to characterize Kent as the victim. “Afriend”, is this your idea of some sort of cruel joke?? What a pathetic way to defend Kent’s actions by saying “There but for the grace of God go I”. Kent owes his troubles 100% to his own irresponsible and unlawful actions. It is very hard to feel much sympathy for someone who supposedly all at once says he is remorseful. Sure he is remorseful because he got caught. As for lecturing us to be like Beau Arndt’s father and to forgive is a sick way of twisting the mechanisms that Mr. Arndt and his family are using to deal with such a tragic loss.
My sources, and I believe they are factual, said that Kent did not step forward to acknowledge his role in the shooting although he knew about the death two days before LE confronted him. None of the men with Kent came forward and they also knew about the death. Hardly the outstanding character some wish to portray of Kent.
Meanwhile the bleeding hearts would like to have Kent say “excuse me” and let life go on for Kent as if nothing had happened. So far we know Kent is a killer and a liar and there probably will be a few other character flaws develop as this story unfolds.
Posted by afriend (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First, the comparrison between someone shooting at an animal in an open field and someone shooting into a dwelling, a known structure where people live, is ludicrous. No it was not an accident that his rifle was loaded, raised, sighted and the trigger pulled. I believe that is what one does when they are shooting at game. BTW, are you aware that Mr. Kent is physically handicapped? Do you know what the specific hunting laws are for those hunters? Where on earth did the "hide the rifle" comment come from? Do you have an actual police report that says that? Finally, he did NOT know on December 16 what had happened, and I can assure you, if I ever find myself in a situation where I may have accidentally done something that might have legal ramifications or consequences, you can bet I will contact my attorney BEFORE I visit with law enforcement and I would suggest you do the same!
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Straight from the KDWP website "Migratory game birds cannot be hunted from a vehicle (except a boat not under way), even with a disability permit."
Did he have permission on the land in which he shot at the "coyote"? My sources say no.
And yes, if I knew I had killed somebody even by accident I would turn myself in without hiding behind an attorney. That was a cowardly thing to do. It is called a conscience and I wouldn't be able to sleep at night, it would eat me alive.
Posted by nay (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To kansascop: You are "RIGHT ON" with Kent being remorseful because he got caught, key word being "CAUGHT".He didn't surrender! And to emporian: Good for you bringing up the disability permit, I did that, with no avail. Maybe "afriend" can clear that up for us! And by the way, I still don't believe there was a coyote!!!!!!!!
Posted by afriend (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To kansascop- I will assume you are using the alias/moniker "kansascop" because you are one. Is it your intent to try to use your professional identity to enhance the credibility of your opinions which are offered here? If so, I am sure I could "up the ante" in that regard but I won't stoop to that here. As for your specific comments, no, I am not a "bleeding heart" and no, I am not "lecturing" anyone on forgiveness-in fact the only person (or persons) I believe has (or have) the right to offer that, are the people who actually knew Beau Arndt personally. What I was referring to when I suggested that people could take a lesson from Mr. Arndt, were his comments after he had spoken with Mr. Kent personally and stated that he too believed that this was an accident. As for the "there but for the grace of God go I comment, since I have no idea what area of law enforcement you are in, I can't tailor my comments to you specifically, but all I can say is that I know very few, if any, people who have NEVER done something that, but for a single twist of fate, might not have resulted in a tragedy. (Do you ever speed trying to catch someone eluding? Have you ever let someone who was just a little tipsy go ahead drive home rather than cite them for DUI?) I could go on, but I think you get the point. I never said my friend was not responsible for what happened, he is. And I can further assure you that his life will not just go on "as if nothing had happened." But what did happen was an accident, and he will be haunted by it for the rest of his life.
Posted by midnight_rider (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My sympathy goes to the Arndt family for the loss of their child. No parent should have to bury a child.
As for kent, I have not sympathy, anyone who has ever held a weapon shoud know that that the first rule of safety is YOU DO NOT EVEN AIM A WEAPON, (wheither you believe it to be loaded or not) AT ANYTHING YOU DO NOT INTEND TO KILL. Second you do not shot at something unless you know exactly what you are firing at. It is called being responsible and it is obvious that kent and his friends, including mr hunter education, are not responsible. And his claiming to be disabled is an insult to those who are actually disabled and hunt in a responsible and safe manner.
Posted by MelissaE (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OMG, people.
I have no feelings either way on this issue but you are all assuring that Mr. Kent won't receive a fair trial in Lyon County and, in the pursuit of justice, I hope it gets moved far, far away.
I'm actually horrified at the villification and nastiness on here. Again, I don't have any opinion because I'm sure all the facts have not (and probably will not) be released until trial (hopefully in another state). However, people in glass houses should not throw stones.
How many people on here have NEVER done SOMETHING illegal?
Melissa
Posted by olddog (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It appears that people have looked up the laws and Hunter Ed must be teaching from a handbook on "How to Poach" from a street corner.
Posted by kansascop (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are we to believe this Kent character is not responsible for his actions because he is handicapped? Are we to give him a pass because he is handicapped? What on earth has his handicap got to do with this?
Go ahead “afriend”, pull rank to “up the ante” and let us know why your opinion or analysis is the cat’s meow. Your comment about “but for the grace of God go I” is the typical victim mentality that life is just a lottery and some folks are luckier than others. You just cannot fathom that some folks do better in life because they make wise choices and control their own destiny rather than trying to play out the scenario of being the poor victim. People like you “afriend” seem to be unable to comprehend the real victims in a situation like this.
As for Kent, he is the one totally responsible for all that has unfolded since that December Day when his unlawful actions took the life of another human being. No one will ever be able to justify what he did, no matter how the picture is distorted. We all know from the facts so far that Kent is a killer and a liar. I guess some folks are just bent on defending someone like that.
Posted by nay (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To MelissaE: MY comment to you is, If you have strong feelings about hunting in a lawful manner then you would understand where these people are coming from!!!!! If you don't have an opinion and don't like the nastiness..... Don't read these comments! People feel strongly about things like this, as they SHOULD. Weren't you the one yesterday that was off topic & trying to hook up with rbradford? That was WRONG! Go to the personals.....
Posted by hartford (anonymous) on January 4, 2008 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Melissa, I am sure alot of people on here that have done things illegal, but what if this was your family member? And I doubt there is a lot of people on here who have done soemthing illegal that ended by taking the life of someone. And if you are so horrified at the villification and nastiness on here then don't read what people are saying! Everyone has the right to their opinion. Will he get a fair trial? Yes! I think he will. It can never bring back Beau, but he needs to pay for he has done. He was covering his rear right from the very begining and that is obvious! As someone said earlier, I hope the Ardnt family does have an excellent lawyer. He needs to pay for what he has done. I know the Arndt family isn't out to make a buck here but I am not against them taking him for he is worth! He destroyed a life and a family, why shouldn't his life crumble as well!
Posted by MelissaE (anonymous) on January 5, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
nay, I suppose I'm entitled to "hook up" with whomever I choose in whatever forum I see fit. Do I have "strong feelings about hunting in a lawful manner"? Maybe--Hunting was not and will never be allowed on my family property--as is our right...as well as anyone else to do with whatever they want with their property (within the law). And, really, what does "off topic" have to do with contacting anyone? Get over yourself.
harford, if that were my family member, my most outrageous feelings may come to the surface but I would like to think that I'd be the calm in all the storm of the others (in my family). I'd like to think that what goes around comes around.....have I been in the position you mentioned? No. So, it's obviously easier to say than do, kwim?
I just don't think any one person is better than the next, that's all.
Melissa
Posted by nay (anonymous) on January 5, 2008 at 12:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
melissaE: YOU were the one that said YOU were "totally off topic" and just wanted to say "hi". Well you were off topic and I think that is disrespectful considering the discussion that is taking place HERE. If you don't have anything to contribute about this topic, save it!!!!! GET OVER YOURSELF!!!
By the way, I DO think some people are better than others,especially the ones that HUNT LEGALLY....
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on January 5, 2008 at 12:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I did know Beau personally, and no I'm afraid I cannot offer nor embrace forgiveness for what has happened. Had Tommy Kent stopped to check to make sure no-one was hurt when he saw a hunter out in the field of decoys(“Kent went into detail how he shot at the coyote and later saw decoys and a man standing in the field as he drove away,” wrote Mishler in the affidavit filed in the case- fact) and faced his music that day, I might have had a little sympathy for him. "Later saw decoys and a man standing?" Where he stopped and shot had the same view the entire time. The man standing was going to see why Beau had screamed out in pain and try to help him. Instead of helping, Kent drove off, leaving two friends of Beau to deal with the horrific task of trying to breath life into their now dead friend, to call for help, and to deal with the experience. Had Mr Kent turned himself in on his own with his lawyer present within the next day or two, I then would have thought better of him. The fact that he left the rifle behind instead of taking it home with him bothers me as well. That to me implies they were trying to cover it up. Sure, he showed the Investigators where it was stored, after he had been caught and when he returned with the officers(Kent went with investigators to the cabin where a Weatherby .257 rifle was recovered. It shoots a .25-caliber round, Mishler wrote.-fact). Ok, he is handicapped, what difference does that make? There is no law that gives him nor anyone else the right to shoot from the road onto property they do not have permission to hunt on. They can shoot from a vehicle, one that is parked on property where they do have permission to hunt. Vehicles include all motorized vehicles with the exception of boats unless the boat is stationary. With proper permits, which are acquired with documented proof of their disability signed by physicians, they are allowed to shoot big game with crossbows in archery season(a loop hole that is severely abused). Nowhere in the handicapped hunting regulations does it say they can shoot onto any property they desire, at whatever they please because they are "physically challenged". I've been told he was injured in a severe motorcycle accident, that's too bad, but that has squat to do with shooting a rifle at goose decoys thinking they are geese and killing my friend. So please save that excuse for someone without thought process.
Posted by hartford (anonymous) on January 5, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Way to say it neighbor!
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on January 5, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
Thumbs up Neighbor
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on January 5, 2008 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now that the number of comments to this story has topped 50, this section is closed. You may post to a news forum at
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...
Gwen Larson
Managing Editor