Charges expected in shooting
By Bobbi Mlynar
Originally published 01:13 p.m., March 24, 2008
Updated 01:13 p.m., March 24, 2008
Involuntary manslaughter charges are expected to be filed against an unidentified man involved in a fatal shooting shortly after 8 p.m. Friday at 1231 E. Logan Ave. Alfonso Barajas, 50, was killed in the shooting, which is believed to have been accidental.
Lyon County Sheriff Gary Eichorn said this morning that charges had been discussed Friday evening with County Attorney Marc Goodman. Eichorn’s department is preparing paperwork that will be presented to Goodman to support the charges.
“We’re dealing with that through the county attorney’s office today,” Eichorn said.
Eichorn compared the incident Friday with an accidental hunting death in December. Involuntary manslaughter charges were filed last year against Theron Thomas Kent, 57, of Topeka as a result of the accident, which killed Beau Arndt, 19, of Americus.
Kent is accused of firing a rifle from the roadway into an area with decoys where Arndt was hunting and apparently hidden from view.
“We’re responsible for our actions,” Eichorn said of the proposed charges.
The shooting Friday evening happened at the suburban home of Chuck Gilligan, who has divided some of his acreage into smaller pens that are used by others to keep goats, sheep, geese and other farm animals, Eichorn said. Those involved in the shooting incident apparently were caring for animals kept on Gilligan’s property.
“Gilligan was not home at the time,” Eichorn said.
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Gary, shooting at decoys or supposed coyotes on private property where you don't have permission is against the law, commonly known as poaching and road hunting. It's NOT practicing legal and ethical hunting. It's not an accident when you intentionally commit a crime. Kent knew he did not have permission from the landowner to hunt on the property Arndt was legally hunting on, yet he fired from the truck into the land anyhow. If he had approval, he would not have left when he saw the other victims. Yes, I agree, he needs to be held responsible for his actions.
Bobbi, sorry, but the comparison doesnt fly and it was very distasteful to use it in the article to say the least.
March 24, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eatasheep69 (anonymous) says...
Hey Neighbor, what the deal? Why are you attacking Bobbi on this? It was Eichorn that made the comparison. Bobbi only reported what he said. Your points about illegal hunting are correct, but I didn't hear or read that this is believed to be a hunting accident. This story is about a shooting last week, not about the one months ago that you're making points about. Read it again if you must. I think you need a new hobby. A newspaper critic isn't a good one. Get out and see a movie or something. I hear "Horton Hears A Who" is a good one. Let us know what you think about it.
March 25, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporialifer (anonymous) says...
Is there a reason why the name of the possible "shooter" is not being released on this one, but rather the person is "unidentified"?
Also, we didn't get a name of the individual(s) involved in the car wreck on the other story either.
Is this Top Secret information?
March 25, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Blackshirt (anonymous) says...
Though this has nothing to do with this incident, it is apparent that Lyon County is in need of a new sheriff. The credibility of all the officers employed there is tainted by the administration and their dealings.
March 25, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Hey eatasheep, Bobbi should have recognized that the shooting this week had nothing in common with the Arndt shooting, apples and oranges. Knowing Sheriff Eichorn, I highly doubt he said much more than it was not an intentional shooting much like Arndt's wasn't. The rest of the detail of Arndt's incident and drama added was all Bobbi's and the Gazette's, it has nothing to do with this case, as you stated, and should have been left out of the article. Perhaps you should read my response again if you must, you should now recognize that we both agree Arndt's case should not have been brought into it, hence my response. I think I hear your sheep calling for you.
March 25, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dhcc66 (anonymous) says...
for anybody interested, you can find state statutes at the kansas legislature website. this is what i found under involuntary manslaughter.
21-3404. Involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of a human being committed:
(a) Recklessly;
(b) in the commission of, or attempt to commit, or flight from any felony, other than an inherently dangerous felony as defined in K.S.A. 21-3436 and amendments thereto, that is enacted for the protection of human life or safety or a misdemeanor that is enacted for the protection of human life or safety, including acts described in K.S.A. 8-1566 and subsection (a) of 8-1568, and amendments thereto, but excluding the acts described in K.S.A. 8-1567 and amendments thereto; or
(c) during the commission of a lawful act in an unlawful manner.
I guess they both fit, but under different parts of the law?
March 25, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hawks422 (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
March 25, 2008 at 9 a.m. ( permalink )
wyse_guy (anonymous) says...
These 2 incidents were listed in saturday the 22nd daily report. Any chance of the 2 incidents being related? It sounds like there could possibly be more to it.
Aggravated battery, 1300 block of E. Logan Ave., 7:48 p.m. Friday.
Shooting, 1300 block of E. Logan Ave., 8:07 p.m. Friday.
March 25, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
toninj (anonymous) says...
hawks422: The only thing I can agree with you on is that our deputies are underpaid which falls on the county commissioners not the Sheriff. However, Sheriff Eichorn is only guilty of getting his department cleaned up. If you look at the deputies that remain they are the ones that are most efficient in their jobs, no loss with ones that have left. I also have to disagree with you that the department has been ran into the ground, it would actually be nice to see our other law enforcement department ran like the Sheriff’s.
March 25, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dhcc66 (anonymous) says...
toni,
you MUST be working for Eichorn. Lets see where he takes his department in the next 6 months, and then talk about it. from what i understand, the deputies are leaving because of the administration, not because the admin dismissed them.
March 25, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
toninj (anonymous) says...
I never said that the deputies were dismissed I am well aware that they left on their own, because they didn't like what the administration expected of them. I said "Sheriff Eichorn is only guilty of cleaning house" in clearer terms, he has not fostered those that have had poor performance, but rather advanced those that work hard; he has made the changes needed to better the department, and set high expectations. This in turn has lead to a better work force with higher standards then those that have left. And no I do not work for the Sheriff's department or any other county department.
March 25, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theHammer (anonymous) says...
toni,
First of all, the only "cleaning" that Eichorn has done is sweeping things under the rug. The idea that the poor performance deputies are the ones leaving is completely false. Eichorn's administration has promoted the people with the poor performance and has created nothing but tension between employees and the individual sections of the sheriffs department. He has ensured this from his first day in office by instituting a system of merit raises which seems to benefit the same people the most...his little minions. It is not based on what you do or how hard you work but rather on how many times you kneel before the masters sitting upon their ivory towers. As far as the "high standards" you speak of, yes i suppose if you do not work for the department then you might think the current administration has done nothing but improve things, but in truth, those things only look good on paper and thats the only thing that matters to Eichorn and Old. Policies change on a daily basis and are different for each minion or worse yet, each friend of Eichorns that might call or come in. Employees are expected to keep up with all the current daily changes even though they are never informed. In my own working experience, that sounds like an impossible working environment. As for Ms Mylnar's story about the shooting incident, I imagine Eichorn tried once again to divert the topic because he had nothing relevant to say about it. So he probably picked the Arndt shooting to indicate his ability to solve somewhat similar cases. After all, it is an election year so its about time to start hearing how much he has supposedly done. My guess is that his main concern was making sure that his buddy, Mr Gilligan, was not implicated in any way. This is what Eichorn does best. I would highly suggest that the voters start voting with their brains and not their party affiliations when voting for the next sheriff. I do not think that the sheriffs department could weather another four years with the Great and Powerful Oz and that slovenly vulgar man behind the curtain, Richard Old. If you want to know what is truly wrong with the sheriffs department then schedule a lunch meeting with the undersheriff. It should be more than evident by the completion of the first course.
March 26, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Blackshirt (anonymous) says...
Well said Hammer, well said!
If one were to look at incidents involving some Fowlers burning when there was a burn ban on, the deputy was called off of the call by Old and told not to do anything. Or better yet, when Old ran his Expedition through a fence when he missed a curve in the road. He was dialing his cell phone. No ticket there. You think that would be the policy for anyone else? It sounds a lot like an inattentive driving charge to me.
March 26, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
foreverinlove (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
March 27, 2008 at 6:06 a.m. ( permalink )
zeus (anonymous) says...
I have spoken up before regarding the Sheriff's Dept. I do know some of the employees and I do know that the comments by toninj are completely out of context and this person either is related to or friends with the Sheriff's Dept. Admin. or its supervisors. Its sad when some of the most prominent officers who have put so many years and work into this community have left or are leaving for other jobs when that possibly isn't what they wanted to do. However because of the Admin. and what they stand for that is the situation. So the Dept. is losing COPS! and will be losing COPS and keeping some COPS but mostly be keeping some who in the opinion of some of the people in this community are nothing more than yes-men who do what ever they have to do to keep their job except perform cop-work. It seems sad that the Sheriff is a man or limited words however when he does speak he makes bad comparisons and probably managed to tick off half of the readers. Talk about the situation at hand Mr. Eichorn, with your limited comments you haven't informed the readers of anything. in another article your undersheriff, (don't get us started on him), made a comment that this incident was somewhat common. MAN SLAUGHTER!!! Common!!! Would someone else please run for Sheriff....PLEASE!
March 30, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )