Guilty
By Gwendolynne Larson (Contact)
Originally published 02:20 p.m., June 30, 2008
Updated 02:55 p.m., June 30, 2008
It took jurors about three hours to decide that Theron Thomas Kent killed Beau Arndt late last year.
Kent, 57, of Topeka was convicted this afternoon of involuntary manslaughter, hunting without permission and criminal discharge of a firearm in the Dec. 15, 2007, death of 18-year-old Arndt. Kent remains free on bond and will be sentenced at 1:15 p.m. Aug. 12.
The nine women and three men began deliberating about 10:40 a.m. Thursday. They worked through lunch, and at 2 p.m., word came that they had a verdict. By 2:10 p.m., Chief Judge Merlin Wheeler was reading the verdict to a crowded, but silent, courtroom. Before delivering the verdict, he warned those in the gallery to control their emotions. They did, with only silent tears sliding down faces of those supporting Kent and tightly clenched hands on the Arndt side.
“It’s just a horrible case,” Lyon County Attorney Marc Goodman said quietly after the verdicts were read. “It’s unfortunate that we have to enact laws for something we think people would understand without the necessity of putting a statute’s name on it.”
In rendering the verdicts, jurors apparently agreed with the state’s contention that Kent fired a rifle shot into the field at Roads 310 and D where Arndt and two friends were hidden in blinds next to a flock of goose decoys. Kent said he was firing at a coyote. But the shot hit Arndt instead, killing him quickly.
The case wasn’t as clearcut as some may have wanted. The single bullet broke into five pieces in Arndt’s body, which didn’t leave enough for experts to match to Kent’s rifle. And Kent, despite expressing remorse repeatedly to Arndt’s family, neighbors and investigators, never said that he shot Arndt. He testified that he didn’t see where the bullet he fired landed.
Instead, the state pieced together a case based on the eyewitness testimony of Derek Jackson, who was hunting with Arndt and saw a reddish orange pickup truck drive slowly by the field before stopping. He heard a shot, heard Arndt scream and saw the truck drive off.
Another witness, Angela Waner, who lives about four miles from the field, called investigators the night of the shooting. She told of helping three men in a reddish-orange pickup truck change a flat tire. She remembered that the truck had a Shawnee County license tag. Two other hunters also called in, saying that a pickup truck pulled up behind them on Road 310 near the field. The truck had three people in it and continued westbound. The Emporia hunters turned north on Road D and heard sirens of rescue personnel responding to the shooting.
All of that led investigators to Kent, a Topeka businessman who’d spent the night before the shooting with two other men at his cousin’s cabin about eight miles from the shooting site.
Throughout the trial, Kent’s attorney, Donald Hoffman, kept making the point that driving country roads with loaded rifles is common practice, as is firing at decoys set up by other hunters. Indeed, in the weeks following Arndt’s death, hunters came forward in the media with their own experiences of being shot at while hunting.
If nothing else, Goodman said he’d like to see Arndt’s death serve a greater purpose.
“On behalf of Beau, maybe anyone thinking of hunting or using a firearm illegally might learn something from this,” Goodman said, “especially in rural areas, I hope so.”
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 goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I fail to see how anyone could support Mr. Kent. He fired onto land he did not have permission to and killed someone, sounds like he got off light if you asked me. I hope ol' judge Wheeler does not go easy on him.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Jury did the right thing, and I thank them for their service. We can learn from Mr. Kent's reckless conduct, as Mr. Goodman said. The best of life's lessons from this case, however, came from Bob Arndt, who gave forgiveness to the man who killed his son, even before his son's funeral. God was able to do that to those who killed His son on that first Good Friday, but it is rare in mortal men. May God shine his eternal light on Beau Arndt and his amazing father. Thank you, Bob, for your wonderful example to the rest of us, which we will hold in our hearts forever. May we be permitted to know of the joyous reunion between father and son Arndt on that great day yet to come in the great beyond.
Posted by rdgrey (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He was convicted of the charges brought forth. He did not get off easy and will be sentenced according to the guidlines of the law. A linching will not bring the victim back. I hope this case, as unfortunate as it is, will wake people up on fire arms safety. I enjoy hunting and taking my kids out with me, but every year you hear horror stories such as this. There is no mistaking what is right and wrong. Every hunter goes through a hunter safety course and knows the rules. I do not think the punishment is harsh enough for those who are caught hunting from vehicles as we can see from the cases that stem even after this unfortunate act. I dont want my hunting privilages taken away but yet there are a few every year that put my rights on the line. Lets make hunting from vehicles and shooting at decoys a mandatory jail sentence (6mths-1yr) and loose hunting rights LIFE. Tickets do not do the trick and we continue to see a surge in this type of hunting. As a fellow outdoorsman my heart goes out to the family and friends.
Posted by rbmorgan (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Geez goodoleboy, do you think Kent has no family or friends? While I do not condone his actions leading to this terrible tragedy, it doesn't mean that his family and friends should not care about him. It seems that he had been a law-abiding citizen until the tragic (and unlawful) actions he took resulted in Beau's death. If you were in his shoes, you'd expect support from your family and friends, wouldn't you? This is tragic for all involved, including Kent. Being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter is hardly getting off light. I'm sure the judge will sentence him appropriately, but we will have to wait and see.
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He will never be able to legally own a firearm again being a convicted felon and all. That is some justice. I wish we could push a law through making it illegal to shoot from vehicles even a coyotes. We could call it Beau's Law.
rdgrey
Please dont call it hunting from a vehicle. Shooting onto land you dont have permission on even for the "coyote" Mr. Kent claims to have been shooting at is poaching.
Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jayhawker - I couldn't agree with you more.
Posted by jdd4592 (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In a case where a man is convicted of a crime for which there is no conclusive evidence that his actions killed that boy, I weep for our justice system. I couldn't have done it if I were on the jury. Take a bullet that can't be matched, one of who knows how many hunters were in the area carrying a calibur of weapon that is sold thousands of times per year. I don't know about you but nothing about that spells beyond a reasonable doubt to me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sincerely sorry for that family and what they are going thru. But every one of us who have gone hunting know the risk we are taking when we walk out the door with a firearm. It is a tragedy, and while closure is nice, the price in from what i've read seems like a shaky case seems too high to me.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maximum sentence is 32 months. Compared to loosing one's life, that is very light and I mean that respectfully rbmorgan.
Coyote hunting or not, the verdict from the jury today said that shooting onto property you do not have permission to hunt on is illegal. (Criminal Discharge of a Firearm)
They also passed down a guilty verdict on Unlawful Hunting for shooting from the road when he did not have permission from adjoining landowners from either side of the road.
For the coyote hunters that believe he had the right to hunt coyotes from the road and from his vehicle, pay heed to these verdicts.
You can use a vehicle in the pursuit of a coyote, WHILE HUNTING ON PROPERTY YOU PERMISSION TO HUNT ON. You can shoot at coyotes from your vehicle, WHILE ON PROPERTY YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO HUNT ON.
Same goes for other types of hunting. Unless you are physically unable to hunt away from the road and are licensed as physically challenged, get off the road to hunt!
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jdd4592: I think that you misunderstand what reasonable doubt is. It is not all doubt, it is only a doubt that is reasonable. If little Johnny has chocolate all over his mouth, standing a few feet from the open, and now empty, cookie jar that had contained chocolate chip cookies, it is reasonable to conclude that little Johnny ate the cookies. In this case, Mr. Kent admitted to shooting a .25 caliber rifle in Beau Arndt's direction while driving a truck observed by others at the same time that Beau was killed by a .25 caliber bullet. The defense theory that someone else did this does not create reasonable doubt when for the theory to be accurate would require that someone else, in a truck that looked like Kent's, with a .25 caliber rifle, shot in Beau's direction at the very same time, all unrelated to each other. If you are ever called for jury service, I hope that you disclose to the lawyers how you define reasonable doubt.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jayhawker, while I applaud your metaphor for reasonable doubt, I respectfully think that you left out one crucial element. Mr. Kent's defense is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't shoot the fatal shot (innocence until proof of guilt). The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. Little Johnnies cookie case is very circumstantial, just like Mr. Kent's case. And while this was a tragedy and Mr. Kent is the most likely shooter, I don't think you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt without matching ballistic evidence. I think Mr. Kent's apology is why he was convicted, eventhough he never admitted to any wrong doing. Its shakey justice at best, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lengthy appeal.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
After re-reading Jayhawkers comment, I mis read it and gave a redundant explanation of reasonable doubt. Sorry. I do stand my comment about the whole thing being pretty circumstantial though.
Posted by jdd4592 (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, I understand reasonable doubt fine. Reasonable doubt is more than just being in the proximity of a crime with the tools to have committed the crime.
I am not trying to cast judgment on this thing, I'm trying to caution others who like me don't have nearly all the facts of the case from jumping to conclusions. I've read articles here and in a couple other papers with so many conflicting statements it's rediculous. The only people who know what went on in that courtroom are the folks who were there. I just hope there was more to base this judgement on than what I have read. That is all.
Posted by wouldntuliketoknow (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sounds like some people have been watching too much television. Guilty as charged!
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OutsiderJ: You are correct that it is the prosecution's burden. Using the Little Johnny example, don't you agree that it is reasonable to believe that Little Johnny ate the cookies? If so, then the burden of proof is satisfied. If the burden of proof is satisfied, it is irrelevant that the case is circumstantial. Reasonable conclusions can be drawn from circumstances; in fact, sometimes more reliably than from other evidence.
Posted by nks (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have no doubt that Mr Kent is probably a decent human being that made a decison to shoot that gun in the same manner that many other hunters have done. It is just too bad that these type of actions will amplify the anti gun activists. A gun is as safe as the person behind it. His decision cost a young man his life and Beau's friends and family have lost something that can never be replaced. Mr. Kent just happened to be pointing his gun in one of the few places on that field that led to today's verdict.
I find it incredible that Mr Arndt was able to forgive his son's killer so soon after this tragedy. He is a stronger man than I.
Mr Kent will be given a prison sentence, but he will also be sentenced for the rest of his life by knowing the results of his actions . That will be toughter to live with than his his time behind bars.
Posted by redneckgirl22 (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jdd4592: Yes by going hunting it puts you at risk, but you shouldn't have to worry about Poachers (not hunters) shooting at you, or your decoys.
And yes everyone that hunts is supposed to go through Hunters Ed. but just because they went through the class that doesn't mean that they abide by the rules taught there.
Guilty or not of killing Beau, this man shot a rifle off of the road on to property he didn't have permission to fire upon he's still not abiding by the law.
Love and Miss you Beau
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 5:29 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by bjohn (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jayhawker: Your line of thinking is why there are people are falsely imprisoned. There are plenty of cases where the defendent was convicted and sent to prison for 25-30 years based on circumstantial evidence, only to be let out later because of the scientific evidence. Our justice system should run on one standard and emotions should not be involved. This case should've never been tried in Emporia. It will be appealed and if Kent gets a decent lawyer it can be overturned very easily. That what a good lawyer can do for you.
And for the record I know no one involved in this case.
Posted by momtoall (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First and foremost, my heart goes out to the Arndt family. Having children, I cannot begin to know how their hearts must ache. I respect and am humbled by the example of Christian love shown by the family in Mr. Arndt's willingness to extend forgiveness.
Having said that, one must understand and have the knowledge to back up, their ideas that ballistic information is as readily available as the TV shows, (CSI etc.) make it out to be. It is far more likely that true matches are not conclusive as was this case. It would be so easy for a jury, for the prosecution and for law enforcement, if every scene had some fingerprints, DNA, blood, and a wonderfully marked bullet to match. This is not the reality.
More often, law enforcement has to work and work and follow up leads to find information. And contrary to what some may see as the function of the prosecution, they are sworn to uphold justice. This does not mean if a case lacks sufficient evidence, they file charges on the popular suspect. They have to sift through what law enforcement brings and then request more or other evidence as necessary.
Finally, the jury has to vow to look at the totality of the evidence and use common sense to apply to test of reasonable doubt.
I am grateful that in my humble opinion, all of these pieces worked together to bring justice to Lyon County. It will never bring back a fine young man, but as all before me have said, perhaps it can prevent further unnessecary tragedies.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bjohn: Would you conclude that there was insufficient evidence to believe that Little Johnny ate the cookies in the example above? If you agree with me that it is reasonable to believe that he did so, can you make a distinction from this case? The danger with our criminal justice system lies not in convicting people on circumstantial evidence, but rather in failing to hold the guilty accountable, which leads to more crime and danger to our families. It is a sad commentary when you (unfortunately correctly) conclude that a good lawyer can get a person off after that person kills someone. Someone once said that the true purpose in the jury system is for the jury to decide who had the best lawyer. Thankfully, most of our local juries are better grounded than that.
Posted by blong (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with momtoall and also with jayhawker... This is a tragic event and it is hard to see "justice" in any of this. The perception by many that exact science can conclusively prove ALL cases is just not the reality of life and we do have to make decisions every day using our best judgements and our own "beyond a reasonable doubt" techniques and tools. It is unfortunate that Mr Kent had a momentary lapse in judgement and fired into that field. But the real tragedy (for even Mr Kent) is that there was a person in the path of that bullet. And that person died. Mr Kent will pay that price for the rest of his life, imprisoned by his own guilt, regardless if he spends time in jail. I believe that Mr Kent is truly sorry for his role in this tragedy and whether or not it can be conclusively proven that his bullet was the one, the fact remains that it is overwhelming factual that he did fire in that specific direction at the exact time of Beau's death and that alone makes him a reasonable suspect and he obviously acknowledged that by his cooperatio with police, his apologies and his remorse.
No one wins in this situation. I admire the Arndt family for their forgiveness and their strength in losing a son at such a young age. It just isn't natural for a child to die before the parents - but it does happen - usually through tragedy and poor choices. Not always our own..
God's blessing to everyone involved in this case. The Arndts and The Kents who have lost so much - the community that lost a wonderful potential leader, AND also The Jurors and the judicial and law enforcement system who worked very hard. It took an emotional toll on them as well. So let's not be too judgmental about the decisions that were made in court - but rather the decision that was made to shoot a gun unsafely.
Let there be lessons learned and let one of them be to take hunter safety seriously and another one to hug our children more tightly -loving them every moment that we have them.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well said, blong. You hit it on all fours. Thanks for the contribution.
Posted by fairsfair (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The jury has spoken. They were able to distinguish between hard evidence and the smoke thrown up by the defense. To the one juror who admitted coming to the case with issues about "law enforcement", I can only say that you had no business sitting on a jury in a criminal trial. You should have admitted your bias during preliminary questioning and you would have been excused.
We should be so proud of the hunters and public safety and medical personnel who were in that field trying to save Beau's life. We and our children don't have to go far to find heroes.
The Gazette had a front page photo of defense attorney Hoffman taken last week while the 911 tape was being played. That was one of the few moments during the playing of that wrenching tape that Hoffman was not digging into his box of files or flipping aimlessly through papers on his table. If his behavior was just a reflection of his discomfort during that tape, then it was incredibly disrespectful. If it was a tactic to distract the jury from listening, then it was despicable.
Kent can appeal all he wants, but he will find that there isn't a lawyer alive who will get him off. He fired the shot that killed Beau.
Posted by speakmymind (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is very unfortunate what happened to Beau Arndt. God bless his family.
Now then, everyone is making this situation out to be something more than it really is. Yes, Kent was in the wrong for shooting out of his vehicle and yes it was illegal. But what happened was an accident. He didn't know he was going to kill someone....truth is the proof is still shakey whether he did it or not. Just because he appologized doesn't make him guilty, it makes him a man with feelings and remorse!
Let this have happened to someone that wasn't well known in town.... for instance someone that lives on the East side of town that is low income.... I guarantee no one would care! So, when I read all of these comments and conversations between everyone it really shows just how much Emporians are close minded. Why all of a sudden now we wanna try to make a "law" because of what happened to Beau Arndt and name it after him? Why not just make the hunting laws more strict because there are alot of fowl plays every year, not just this instance. Im not trying to be unsympathetic to this situation, I am just pointing out that if this would have happened to someone that didn't have money than people wouldn't have made this many comments on the situation and that no one would really care about making a new hunting "law". Just goes to show that you really do have to have money and a "name" to be someone in this closed minded town. I am from here and know almost everyone in town and the things that go on here. Half of the things that really need to be talked about are over looked and the things that don't need as much attention get the most.
What about the shooting that happened in town off of Logan Ave? Why aren't we trying to make that a new law? Oh I forgot because the person needs an interpreter to go to court. Who cares right? Oh or his last name isn't well know, so who cares, just fry him, throw him to the wolves. Anyway, for all you closed minded people out there, this accident that happened to Beau Arndt could of happened to anyone of you or one of your family members. Im pretty sure most of you are not as innocent as you may type that you are. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. I don't know Mr. Kent but Im sure he is and will always be a good man even though this happened. But leave it up to the closed mindedness of the perfect Emporians he is the "Devil" now. But let this of happened to you, Im sure you would want the support of all of Emporia, so stop bashing this man and forgive him. He has family just like you do! And no I don't watch alot of TV, but I do see alot of ignorant stuck up rich people in Emporia that buy their way out of trouble.
Posted by sportsmom (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 12:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
speakmymind...you have a lot of nerve to say that because Beau has a "name" and money Mr. Kent was charged and convicted...did you know Beau or his family? They are wonderful people and yes they provide for their family but that does not make them bad people. I think that you are the closed minded person that you are speaking of from Emporia.
No one has forgotten about the shooting accident on Logan Ave either. It too was tragic. I am sure that when that case comes to trial then it too will draw attention. Don't sell yourself short by pointing out flaws of people that you don't know. Maybe you should take the chance to get to know them before you pass judgment on a "name" that you think you know so much about!
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 12:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe because what they were doing on Logan Ave was already illegal. No need to make a law for something that already has a law against it . They were hunting without a liscense, hunter safety certificate, and shooting at animals that weren't legal to be taken especially with the firearm they were using. What law do we need to make considering they broke at least 4 and that lead to the death.
Posted by ksgirl (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 12:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Speak my mind
I’m so tired of debates getting turned into rich vs. the poor or east side vs. west side. This has nothing to do with money, where you live, who you are related too, what color your skin is, your education level, male or female, or your "last name"
How can you say that no one would care if it had happened to someone else? You don’t know this to be true. Not everyone is as "closed minded" as you think. Maybe you need to open your mind a little.
I did not know Beau Arndt or his family. I still cared and it didn't matter to me where he was from, that he was an "Arndt", that he was white, that his family may or may not have money. I cared because a kid was killed by accident in the prime of his life because of a mistake made by someone else.
"I am from here and know almost everyone in town and the things that go on here.” Do you really think that you know everyone here? This town has at least 25,000 people in it and I know for sure that you do not know me.
"I do see alot of ignorant stuck up rich people in Emporia that buy their way out of trouble." Tell me, what does this have to do with anything? I think you formed a negative opinion about a few "bad apples" that happen to have money and you group all rich people into one category. Not all people with money are "closed minded" and if you are thinking I must have money, I don’t.
"Stop bashing this man and forgive him."
Maybe it is time for you to stop bashing people too. You seemed to do a fairly good job of it in your comment. Maybe its time for you to do some forgiving also.
I am not a "Perfect Emporian", I do not think Kent is the "Devil", I am not "rich", I do not have a famous "last name", I'm right dab in the middle of town and I’m not "closed minded."
I am a person, who cares that someone died because someone else had a moment of bad judgment and made a mistake. I think that when you make a mistake you have to face the consequences and be responsible for your actions.
Kent made a mistake by choosing to fire into a field and by doing so it is very possible that he fired the shot that killed Arndt. He is facing the consequences of firing that shot. To me it is very probable that the shot he fired from his gun is the very same shot that killed Arndt. While the bullet cannot be matched I still feel that because he shot into the field, where Arndt was shot that the chances of someone else firing into that field at that same time is not likely.
I've learned in life that sometimes you have to agree to disagree and move on. It's doubtful that anyone will change my opinion or that I will change someone else’s. I've said my piece and if you agree with me that’s fine and I respect those who disagree with me too. The thing that is nice about life is that everyone is different and that we are entitled to our differences. So to those who I offend I do apologize but this is solely just an opinion of mine and I hope you don't mind that I shared it.
Posted by landofoz (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 1:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If I were Mr. Kent I would deffinatly appeal the ruling, maybe he can take it to a real court and get a new trial. Doesn't seem like there is any hard evidance at all. No balistics match on the bullet, only eye witness reports of the color of the truck, no tag number, only that she saw a SN on the tag. Seems like they are only using the eye witness reports which are very thin if you ask me. Hopefully the prosecution got it right and they have the right guy. But our justice system is not so great, I think you should have 100% hard evidance so you can say you know for sure that he did it like a witness actually seeing him shooting the gun, or a match from the bullet to his gun, then I would feel secure in finding him guilty. And if not then you have to assume that he didn't do it.
Posted by wouldntuliketoknow (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
landofoz,
Better for people to think you are an idiot than for you to open your mouth and prove it!! What an asinine comment! "A witness should actually see him shooting the gun......you have to assume he didn't do it." Yours would be a safe and secure world to live in. When I think I've met the stupidist person in the world, there's always someone like you to top the rest.
Posted by jibberish66 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A key point in the "reasonable doubt" issue, for me at least, is the alternative raised by the defense. It seems to me that if a scenario is simple, like the series of events portrayed by the prosecution, more than likely that's the way things played out. Then, if the defense brings up far-fetched this and hair-brained that, to try to form a different way that this tragedy was brought about, I tend to dismiss it.
Mr. Kent should just take his medicine. 32 months is not all that long, and he might just emerge with some assets left. Appealing over & over again will just turn his house, vehicles, and any other thing he has that can be sold to his attorney.
Lastly, stop bashing Emporians. I'm a former Emporian, and I think,by and large, as in any town, there are good & bad elements, but it's a good town, as are the folks in it.
Posted by biggest_small_townKS (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I do not know either party, so I have no "horse in this race". But speaking from the perspective of a gun owner and hunter, i can say that everything Mr. Kent was doing at the time he alledgedly took another human being's life, was illegal, against all gun safety rules and careless.
********************************************************
Did he intentionally kill this person?
Probably Not.
Is it a very tragic outcome?
Most Definitely! (especially for Mr. Ardnt's family)
Should Mr. Kent take responsibility for his actions.
Oh heck yes! No doubt about it, and living with it will be a huge down payment,(providing he has a conscious).
Nothing good happens when you are doing something wrong.
Oh yes an old cliche, but oh so true!
*******************************************************
Now, this case from another perspective.
The JUSTICE perspective.
I am curious as to Mr. Kents legal counsel and its' capability. Was he a public defender or a paid counsel?
The justice system here in Lyon County is nothing short of a joke. Around here we affectionately refer to it as the "Kangaroo Court - justice for the few and by the few"
I seriously wonder just how fair of a trial Mr. Kent recieved. His legal counsel shoul also have that concern. I would not pass go on the way to an appeal and a change of venue request to a higher court. Get it out of the backwoods southern lawyers enviornment (no offense intended to southerners) and out into the light of justice. Then let Mr. Kent make his case and serve his punishment, IF that is what it comes down to.
**********************************************************
At the very least, Mr. Kent should never, ever have the right to possess a gun of ANY kind for the rest of his life, IF he gets a fair trial that determines he is guilty.
That will NOT happen in Lyon County!
I'm right there with you speak my mind and ....
Ksgirl, do you really believe that? WOW!
Posted by ksgirl (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I stand by what I wrote, so my answer to your question would be Yes.
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on July 2, 2008 at 6:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To answer a few questions posed by biggest_small_townKS:
1. Mr. Kent hired his attorney, Don Hoffman of Topeka.
2. No pretrial motions were filed beyond the usual discovery motions. No change of venue (moving the trial out of Lyon County) was ever requested.
Posted by watson_87 (anonymous) on July 6, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am so glad that he was found guilty...I knew this boy...I went to school with him and he was one of my brothers friends...He was a great kid and when I heard the news about what happened I was in shock...I never thought this kind of thing could happen...My little brother used to hunt about a mile from there...I almost wish that Kent would have gotten more than just involuntary manslaughter...If you are performing an illegal act and somebody dies, it's murder...period!
Posted by srose95709 (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He hid his truck for 3 days??? But he didn't do it. Here in Topeka, they think he'll get probation. I hope not.
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)