Hidden Criminal in Fort Wayne Hospital Goes Unpunished

[mikeb302000]

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111009/LOCAL07/310099912">The Journal Gazette reports that no one was injured Saturday when a bail bondsman’s gun "accidentally" went off in Parkview Hospital.

In a written statement, police said the bondsman was involved in some sort of disturbance at the hospital at Randallia Drive and East State Boulevard. Parkview spokesman John Perlich said hospital security officers asked the bondsman to leave, but he refused.

About 12:30 p.m., police officers were called to assist the security officers. Police learned that the bondsman had a handgun, and as he was trying to unload the gun by taking a round out of the chamber, the gun fired. No injuries were reported. It was not clear why the bondsman, whose name was not released, was at the hospital or what prompted the disturbance. Police said the bondsman was not arrested.

"The gun fired," did you get that? And "the bondsman was not arrested," that's the best one of all. Far from http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-strike-youre-out.html">suffering consequences for this stupidity and for breaking the no-guns-in-hospitals law, this guy will go on his merry way and live to fight another day.

What's your opinion? Does this sound right to you? Please leave a comment.
http://www.mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[We_Have_A_Problem]

1. Ah - so not ONLY are you finally posting the content...

...from yesterdays post, but you're re-posting something you've already posted a few times.

What hidden criminal? I don't see one at all.

[aikoaiko]

2. WTF are you talking about?

The bail bondsmen in the story is not hiding and based on the police not arresting him there is no reason to suspect that he is a criminal.

:shrug:

[Oneka]

3. Do statutes

Of limitations, apply to hidden crime?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. More false accusations from you

No crime is being alleged at this point

[ileus]

6. You forget the kings golden rule?

[ileus]

5. Duplicate subject.

[NBachers]

7. I can't wait for tomorrow's entry in this continuing saga

[Atypical Liberal]

8. What is a hidden criminal?

Hidden Criminal in Fort Wayne Hospital Goes Unpunished

What is a "hidden criminal"? In what way was the bondsman a "hidden criminal"?

Is this people such as yourself who admit to criminally owning firearms? Because I didn't see anything about the bondsman having a criminal record.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dtexdem]

10. As expected on this forum: no one could address the question, just launch ad hominems.

My answer: the criminal bail bondsman should have been hauled to jail in handcuffs.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. on what charges? what criminal act was committed by the bondsman?

[SteveM]

14. Sounds like a problem dealt with by local LEO, don't you think? nt

[mikeb302000]

20. thanks nt

[jmg257]

26. Told ya...see the empty 'bumps' and 'kicks'? You even got one! nt

[ileus]

18. Draw a circle, write gun owner inside it. Now everyone that's a gun owner is inside the circle...

they are the hidden criminals.

hidden criminals include: anyone that's dropped a gun, had a ND or AD, sold a gun without a background check, bought a gun without a background check, stores a gun outside of a gun safe, ever drank an adult beverage while owning a firearm, drove over the speed limit or any other traffic violation, Left a gun on the nightstand while taking a shower, watched Rambo, touched a 922r non-compliant firearm, pointed a gun in the wrong direction, slipped and fell while holding a gun, modified a gun, let a gun rust, used a non factory magazine, owned a high capacity magazine, left a gun off safety, forgot to check to see if a gun was unloaded, forgot to zip a gun case up...you get the idea.

[mikeb302000]

21. you're exaggerating as usual, but you've got the

general idea. Gun owners are just like everybody else. Many of them take short cuts, break minor laws, do risky things. Hunters are the same, even worse. Drinking goes hand in hand with hunting and that's not acceptable.

What I object to is the generalization that YOU guys make that gun owners are responsible. Some are, but it's not like you pretend.

[PavePusher]

25. "Drinking goes hand in hand with hunting and that's not acceptable."

What? Did I miss a memo? I've been hunting sober and drinking unarmed for years. So much wasted time.....

I guess it's all about efficiency, eh?

But seriously, on what basis do you make that accusation?

[AtheistCrusader]

31. I'm a hunter.

I never drink. Ever. I don't allow others in my hunting party with alcohol. Period.

What now, Carnac the Magnificent?

[rl6214]

33. What orafice did you pull this one out of :

"Many of them take short cuts, break minor laws, do risky things. Hunters are the same, even worse. Drinking goes hand in hand with hunting and that's not acceptable."

Please cite where you got this one from. "Drinking goes hand in hand with hunting"

I've been hunting my entire life and have NEVER seen anyone consume alcohol while hunting. Now cracking a beer after you've gotten back to camp, that's a different story but drinking while hunting, no.

So let's see your evidence.

[jmg257]

40. What bullshit...I drink, and I haven't hunted in years. nt

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

48. sadly, your fan fic will not get the audience it so richly deserves

but I can answer you -- everyone loves a funny hunting story.

Articling student in small-town Ontario spots particularly cute member of local bar on the other side of the street, staggering along with a burden of brown paper bags. Two clearly contain large 8-litre jugs of wine (we used to be able to buy French wine in that form here), plus assorted other bits and bobs.

"Big weekend?" says articling student.

"Yup," says lawyer. "Goin' huntin'."

Sadly, lawyer was disbarred a few years later, the drink having done him in.

Don't know whether he kept hunting.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. No it doesn't sound right.

You have neglected to inform us if the hospital security had grounds to ask him to leave at all. (No apparent trespassing charge)
You have neglected to inform us if any damage was caused by this negligent discharge.
You have neglected to inform us if any danger to others was present.
You have neglected to inform us if there were any lawful exemptions to the "no-guns-in-hospitals law" for armed security, bail bondsmen, or people with valid CPL's.

etc.

[iverglas]

27. hm

You have neglected to inform us if the hospital security had grounds to ask him to leave at all. (No apparent trespassing charge)

Does absence of a charge mean absence of an offence? I've never thought so.

You have neglected to inform us if any damage was caused by this negligent discharge.

Who cares?

How could some damage not have been caused? Does a bullet fired in a building kind of not have to hit something? And is something hit by a bullet not damaged kind of by definition?

You have neglected to inform us if any danger to others was present.

Who cares?

How could there not be danger to anyone present if someone negligently discharges a firearm? The whole "negligently" thing appears to mean, kind of by definition again, that the individual was not taking care as to whether the discharge occurred or where the bullet went.

You have neglected to inform us if there were any lawful exemptions to the "no-guns-in-hospitals law" for armed security, bail bondsmen, or people with valid CPL's.

Do you suggest there were? Would that not be rather easy to determine?

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Agreed on the absence of chare/possibly still an offence point.

Otherwise we will have to disagree:

How could some damage not have been caused? Does a bullet fired in a building kind of not have to hit something? And is something hit by a bullet not damaged kind of by definition?
No, no, and not necessarily.

If the weapon was malfunctioned, depending on the malfunction, it may not have fired in battery. Meaning, pressure may have escaped via the bolt face, resulting in a squib round. There was no comment of his hand being injured, but still possible. As the alleged witness claims, if he was ordered to unload it by the police, he may well have taken the precaution of pointing it in a truly safe direction. I won't speculate on that, as most hospitals lack unloading barrels, but it does not automatically follow that something was damaged.

I don't think it's unfair for you to make that assumption though.

How could there not be danger to anyone present if someone negligently discharges a firearm? The whole "negligently" thing appears to mean, kind of by definition again, that the individual was not taking care as to whether the discharge occurred or where the bullet went.

Again, if he was ordered to unload it after the police jammed it up somehow, it could literaly have been a mechanical malfunction, like a slam-fire. If he was truly pointing it in a safe location, no danger. No negligence. (Except perhaps on the part of the officers, because there's really no reason to demand he unload it.)

Do you suggest there were? Would that not be rather easy to determine?
He has made the assumption that there were not such exemptions. That amounts to a claim. I am not familiar with that state's laws, and I think it is incumbent upon the person making the claim to establish it's accuracy. If he does not look it up, I may do so, just to rub his nose in it if the claim was untrue.

[iverglas]

36. highroadrage says:

... well, a poster there says:

"Most hospitals have signs saying firearms are not permitted. My girlfriend works in a ER of a major hospital, and when I visit her I still carry."

Said poster might want to check the law of private property, and the fact that if he does do that he is committing a trespass, which is likely against some law.

Regardless of whether state law prohibits the carrying of firearms in hospitals (and why on earth would bail bonders get an exemption?), I would imagine that the hospitals do and are entitled to.

http://www.parkview.com/About/Pages/NotForProfit.aspx

It's a not-for-profit organization, i.e. a corporation, i.e. its premises are private property, as I interpret that.


What's this about?

Again, if he was ordered to unload it after the police jammed it up somehow, ...

In a written statement, police said the bondsman was involved in some sort of disturbance at the hospital at Randallia Drive and East State Boulevard.

Parkview spokesman John Perlich said hospital security officers asked the bondsman to leave, but he refused.

About 12:30 p.m., police officers were called to assist the security officers. Police learned that the bondsman had a handgun, and as he was trying to unload the gun by taking a round out of the chamber, the gun fired. No injuries were reported.

I don't see anything there suggesting the police touched his gun. He was involved in a disturbance (I'll say he caused it, since if he hadn't been there doing whatever he was doing that was plainly unrelated to anyone's health care it would not have happened), he refused to leave when instructed to leave, and police had to be called.

Now that's just exactly the person I think should be toting a gun around, myself.


Bail bonders ... another thing we don't have up here in the boring North, thank goodness.

http://www.pinewswire.net/article/jacksonville-officer-shoots-kills-bail-bondsman/

Jacksonville County Sheriff’s officials say the bondsmen called for law enforcement assistance early Tuesday as they delivered a warrant for lack of a driver’s license and an improper tag.

Officials say the first group of officers left when no one responded at the apartment. Officers returned after a 2 a.m. 911 call to report masked men trying to break in.

Sheriff’s Director John Hartley says an officer shot and killed a man wearing a mask and dark clothing. A second man was also shot. He did not say why they were wearing dark clothing and masks.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/205198/3/Masks-Guns-Whats-Legal-in-the-Bail-Bond-Profession

Masks? Guns? What's Legal in the Bail Bond Profession

... The masks are "not a common procedure, commonly you don't wear masks. But there are situations where they might..." said Teague.

At least one bail bondsman was armed with a shotgun, said police.

According to the state Division of Agent and Agency Services, the Florida Insurance Code does not prevent, nor does it allow, a bail bond agent to use a weapon.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110727/ARTICLES/110729567/1109/sports?Title=Bail-bondsman-charged-with-aggravated-assault-in-pursuit-of-bail-jumper

Bail bondsman charged with aggravated assault in pursuit of bail jumper

... Instead of finding the man at the home, Johnson found three others who recently had moved in. The new residents told deputies they thought Johnson was going to kill them because he slammed one onto the hood of a car, threatened them by saying he would "blow your heads off" and was roughing up a resident.

Sheriff's Office spokesman Sgt. Todd Kelly said Johnson brandished an AR-15 rifle and that the victims said the threats were made while Johnson was wearing a tactical vest with the word "agent" on the back.

... Johnson is continuing to work as a bondsman while free on a $30,000 bond.

Snork. Well, at least he knows better than to try to skip.

Weird city, is all I can say.

I think we need a regular bail-bonder-with-gun series here.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. The comment I posted above

I consider about as reliable as the second hand paraphrase of a written statement made by... someone.

Meaning, not very at all. Which is why I say "if" he was ordered to unload it by police, it may have gone off during dissasembly, if it had malfunctioned. (Possibly a human caused malfunction if the officers tried to unload it)

Where I live, police won't do any of that. If there's an issue, they'll take posession of the gun as long as necessary, and otherwise, not screw with it. Mileage may vary.

Operated by Parkview Health, but it's actually Fort Wayne City Hospital. May not have the legal authority to post 'no guns' signs with any sort of trespass authority. Indiana just passed a state-wide firearms pre-emption law, in May. The only way they can prohibit guns, if a public facility, is if the hospital contains a secure correctional health unit, staffed by a police officer 24x7 (drug abuser detention or suspect that requires medical care detention). If the hospital was local to me, I'd have no trouble identifying who actually owns it. Over there, who the hell knows. Looks public to me. In any case, if I read this law right, the hospital has to conform to very specific criteria to ban guns at all.

All of this also begs the question of whether a licensed bondsman can ignore such a provision of a public building, if the prohibition is still lawful since that law took effect.

How I suspect this event may have unfolded:

1. Bondsman is notified by hospital security that a jumper is in the hospital.
2. Bondsman arrives, attempts to arrest jumper. Jumper resists, in some way, or is noncompliant, bondsman calls police to arrest the individual, and have him or her bound by law in a detention facility with medical services.
3. Responding officers ask bondsman to surrender his weapon. Possibly for cause, around the prohibition, possibly by mistake, for a prohibition that is no longer legal under state law. It happens.
4. Police attempt to unload the weapon. Jams.
5. Thinking it a user error problem, unfamiliar with the weapon, the officers order the bondsman to unload the weapon, slam-fire.

Again, this is based upon events described by a person second-hand in an anonymous internet forum. :shrug:



I agree, some bondsman are total assclowns, and should not be in the line of work they are in, and in fact, will some day end up in jail for it.

[iverglas]

42. I read all about the state pre-emption blah blah

I also read what the hospital spokesperson said:

Perlich said guns are not allowed in the hospital.

“We pride ourselves on being a safe place, a secure place for people to receive medical care,” he said.

and I assume the hospital knows its laws. And I assume that since the website doesn't say the hospital is operated by a public/government authority, it isn't, and doesn't have to conform to anything.


1. Bondsman is notified by hospital security that a jumper is in the hospital.

Exactly why would hospital security do that? I don't even know how they'd know. Any reason that hospital security would not be bound by medical privilege?

That's an interesting scenario you got going there though, I must say.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. I don't think physical presence in the hospital is protected under HIPPA.

I think it's going to boil down to one of those 'only in america' things.

The hospital appears to be owned by the city. I would check property tax records to find out, if local, but I don't even know where to start in another county, let alone another state. Either way, the law requires they conform to certain standards to be open to the public AND prohibit firearms. I do not know if this hospital conforms to that. And again, this law change is recent, so not everyone may have gotten the memo. 6 months ago, that hospital might have been able to lawfully prohibit firearms on it's premises, and now cannot.

Why/how would they know? Reward. Maybe the bondsman got a tip the person was in the hospital, and called to find out if the person was there. Showed up, asked security for an escort to the person, and received it. Bondsmen have some authority, and some pretend authority. Need to know more about what happened from a reliable witness, such as the police officers or security.

The suggestion by the alleged witness that the hospital security escorted the bondsman IN to the paitent, is quite interesting to me. Without that, my scenario is unlikely.

[rl6214]

15. One strike yer out, eh mikey?

Are cops allowed in hospitals? They carry guns. Are bail bondsmen not bonded and carrying out official duties? They do capture/pick up felons that have jumped bail.

So you think that's it for the bondsman? One strike and you're out?

That's the title to the blind link listed as "suffering consequences". I didn't click on it, if you want us to see what it says you'll have to post it here. You're not gonna get any blog traffic from anyone that is a regular here.

Was there a bondsman after you for your illegal firearm ownership? Is that why you fled to italy? Is that why you hate bail bondsmen?

So did YOU suffer the consequences of that "one strike yer out" when you were an illegal gun owner or did you skate on by, not suffering any consequences from the law?

Are you at work today, blogging and posting from your UN computer in your cozy UN office instead of out feeding the hungry? Do your bosses know what you do on work time?

Unrec for the usual reasons.

[ileus]

19. He doesn't like cops carrying firearms either...

[AtheistCrusader]

16. "I know someone that was there as a bystander

at the time of the incident. They said that Parkview security and the bail agent walked side by side down the hall into the room. They never heard Parkview security ask the bail agent to leave nor did the hear the bail agent refuse to leave. In fact, they appreared to be working together. Also, they heard the bail agent call FWPD for assistance to avoid problems. When the gun was removed from the bail agent's holster by police officers and they couldn't unload it, they asked the agent to unload it after a possible jam on FWPD's account, for which the bail agent looked reluctant to do."

From the Comments section of the article.

Well, Mike? Still a 'hidden criminal"? Possible there is something more to the story?

[mikeb302000]

22. You're right, he was just another poor gun-owning victim nt

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Yes, because that was totally my point.

Way to dodge.

[rl6214]

34. Way to really answer that one

[iverglas]

37. oh, I see

The police are lying in their statement. Someone who knows someone who says they were there says so.

Hm.


edit ... except I don't see. Why can't I see comments to the article?

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Same article was posted to multiple AP sources.

I got it from the comments on the same article at another local news source, which had a large string of comments.

I don't see the officer's actual statement. I see what is reported to have been in a statement made by police (department? possibly not even the officers that responded).

The information in the article is highly spurious. Possible the comment is as well. My problem is primarily that the OP has come to a fairly accusatory conclusion, and we probably don't know the whole story. The simple fact that the bondsman is not charged, is evidence enough for me, no wrongdoing.

We assume innocence in the United States. (theoretically)

[iverglas]

43. you can assume whatever you like

But please don't play this stupid game of "innocent until proved guilty" as if it actually meant that someone not convicted of a crime has not committed the act in question.

That is not what the maxim means, and if you don't know that, it's high time you did.

The simple fact that someone is not charged immediately means nothing at all.

As numerous people here found out to their chagrin when the Boca Raton accountant who shot the neighbour kid in the back and killed him on Hallowe'en a few years back pleaded guilty to manslaughter following an investigation.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Oh, I agree.

But YOU didn't make the spurious statement. The OP did. The OP declared "Hidden Criminal in Fort Wayne Hospital Goes Unpunished".

Hidden? Not very, if he committed a crime, since we all read about it.
Criminal? Not yet, if at all.
Goes Unpunished? So far.

Your objection equally applies to the OP. I'm curious if he will as readily admit your objection is valid, as I do.

[Marnie]

17. Why the hell would he have his saftey off and his finger on the

trigger, and then pull it, if he were going to unload the gun.

Sounds more like he was trying to look like he was unloading but was actually planning to fire the weapon.

[mikeb302000]

23. yep, or he was just another irresponsible gun owner

who should never had a gun in the first place. There's a lot of that going around.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Or, more likely, you are not familiar with certain firearms.

Could have been a slam-fire. Could have been an honest attempt to release the slide, which, on certain firearms, depressing the trigger is a required step to perform.

Quell surprise that you can't come up with any of these possibilities.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

35. Sounds like just a simple mistake really.

He could also have had a 1911 style pistol carried cocked and locked, which would legitimately require the trigger be pulled to drop the hammer.

[iverglas]

44. who cares?

Who cares why or how someone carrying a gun around shoots it off when they shouldn't? Who the fuck cares?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. what is this? Minority Report?

I mean really, what the front door.

[Remmah2]

28. I bet he feels really bad.

And that's punishment enough.

[iverglas]

38. somebody forgot the "sarcasm" tag