| Author | Post |
|---|
Trainer23
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 02:44 pm |
|
Anyone know about this incident. Would like more details. What is the public thinking? Were the perps from the Reservation?
http://www.alamogordonews.com/ci_12388137
FBI won't charge Mescalero man in reservation deathsAlamogordo Daily News
By Duane Barbati, Staff WriterPosted: 05/17/2009 12:00:00 AM MDT
The Federal Bureau of Investigation will not pursue charges against a 23-year-old Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation man after he allegedly shot and killed two men on the reservation April 15, an FBI spokesperson said. Public information officer Stephan Marshall said the U.S. Attorney's Office has declined to bring charges against Wacey Chico because of witness accounts of the altercation and physical evidence recovered at the scene.
Marshall said Chico acted in self-defense after two brothers initiated a fight with him around 5:45 p.m. He identified the two brothers as James Steward, 30, and Christian Steward, 23.
One of the men, Marshall said, was armed with an aluminum baseball bat and cornered Chico.
Marshall said Chico had a 22-caliber rifle in a trailer and added that Chico was pulling the trailer with a bicycle at the time.
Marshall said the Stewards continued to advance, despite Chico being armed with a rifle. Christian Steward was shot once and James Steward was shot twice, he said.
Marshall said witnesses reported the brothers had attempted to engage in three other fights earlier in the day.
|
cloudcroft
Activist Member
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 02:27 am |
|
This can't be: Three shots with a .22 and two guys dead on the scene? That sure sounds fishy to me! I mean after all, just about everyone ridicules the "lowly" and "inadequate" .22LR for self-defense use. 
Sounds like a pretty effective weapon to me...and in this case, the shooting looks completely justified.
Wonder where the two assailants were hit and what ammo "Chico" was using.
-- John D.
Last edited on Thu May 28th, 2009 02:32 am by cloudcroft
|
JoeSparky
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 06:36 am |
|
Don't overlook that this was a Rifle and not a handgun....
And yes, a .22LR in a handgun can be and is VERY effective if the shot placement is good!
A .22LR Rifle can be VERY effective!
|
Nitrox314
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 08:14 pm |
|
| My question would be which one they hit first and why he had to fire twice to get the second guy. If it was out of fear... OK. But did he maim him first and killed on the second shot? I am all for self-defense, but one must be sure. I mean if he shoots and kills the first guy with one bullet, and the second guy keeps coming it a possibility. If he shoots the second guy and wounds him, wouldn't he give up unless he was on drugs and/or really stupid? I think the story needs more information to determine. If the FBI let the victim off, then I guess I will have to agree it must have been legal self defense.
|
Thos.Jefferson
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 09:17 pm |
|
| So what if he shot the guy twice? In your eyes is he wrong for that? The idiots came after him and got what they deserved. I wouldn't care if he unloaded the gun on both of them. If you mess with a bull you get the horns.
|
JoeSparky
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 04:06 am |
|
Nitrox314 wrote: My question would be which one they hit first and why he had to fire twice to get the second guy. If it was out of fear... OK. But did he maim him first and killed on the second shot? I am all for self-defense, but one must be sure. I mean if he shoots and kills the first guy with one bullet, and the second guy keeps coming it a possibility. If he shoots the second guy and wounds him, wouldn't he give up unless he was on drugs and/or really stupid? I think the story needs more information to determine. If the FBI let the victim off, then I guess I will have to agree it must have been legal self defense.
"Officer, I shot UNTIL the threat was no longer a threat! I didn't want to do it but I was forced to defend myself by the actions of that individual over there (Pointing to the individual who is NO LONGER A THREAT!)"
|
GoldCoaster
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 01:20 pm |
|
Nitrox314 wrote: My question would be which one they hit first and why he had to fire twice to get the second guy. If it was out of fear... OK. But did he maim him first and killed on the second shot? I am all for self-defense, but one must be sure. I mean if he shoots and kills the first guy with one bullet, and the second guy keeps coming it a possibility. If he shoots the second guy and wounds him, wouldn't he give up unless he was on drugs and/or really stupid? I think the story needs more information to determine. If the FBI let the victim off, then I guess I will have to agree it must have been legal self defense. Immaterial - sounds like the brothers were itching to fight with someone - anyone and they picked on someone they thought would be an easy beat down (someone pulling a trailer with a bicycle) and they found out wrong, dead wrong.
I guess the old adage about knives to a gunfight apply.
Don't bring a baseball bat to a rifle fight.
|
HungSquirrel
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Mobile, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 09:24 pm |
|
Nitrox314 wrote:
My question would be which one they hit first and why he had to fire twice to get the second guy. If it was out of fear... OK. But did he maim him first and killed on the second shot? I am all for self-defense, but one must be sure. I mean if he shoots and kills the first guy with one bullet, and the second guy keeps coming it a possibility. If he shoots the second guy and wounds him, wouldn't he give up unless he was on drugs and/or really stupid? I think the story needs more information to determine. If the FBI let the victim off, then I guess I will have to agree it must have been legal self defense.
I see nothing fishy about the number of shots. In any self-defense situation, I am more likely to double-tap than not. If this rifle was an autoloader (article doesn't specify), then the scenario sounds plausible. A bolt, on the other hand...
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 943 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 01:26 pm |
|
Story is gone, but couldn't he shoot each one once, then the first guy gets up
and gets a second plugging as he reached for the bat again.
I remember an 8 year old killed his dad and second man with .22 rifle last year.
Now that one really stumped me as it was single shot bolt action, and you need
to stand around while he reloads.
Besides didn't the indian win over the ninja in that warrior battle show?
Guess we need to add Don't bring a knife, or a bat to a gun fight. 
But is it a plus or minus having the feds involved? You don't have a local DA
trying to make a name for themselves, and you have the feds who don't want
to waste time on a small self defense case that will never get them noticed by
higher ups. So this probably worked in his favor.
Finally, does he get to keep the scalps?
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 02:07 pm |
|
GoldCoaster wrote: Nitrox314 wrote: My question would be which one they hit first and why he had to fire twice to get the second guy. If it was out of fear... OK. But did he maim him first and killed on the second shot? I am all for self-defense, but one must be sure. I mean if he shoots and kills the first guy with one bullet, and the second guy keeps coming it a possibility. If he shoots the second guy and wounds him, wouldn't he give up unless he was on drugs and/or really stupid? I think the story needs more information to determine. Immaterial - sounds like the brothers were itching to fight with someone - anyone and they picked on someone they thought would be an easy beat down (someone pulling a trailer with a bicycle) and they found out wrong, dead wrong.
Well, maybe that would be the beginning of the incident. But somehow the "easy" target got to his rifle and then managed to display it and aim it. At the point Chico has his rifle and is aiming it, why would the attackers still proceed?
Were the brothers drunk or impaired? Doesn't make any sense to assault a guy with a loaded rifle--of any caliber.
Not enough details, but since the FBI had a crack at it, it probably was self-defense.
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 943 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 12:54 pm |
|
Situational awareness. He didn't wait to be surprised he kept his awareness of
surroundings, and acted on his perceptions of a threat.
Rowdy drunks are not the most stealthy individuals.
But is this a trend? I recall another bike rider getting attacked with a bat,
pulled a gun and yelled BANG, up in Mich. I think.
|
WRC
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 21st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 09:43 pm |
|
I am Wacey R. Chico. If anyone has any questions just ask and I will answer them.
I spent fifty days in jail and now are a free man.
I write with the best of intentions.
|
ccwinstructor
Centurion Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | Yuma, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 03:29 am |
|
WRC wrote: I am Wacey R. Chico. If anyone has any questions just ask and I will answer them.
I spent fifty days in jail and now are a free man.
I write with the best of intentions.
I am always interested in the details of self defense shootings. Reports in newspapers are often wrong and lacking in details. If you feel that you can give us the story of what happened without putting yourself in any further danger, I would very much like to hear what happened from your perspective. I would be interested in how you first percieved the threat, what actions you and the attackers took, how police were notified and what happened after the immediate threat was ended.
Thank you for your response, but again, only answer if you will not be putting yourself under additional threat, legal or physical.
|
Current time is 04:57 am | |
|
