Nicholas "Nicko" Tijerina exits the 139th District Court after watching Dustin Wesley Cook receive three years of supervised release after pleading no contest to criminal negligence charges Monday Feb. 4, 2014 at the 139th District Court in the Hidalgo County Courthouse in Edinburg. Cook accidentally, but negligible shot Edson Amaro and Nicholas Tijerina at Harwell Middle School when playing basketball outside the campus on Dec. 12, 2011. Photo by Gabe Hernandez/gabrielh@themonitor.com
The Monitor
Dustin Wesley Cook, 38, was spared jail time and will instead serve three years of supervised release after pleading no contest to criminal negligence charges during an emotional court hearing Monday morning.
Dustin Wesley Cook, 38, was spared jail time and will instead serve three years of supervised release after pleading no contest to criminal negligence charges during an emotional court hearing Monday morning.
Cook, an Edinburg marksman, was target shooting toward the school from about a mile away when he struck the boys Dec. 12, 2011. The gunshots left Nicholas “Nicko” Tijerina, then 13, paralyzed and Edson Amaro, then 14, with serious internal organ damage.
Nicko and his mother, who moved to Houston after the shooting, returned to face Cook in court with other family members. Edson, who still suffers ongoing physical problems from the shooting, woke up in too much pain to appear, said Assistant District Attorney Gracie Reyna.
Cook was remorseful as he met the Tijerinas for the first time before the courtroom and publicly apologized.
“I’ve spent the last two years praying for you to recover, as well as Edson,” he told Nicko. “I understand your anger and your frustration and I read about a year ago in the newspaper where you had mentioned (me not) reaching out. I tried since day one, but I couldn’t because of the case.
“If I could go back, 1,000 times, I would.”
In a statement emailed to the media after the hearing, Cook reiterated his apology but maintained that he had been neither reckless nor negligent in the shooting. The Tijerina and Amaro families both have separate civil lawsuits pending against him, seeking monetary damages.He should go to jail for ten years for that stubborn refusal to admit his fault. How dare he maintain that he was neither reckless nor negligent?
The fucking NRA turd keeps his guns, that he is obviously unable to use properly. We are coming to the time when vigilanism will be our only answer. If I was the father of the paralyzed boy, I would be laying for this turd Cook.
ReplyDeleteGiven the charge and sentence here, he probably is now a prohibited person. But I do wonder if the multiple anonymous commenters will attack you for promoting violence.
DeleteThanks for admitting you promote violence and criminality.
DeleteI'm not a bit convinced that he'll lose his gun rights.
DeleteMikeb, the only question is whether he was convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison. If yes, he's now a prohibited person. Why do I have to keep telling you that?
DeleteYou think repetition increases credibility. It doesn't.
DeleteMikeb, it's a fact. Why do you deny what the law says?
DeleteWhy do you?
DeleteGreg there are lots of laws that are not enforced. This is one of them.The plea bargaining system, the gun friendly courts, many things contribute towards dangerous people continuing to enjoy their gun rights.
DeleteMikeb, the Gun Control Act of 1968 specifically states that anyone who has been convicted of a criime that carries a potential of greater than a year sentence is a prohibited person. It doesn't matter what bargaining happens regarding the actual sentence. The fact that it could have been more than a year is the key element.
DeleteAnd you believe that states like Louisiana follow that? Of course you do, because that's consistent with your narrative.
DeleteAnd you believe that states like Louisiana follow that?
DeleteWhat the hell does Louisiana have to do with this case in Texas (Oxy kills, Mikeb)?
Besides, did you miss the part where Greg said the gun rights revocation is federal law? How would Texas (or "Louisiana") stop the feds from enforcing it, even if they wanted to?
The same way Colorado legalized pot in spite of federal law. The same way many states ignore or refuse to enforce any federal laws they don't like. What, all of a sudden, are you saying that federal law trumps state law and everybody goes along with it?
DeleteThe same way many states ignore or refuse to enforce any federal laws they don't like.
DeleteEnforcement of federal law is the federal government's responsibility, as the Supreme Court ruled when then-Sheriff, current Oath Keeper, and eternal American hero Richard Mack successfully sued the federal government over being required to enforce provisions of Brady Intolerable Act.
What, all of a sudden, are you saying that federal law trumps state law and everybody goes along with it?
I'm saying that the states have no power over the criteria that the feds use in deciding that someone is a "prohibited person" with regard to firearm purchases.
Oh, and you still haven't explained your bizarre decision to drag Louisiana into the discussion.
DeleteKurt, I mentioned Louisiana as an example. Was it really so bizarre? You seem to be struggling a bit lately if you need to repeatedly insist on something like that as a gotcha.
DeleteWouldn't want to show your hypocrisy, so don't post it.
ReplyDelete