22 January 2008

KingCast says NH AG's office always lets cold-blooded killers of little people off easy. Remember Richard Labbe killing Thung Phetakoune?

Oh, yah Labbe brutally killed Mr. Phetakoune, a Laotion, and told a police officer investigating the crime,
"[Referring to the Vietnam War] What's going on is that those Asians killed Americans and you won't do anything about it so I will."

The plea bargain down to manslaughter even dismissed the hate crime charge. This despite their own press release reads:
"It is alleged that Richard Labbe made disparaging remarks about Thung Phetakoune's race or national origin before and after Richard Labbe assaulted Thung Phetakoune."
So giving Floyd a hero's welcome for killing Liko Kenney, that's par for the course.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

i remember. didn't think you were even born then.
since floyd's appearance and outburst in court on 12/28/07, is there reasonable concern in the community that this man continues to be in possession of guns? should there be some urgency in removing guns from a felon?

Christopher King said...

Glad you asked that.

Every day I telephone the U.S. Attorney's office as noted herein.

I will call them twice tomorrow because the record indicates that Floyd is a repeat offender on 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) in violation of U.S. v. Ruckman:

Ordinarily, an individual is considered to constructively possess an item when he or she knowingly holds the power and ability to exercise dominion and control over the property. See United States v. Carter, 130 F.3d 1432, 1441 (10th Cir. 1997).

In situations involving joint occupancy, such as here, more is required to establish constructive possession than dominion and control. "To prove constructive possession where there is joint occupancy, the government must present direct or circumstantial evidence to show some connection or nexus individually linking [defendant] to the [firearms.]"

United States v. Lazcano-Villalobos, 175 F.3d 838, 843 (10th Cir. 1999). The requisite nexus is established where there is some evidence to support the plausible inference that defendant had knowledge of and access to the firearms. See id.; United States v. Mills, 29 F.3d 545, 550 (10th Cir. 1994). We review the district court's interpretation of the guidelines de novo, and its factual findings for clear error, giving due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts. See United States v. Brown, 314 F.3d 1216, 1222 (10th Cir. 2003).

Christopher King said...

BTW Ruckman is good law.

Cert den. 538 U.S. 967, 123 S. Ct. 1764, 155 L. Ed. 2d 523, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 2831, 71 U.S.L.W. 3639 (2003)