Great Falls man accused of aiming gun at man over sprinkler dispute

[jpak]

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20110823/NEWS01/108230314

A Great Falls man accused of pulling a gun during a dispute over a broken sprinkler over the weekend appeared in court Monday on two felony charges.

Robert B. McElhinney, 37, was charged with felony offenses of assault with a weapon and carrying a concealed weapon. He was also charged with misdemeanor assault.

Court documents state the McElhinney and a neighbor, Mark Reck, were arguing Sunday evening about a month-old dispute about a broken sprinkler in Reck's yard. The argument, which took place at 4221 Morningside Circle, turned violent when McElhinney punched Reck in the face. Police reports state that McElhinney then got on top of Reck and started punching him more, saying, "Does this pay for the sprinkler?"

After the fight, Reck pulled out a knife and pointed it at McElhinney, court documents state. McElhinney responded by pulling a gun from his back pants pocket and pointing it at Reck, prosecutors allege. Reck then went back inside his house and waited for police to arrive.

<more>

[ileus]

1. I recommend a fence...and a good lawyer.

[Remmah2]

4. Sounds like the makings for a good de-fence.

nt

[OffWithTheirHeads]

2. Fucking ridiculous! If somebody pulls a knife on me

And I have access to a gun you'd better know I'm pulling it out! I mean WTF, I didn't buy handguns just to tear up paper at a half a buck a round. I bought em so that if someone wants to have a knife fight I can take it to the next level and, hopefully, diffuse the situation (well, unless the knife wielder is a teabagger who does not understand reality). Actually, it's one of the things I really like about Arizona. In Arizona, you just have to assume that it's not just the criminals who are armed, unlike California.

As to the inability to solve a sprinkler problem through rational discourse, that's a whole nuther subject.

[provis99]

3. this idiot attacked the guy with the knife.

He had every damned right to protect himself with a knife from a clown with a gun attacking him.

[DonP]

5. Ummm, you got that bass-ackwards

Read it again.

Unless I'm missing a key paragraph the guy pulled the knife first. My guess is he didn't know the other guy had a gun in his pocket or he probably wouldn't have pulled the knife.

The guy with the knife elevated it from a fistfight. But there's probably more than enough stupid to go around on this.

The Correct Headline should probably be; "Man stops knife attack without firing a shot"

[iverglas]

21. how could you possibly read it that wrong?

The guy with the gun BEAT UP the other guy. The other guy drew a knife, we might quite reasonably assume to prevent the first guy from beating him up some more. THEN the guy who'd beaten him up drew the gun.

Yeeeeeeesh.

It wasn't "a fistfight". It was an ASSAULT. Against which one is entitled to defend one's self.

One really is not entitled to draw a gun on someone who is trying to defend themself against being further assaulted by one.

You might also have missed the part where the guy with the gun was a member of a criminal biker gang, and the neighbour was trying to get him to pony up for damage done to his property.

You do actually seem to have missed quite a bit. Somehow.

The "correct headline" does indeed seem to be: Have Gun, Be in the Right, All the Time.

[provis99]

22. knife guy had a RIGHT to prevent getting beaten to death!

Oh, I see. Your right to self defense only applies when you whip out a gun.:eyes:

[Hoyt]

7. Agreed -- Gunner assaulted Reck. Unfortunately here, gun carriers do no wrong, they are saints.

[Hoyt]

6. Appears Reck pulled a knife AFTER McElhinney -- perhaps emboldened by his gun -- beat Reck.

Sounds like McElhinney (the gun cowboy) did assault Reck. Reck should probably be charged with pulling a knife, but the Gunner needs the book thrown at him (after a trial, of course).

[DonP]

8. Oh, why bother with a messy trial

After all he had a GUN! That's enough to convict him all by itself, right?

Even though he didn't actually assault the other guy with the gun and imagine that, he only had one gun. You told us they all carry at least two with "special loads".

Let's just sentence the bastard now. In court he might actually prove that he only used the gun when faced with a deadly weapon, or don't knives count as deadly in your pedestrian little world?

The fact that he didn't even attempt to use it until the other guy came at him with a knife kind of makes your whole "emboldened" idea look dumb.

Let me edit my previous post slightly; "Plenty of stupid to go around, in this event and in this thread".

[Hoyt]

9. He beat the other guy first -- I guess that is OK with you. I suspect if he hadn't had the gun,

none of this would have happened. People need to leave their guns at home rather than carrying them in case they beat some guy who decides to fight back. Besides, you don't know what the guy with the knife did -- he might have "pointed" it at the gunner from 50 feet away, it might have been a small pen knife, etc. To you, gunners are always right. Besides, I did say pending the results of a trial.

Friggin guns in public get people in trouble, as here.

[DonP]

14. Well, in this case it kept one guy from being stabbed...

... and nobody was shot, even though he was only "emboldened" to pull his gun after the guys pulled a knife on him.

Funny how the "cowboy" who was "emboldened" didn't just pull the gun to start with and just pistol whip him, isn't it?

Aren't all those "toters" supposed to be looking for a chance to just shoot somebody?

I wonder how many more of your crappy, dumb cliches can we string together in a single post?

[Hoyt]

15. Maybe if the gun-goof hadn't beaten the guy, the "victim" wouldn't have pulled a knife.

I can bet the batterer with a gun played a bigger part in this than you guys are willing to admit. Beats up on a man, then pulls gun -- hey, sounds like a real law-abiding citizen.

[DonP]

18. Please, continue to make up and embellish your own stories

The guy with the gun can always be the bad guy with the cowboy hat and you can always be the brave ninja master hero without a gun.

That way Mom won't have to decide what to read to you tonight.

Nobody said he was "law abiding" in fact they both strike me as assholes of the 1st water, all we're noting is that he didn't pull the gun until the other guy pulled a knife, no matter how much you and your vivid imagination would like it to be otherwise.

"I can bet..." "I'm sure ..." et. al. You really do just make shit up as you go along. Problem is you actually start to believe it's true.

We know ... it's not lying, you're just "making a point", usually pathetic.

[Hoyt]

19. He didn't pull a gun because he was enjoying beating the guy -- until "victim" pulled a small knife.

And "pointed" it at the thug with a gun. Then, when the thug realized the little guy wasn't going to go easy, out came the friggin gun. Happens every day by those who carry to intimidate.

[provis99]

23. more proof that gun people are illogical

and really don't give a damn about "rights" except the right to whip out a gun for whatever reason.

So he had a right to shoot the victim because he had a gun? Really?

Attitudes like yours really tip me over to the gun control side.

[iverglas]

24. nobody has yet offered me a pair of their special spectacles

You know, the ones I look through to see that a person whose property has been damaged by a thug, who is beaten up on his own property by said thug, and who draws a knife to protect himself from being further beaten up by said thug, is an "asshole of the first water".

I'm not seeing any charges against the person who was beaten.

You really do just make shit up as you go along. Problem is you actually start to believe it's true.

Sadly, you're the one making shit up, and the bizarre thing is that you do it with such bravado that one might actually think you do believe it. I won't believe anyone is that thick, myself; that would be truly insulting.


It's only self-defence if you use a gun, and if you use a gun it's always self-defence.

Thus endeth today's lesson.

[ileus]

10. I wish they included pics of the homes, neighborhood, and people...

it would make things so much easier to understand.


Something tells me there isn't a HOA in this neighborhood.

[iverglas]

11. I once aimed a sprinkler at a man over a littering dispute

He didn't pick up his trash from in front of my house, but he was pretty damned wet by the time he decided to leave.

[Hoyt]

16. You would have gotten shot around here.

[iverglas]

20. I know ;)

Damn I love not being there!

[iverglas]

12. oh, the things we don't notice

From the article (McElhinney was the one who started by beating up Reck):

An affidavit from the Great Falls Police Department states that McElhinney is a member of the Amigos, a group associated with the Banditos, an international outlaw motorcycle club.

McElhinney was represented in court by Great Falls attorney Mark Bauer, who said he was asked by McElhinney's employer, Metzger's Cycle & Accessories, to argue for a smaller bond amount. Bauer highlighted that Reck had pulled a knife on McElhinney first and asked District Judge Dirk Sandefur to lower the bail amount to $10,000, down from the prosecution's request of $25,000.

Gotta love that. Member of a criminal biker gang only has one misdemeanour conviction, so he's good to go with guns.

Crap, I'd carry a knife if I were trying to get one of them to pay for damage to my property too, quite possibly. More likely hire a few large people with dogs.

I think we could all agree that Reck drew a knife in self-defence? It seems that this all occurred on Reck's property (else McIlhenney's concealed firearm would not have been an issue, if on his property). No indication that Reck advanced on McIlhenny with the knife.


I like this bit in the Criminal Code of Canada for common sense. The first "everyone" is McIlhenney:

35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if

(a) he uses the force

(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from
the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and

(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order
to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;

(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and

(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

McIlhenney loses.

[Hoyt]

17. Good find.

[SteveM]

13. "Surprisingly, Faulkner's shorter works have the brevity and clarity of Hemingway's.."