The Shooting of Hansel Hunterson
The Shooting of Hansel Hunterson
The shooting of Hansel Hunterson has developed considerable controversy especially on the constitutional, philosophical, and procedural issues as far as the case is concerned. In the Tunetown News, we seek to deliver a clear, credible, and free analysis of the shooting through the reporting standards applicable to criminal justice. It is by no means any bipartisan or bias to the facts delivered on the nature of the shooting. By the accounts of the incident, Hansel was shot by a police officer, Mr. Wolf and later died consequently. The shooting took place a short distance from the Witchtown playground, in the backyard of a house near an alleyway bordering another home. The officer drew his gun and fired at Hansel, immediately the deceased tried to reach his pockets of his jacket following the pursuit by the officer from the playground.
Hansen was a 20-year-old young man, a resident of Witchtown. He was not of normal stature as he had delayed development and could only function as a five-year old. He had a large stocky frame and appeared disheveled apart from the rambling walk that was synonymous. A large part of his life was spent at a school that had residential boarding premise. His communication was not coherent as it was slow. It had to take closer attention to understand him at any given time. Majority of the residents in the town did not know much of him, while any interaction was limited throughout. His parents and educators advocated for his independence in smaller tasks such as grooming and dressing, as means of encouraging his confidence and aiding the development. Therefore, Hansel needed closer attention and patience when dealing with him, not as any other normal person would.
Witchtown Police Department had within the time of the shooting received various burglary reports from the residents. Most of the accounts of attempted and successful burglaries in the neighborhood were from the houses’ backyards. The windows that faced the premise provided the entry routes. One victim took it upon himself to confront a suspected burglar. Upon the burglar drawing a large knife from his jacket, the victim fled for dear life as he feared the worst. The description provided for the burglar was the large frame, on his build, and that he was armed and dangerous. Through the descriptive information obtained by the police, caution had been stated especially on the frequency of the incidents and the possibility of physical altercation in the process. It was therefore a critical cause of action when it came to handling any suspects of the reported burglaries in the neighborhood.
One of the main talking points that should be considered from the shooting incident is the conflicting interests of both parties involved. On one hand, Hansel had lost his way when he found himself near the town’s playground. When he tried to ask for direction to the store, the contact persons as the time could not understand him as they did not know of his condition. From his large build and disheveled look, one of the persons at the playground decided to call the police. On the other hand, Officer Wolf’s approach to the issue was in concern to the safety measures following the burglary incidents that had been reported in the neighborhood. The only positive description that he had seen through Hansel’s appearance was his large body structure. In addition, after apprehending Hansel, the reaching into his pocket of the jacket was also suspect at the house’s backyard.
On the constitutional mandate of criminal justice, the handling of the suit filed by Hansel’s parents did not follow due diligence. The local district attorney had secretly formed a jury to decide on the conviction to place on the officer. Wolf, on the other hand had not been notified on the jury’s formation and existence. In addition, there was no representation at any of the proceedings from his side to the case. The judge assigned to the case did not meet the set guidelines on the proceedings for the charges (Worral & Moore, 2013). After the jury’s conviction of manslaughter to Officer Wolf, the judge dismissed the charges. The district attorney claimed that the judge did not know anything about the real world and was soft on the crime for their part in the conviction. In return, the judge pointed out that the suspect’s constitutional rights had been violated while the law enforcement was wrong on their use of power to obtain conviction.
With the impasse between the district attorney and the judge, it is also worthy to look at further insight into the case. A witness to the confrontation between Officer Wolf and the deceased had been approached to provide a statement to the case. As was customary, they had to empty their pockets, once in the station. Her later conviction of illegal distribution of a controlled substance was appealed based on violations to her constitutional rights. In the build up to the case on Hansel Hunterson’s shooting, different perspectives, show a serious lack of professionalism, philosophical, constitutional, ethical, and procedural approach to the issue. Hansel’s death is a wakeup call.
Worral, J. L., & Moore, J. L. (2013). Criminal law and procedure. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
We have the capacity, through our dedicated team of writers, to complete an order similar to this. In addition, our customer support team is always on standby, which ensures we are in touch with you before, during and after the completion of the paper. Go ahead, place your order now, and experience our exquisite service.
Use the order calculator below to get an accurate quote for your order. Contact our live support team for any further inquiry. Thank you for making BrilliantTermpapers the custom essay services provider of your choice.