Montana murder suspect charged for 2013 Ten Sleep Canyon shooting

Ok, everyone but Mark sucks. I have to concede that I'm not sure about the severity of the climber's injuries.

Steve Pulver wrote: Also, why would you need to use to use George Zimmerman, the Arizona college shooting, ISIS, the number of gun deaths in the US, etc. as a counterpoint when you have this guy?

My thought exactly...the climber was essentially ambushed outside his tent in the middle of the night; he never saw the intruder. Kind of hard to make the argument that having more people carrying would've prevented this.

Of course you love government: "More Brits are living off benefits today than at any other time since the establishment of the welfare state. Many claimants have spent longer on benefits than in work. Some have never known what it is to have a job and others have found that work simply does not p
ay." Why worry about government when it's the hand that feeds you?</quote

Yes its really bad a country/government that try's to looks after its sick and poor... Hard luck for the USA . PS I've probably been a US citizen about as long as yourself TK
A plus for the US is we have for the moment a President with a brain.

For those of us that have difficulty following the story, here's a recap:

The MP/OP:
mountainproject.com/v/climb…

The victims reply:
mountainproject.com/v/ten-s…

Having a brain doesn't mean knowing how to use it.
There are numerous private organizations here in the US that provide help to our poor and studies have found these resources help the indigent more effectively than any government entity can.

theadvocates.org/effective-…

Tom-onator wrote:For those of us that have difficulty following the story, here's a recap: The MP/OP: mountainproject.com/v/climb… The victims reply: mountainproject.com/v/ten-s… Having a brain doesn't mean knowing how to use it. There are numerous private organizations here in the US that provide help to our poor and studies have found these resources help the indigent more effectively than any government entity can. theadvocates.org/effective-…

Yes thanks to the current President

Steve Pulver wrote:Uh.... you read people's opinion's without reading the story? (He is charged with killing the parents of a family that stopped to help him this summer, his excuse was they were taking too long) I'm not sure, but it appears some of the commenters have strong opinions about a story they never read. I'd say this story is good news, in that I figured the original Wyoming shooting would never be solved. Also, in the article, the climber was shot in the chest not the arm. My memory of the original story was that he barely survived. Also, in the article, no mention that any of the people that died were climbers. Also, why would you need to use to use George Zimmerman, the Arizona college shooting, ISIS, the number of gun deaths in the US, etc. as a counterpoint when you have this guy? Bottom line, Jesus should never have been allowed to have a gun, and all you guys suck

I read about this sometime ago on the Climbing website and was mistaken in my belief that the climber had died. I did see that Jesus was charged with murder but that was a separate incident.
Not sure why this should be cause for animosity and insults, but whatever.

My point about Zimmerman is that he was not a drug addicted psycho like Jesus but a "regular citizen" who used his guns to "defend himself". He is the type of person that makes the concept of everyone packing a gun somewhat unnerving

Steve Pulver wrote:Ok, everyone but Mark sucks.

I don't want to seem like a jerk,

but I suck too!

(you were probably talking about a different Mark anyway...)

jason.cre wrote: I could be wrong as I dont follow too closely, but I am under the impression that there is pretty strong empirical evidence that states with stronger gun "laws" (or restrictions, or whatever we call it) have far less incidences of gun violence.

Lookup the stats for Chicago and D.C.

Most MPrs are too intelligent to post in this thread. My hat's off to them. To the posters who are grateful for the bill of rights, why even argue with someone who'd rather live without civil rights and the responsibility to protect them?

Stagg54 wrote: this strikes me as a rather adsurd statement. I'm sure that it's true, but who actually thinks a criminal who wants a gun will go through legal means? What does that law actually do other than disarm law-abiding citizens? Any half-smart criminal isn't going to go through all the paperwork and background checks. A. they probably wouldn't pass and B. even if they did, there would be a paper trail...

This is always specious logic. This is akin (in many ways) to "we shouldn't make it more difficult to commit murders, since people really set on doing it aren't going to be deterred". The point is not to deter the hardened, committed killer. The point is to deter the startup operations. More stringent gun laws do exactly that.

Most guns used in crimes were originally purchased legally. I heard (though I can't back it up) that most guns used in Chicago are purchased legally in Iowa. So the problem is not that the laws aren't strict enough, it's that they aren't uniform enough. If it's easy to go find a willing gun store a few hours away, then of course the guns will flow in.

Brian Scoggins wrote: . So the problem is not that the laws aren't strict enough, it's that they aren't uniform enough.

typical liberalism - "It's not that what we are doing is wrong. We just haven't been allowed to do enough of it."

Stagg54 wrote: typical liberalism - "It's not that what we are doing is wrong. We just haven't been allowed to do enough of it."

If you've a solution for the problem of guns getting into the hands of mentally unstable individuals in society, then let's hear it. I'm opposed to gun violence. I'm also opposed to excessive regulation of the populace. To make matters worse, I'm opposed to actively ignoring the folks in our communities who are obviously mentally deranged.

These problems don't fix themselves by escalation (let's arm everyone!), disregard (I've seen no shootings in my town, so not my problem), or by panic (take everyone's guns away!).

Insults do far less then any of those non-solutions.

Stagg54 wrote: typical liberalism - "It's not that what we are doing is wrong. We just haven't been allowed to do enough of it."

Not what I'm arguing for, but whatever.

I assume you lock your door at night. A locked door is a pretty effective deterrent. It will stop most thieves, because most thieves want an easy score.

The problem is that each state is not a separate house on the block, so if Illinois doesn't want guns in, they need the cooperation of other states.

In this analogy, it's akin to your roommate leaving the door unlocked all the time, because his freedom is more important than your security, even after you've been robbed repeatedly, by people he brought by.

mtc wrote:Most MPrs are too intelligent to post in this thread. My hat's off to them. To the posters who are grateful for the bill of rights, why even argue with someone who'd rather live without civil rights and the responsibility to protect them?

Since you posted to this thread, is it implied that you are not intelligent?

Gun issues are complex and obviously emotionally charged but it's a shame that any discussion about guns always deteriorates nto insults and oversimplifications

Sam Byrne wrote: If you've a solution for the problem of guns getting into the hands of mentally unstable individuals in society, then let's hear it. I'm opposed to gun violence. I'm also opposed to excessive regulation of the populace. To make matters worse, I'm opposed to actively ignoring the folks in our communities who are obviously mentally deranged. These problems don't fix themselves by escalation (let's arm everyone!), disregard (I've seen no shootings in my town, so not my problem), or by panic (take everyone's guns away!). Insults do far less then any of those non-solutions.

Good points!

Gotta wonder if anyone actually read the article, or even gives a sh*t about what actually happened. And no, I'm not the least bit interested in arguing about your gun philosophy.

WORLAND — The suspect in the July double-murder near Pryor, Mont., has been charged in connection with a 2013 shooting in Ten Sleep Canyon.

Jesus Yeizon Deniz was formerly charged with attempted second degree murder in Washakie County Circuit Court in Worland late Friday afternoon. Deniz is currently in the custody of the United States Marshal Service.

Charging documents allege that during the early morning hours of Sept. 16, 2013, emergency room staff at Washakie Medical Center in Worland notified law enforcement that a gunshot victim had visited the ER.

When authorities arrived, they discovered Jose Luis Mosquera Araujo and Ana Deaconu. Araujo and Deaconu were visiting from Ecuador and were camping in Ten Sleep Canyon.

Both Araujo and Deaconu told authorities that at about 2 a.m. that morning, they were in their tent and heard something fall on their tent. They opened the tent, looked outside and saw a small tree branch. Deaconu told law enforcement that a short time later, they heard another tree branch.

Upon exiting the tent, they heard the sound of a gunshot and Araujo felt like he had been hit with something. Both parties said that they thought they saw headlights but initially thought it was reflections from their headlamps.

Araujo and Deaconu then left the canyon to visit the ER. Araujo survived the shooting after suffering a chest wound. After conducting an investigation, the case went cold for two years.

A cold case warms

At approximately 10 a.m. July 29 of this year, Crow Indian Reservation Dispatch received a report of a shooting in Pryor, Mont. Deniz was subsequently arrested near Meeteetse after allegedly shooting and killing Jason and Tana Shane along with wounding their daughter Jorah.

After being apprehended, federal court documents allege, Deniz (who was parked on the side of the road after running out of gas) admitted to agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he killed Jason and Tana Shane after they stopped to help him. Deniz’ alleged motive was that they were taking too long and that their daughter laughed at him.

According to the Washakie County affidavit of probable cause, while being interviewed by the FBI, Deniz admitted to the 2013 Ten Sleep Canyon shooting.

On Aug. 6, 2015, FBI Agent Paul Swenson interviewed Deniz regarding the Montana shooting. During the interview, Swenson asked Deniz if he had done anything similar before.

“Jesus immediately responded with, ‘I don’t want to say,’” the affidavit alleges.

When asked what happened, Deniz allegedly told Swenson and another investigating agent of a shooting he committed near Ten Sleep.

“I was driving and saw a car, tried to get them out of the tent and I shot him,” Deniz said, adding that he used the same .22 rifle to commit the 2013 shooting that he allegedly used in the Montana shooting.

Deniz continued, “I shot him. I heard him cry out in pain. Then, when I was driving back to Worland, I saw them pass me. He was holding his hand there. I was like ‘OK.’ Back then, I was fiending (craving drugs) bad. I needed money and that was the only quick way I could get money.”

Deniz told authorities that he did not take any money during the incident and immediately regretted shooting Araujo.

Deniz said he needed money for drugs.

The affidavit concludes, “[B]y Jesus’ own admission, he was the person who shot Jose Araujo the morning of Sept. 16, 201,3 due to the fact that Jesus knew specific details of the case such as where the shooting happened, luring Jose and Ana out of the tent, shooting Jose and leaving in a panic, and knowing the vehicle which was driven by Ana and Jose on the way to the hospital. These specific details were never released to the media or the public.”

In the coming days, Deniz will be formerly served with the Washakie County charges, but he may never see the inside of a Washakie County Courtroom.

That’s because if Deniz is convicted for the murder charges, the mandatory minimum sentence is life imprisonment and federal jurisdiction takes precedent over state jurisdiction, according to Washakie County John Worrall. If he is found innocent, Deniz will then face charges in Washakie County for the shooting. The maximum penalty for attempted second degree murder is 20 years imprisonment, a fine of $10,000 or both.

Deniz is also facing the death penalty for the Montana murder charges.

A trial date for the federal murder charges has not been set.

Brian Scoggins wrote: Not what I'm arguing for, but whatever. I assume you lock your door at night. A locked door is a pretty effective deterrent. It will stop most thieves, because most thieves want an easy score. The problem is that each state is not a separate house on the block, so if Illinois doesn't want guns in, they need the cooperation of other states. In this analogy, it's akin to your roommate leaving the door unlocked all the time, because his freedom is more important than your security, even after you've been robbed repeatedly, by people he brought by.

that is a valid analogy. I think that gets to the heart of the debate. Which takes priority - your roommate's freedom or your safety. in the roommate situation the resolution is rather simple. You can kick your roommate out or move. Unfortunately that doesn't translate well into the gun control argument. Although one can move from a state with lax gun laws into one with tougher gun laws. Again as you stated above that doesn't completely solve the problem.

ddriver wrote:Gotta wonder if anyone actually read the article, or even gives a sh*t about what actually happened.

You're right. In typical MP fashion, this thread quickly drifted off subject and into pointless political debate. (Myself included).

My sympathy to the victims and their families. A truly sad story and a crazy world....

cragman2 wrote: You're right. In typical MP fashion, this thread quickly drifted off subject and into pointless political debate. (Myself included). My sympathy to the victims and their families. A truly sad story and a crazy world....

I'm sorry you see this discussion as pointless. I feel quite the opposite.
I enjoy hearing and reading others' thoughts on this issue.

Zac.St.Jules wrote: I'm sorry you see this discussion as pointless. I feel quite the opposite. I enjoy hearing and reading others' thoughts on this issue.

Pointless was probably a poor choice of words. I actually find the discussion of gun violence and gun regulations to be interesting and quite important.
It is just that, in my experience, these types of debates go on endlessly with no chance of swaying anyone's opinion.