Mark P. Ragsdale, who shot and wounded a Shrewsbury police officer last year, has filed a civil suit seeking a new license to carry a firearm...
According to Shrewsbury police reports, Officers Rice and R. Ryan Chartrand were let into the home by a neighbor around 2:30 a.m. to investigate a burglar alarm. The officers were not aware Mr. Ragsdale was home when they entered. Mr. Ragsdale had told the alarm company he set off the alarm. The officers did not announce themselves when they entered the home.
A report by Detective Lt. Daniel G. Sklut said Mr. Ragsdale armed himself with a .380-caliber handgun when the alarm went off. “Mark Ragsdale stated that he could hear someone coming up the stairs toward his bedroom,” Lt. Sklut’s report said. “He stated that the hallway was in complete darkness and he saw a dark figure and discharged his firearm. He then heard someone yell “police.” Mark Ragsdale stated that he never said anything or challenged the figure, he just fired. When he heard someone yell “police” he immediately dropped the gun and went into a prone position.
So the chief won't give permission to carry a firearm now out of what, revenge? What's the problem here, aside from negligent private residence entry procedures on the part of law enforcement? It sounds like a training issue that points its finger back at his department more than anything else.
The fact that Ragsdale had been in a bar until the wee hours--reported here to make it sound like he's a morning drinker (and the report even stated he was only "moderately under the influence")--could apply to any number of Citizens, and even to "Only Ones," certainly known to congregate at "cop bars" when off duty (and sometimes when on).
There's so much innuendo and so little substance in this "report." There's no mistaking where the sympathies of the "Authorized Journalists" lie in this hit piece. And as for the former chief claiming there was enough evidence to bring charges, sorry, pal. The grand jury thought not, and the prosecutor declined to resubmit the case. That means Ragsdale's presumed innocent in the eyes of the law--you know, all those words that gave you an excuse to draw a salary for all those years.
It also sounds like everybody's going after Ragsdale due to chemical imbalance symptoms of diabetes that can be managed with insulin--it's easy for a disgruntled ex-employee to make charges of "violent mood swings," but one must ask: where's the actual violence? Were reports made? Were charges filed? If this stands, can it be used to deny self defense rights to all diabetics? Perhaps he can add an Americans With Disabilities complaint to his lawsuit...
And no, I'm not suddenly advocating licensing of rights. I just don't think the "authorities" ought to be able to abuse the law to reward or punish based on personal agendas, which is what I'm reading here, in spite of the best efforts of Scott J. Croteau and the "TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF" to mask it.