San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas

February 4th, 2009
Armed suspect charged in SWAT case

STAFF REPORT

KYLE – Fernando Martinez, the subject of an armed standoff requiring the intervention of Hays County SWAT officers Tuesday, has been charged with two counts of aggravated assault on a public servant, a first degree felony.

The charge is in addition to the multiple charges he faces in the City of Arlington, Dallas County and pending federal narcotics and weapon violations.

SWAT officers had to subdue Martinez after an armed standoff that lasted more than three hours Tuesday. SWAT officers apprehended Martinez after shooting him with a beanbag gun and a taser as he exited the mobile home he occupied near Goforth Road while armed.

Afterwards, Martinez was taken to Central Texas Medical Center for non-life threatening injuries.

Martinez, 36, is currently in the Hays County Corrections Facility, with bond set at $750,000. That figure takes into account violations in Arlington and Dallas County. If convicted, he could face five to 99 years in prison.

Law enforcement officers apprehended Martinez at approximately 1:45 p.m. Tuesday after he held them off for approximately three hours. He was wanted for narcotics and weapons violations.

“He doesn’t appear to be injured,” Hays County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) spokesman Sgt. Leroy Opiela said after the apprehension. “We’re taking him to the hospital as a precaution.”

At about 10:40 a.m. Tuesday, federal agents from the United States Marshals and the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco attempted to enforce a search warrant at 300 Joe Robinson Road in the Creekside Landing Subdivision. An unnamed man met the officials outside when a shot was fired from within the mobile home, directing the federal agents to call for back up. Hays County SWAT and negotiation teams made it to the scene “shortly after.”

Negotiators were unable to convince Martinez to surrender after he completely cut-off all communication.

Opiela said the unnamed person involved was expected to provide a statement to the HCSO. At last report, officers were still on scene conducting an investigation.

Hays CISD ran all buses as usual from Science Hall Elementary School, Chapa Middle School and Lehman High School, except to homes on Joe Robinson Road. School officials asked parents of children living on Joe Robinson Road to pick up their children. For those parents who couldn’t make the trip because the roads were blocked off, school officials kept the children at school and maintained communication with the parents.

Parents who asked Hays CISD to not drop off their children on streets near Joe Robinson Road were asked to pick up their children from school.

Science Hall Elementary after school programs, as well as Chapa and Lehman athletic events, were to occur as scheduled.

Email Email | Print Print

--

0 thoughts on “Armed suspect charged in SWAT case

  1. I wonder what the likelihood was that Martinez was going to harm anyone — was there any evidence that non-consensual harm had occurred or would occur? Can we reasonably assume that such harm would have occurred merely because he owned property that the state, in its infinite wisdom, considers too dangerous for human beings to possess? I submit that if no one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was going to initiate harm against someone, then there was no legitimate reason to deprive him of his liberty or his property; in which case, he was engaged in self-defense (self-defense against the state is no doubt an utterly alien concept to most). If there was no legitimate reason to deprive him of liberty and property, then Hays County, including the officers involved in the incident, engaged in theft and slavery. Compounding this possible injustice is the fact that everyone has been forced to subsidize it. If anyone can come forward and give evidence that Martinez was going to harm them or theirs, then the state was engaged in preemption — but those making that claim bear the burden of proving it. Otherwise, all those in favor of using deadly force against Martinez in the absence of a victim or probable future victim — all they can do is cite law, which, as history proves abundantly, really has nothing to do with determining what is ethical. In a society that truly valued life, liberty, and property, those who thought Martinez was a threat to them would themselves assume the cost of attacking him, whether that meant hiring someone else or grabbing a weapon and doing it themselves. Whether human beings in any great numbers will ever value freedom and personal responsibility to that extent is highly doubtful. I value it that highly, which is why I don’t initiate violence against people I know have engaged in “narcotics and weapon violations.”

  2. Iskander, Dude, can you even read? The US Marshal’s and BATF where there to serve a search warrant on a wanted man. A shot was fired in the home which prompted SWAT.

  3. Evil For-Profit Business Owner, I read the same staff report you did. I propound a view that is unorthodox to say the least, so I try to be very understanding when people misunderstand me. I’m adhering to the non-aggression principle according to which it is unethical to initiate violence against a person or his/her property. I’ll try and sum up what I said before: Just because a government or a majority of people think it is alright to use initiatory force to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property does not make it alright. I think self-defense and anticipatory self-defense constitute circumstances where force can be legitimately used, but initiating violence (aggression or its equivalent, prevention) unethical and immoral. Because one cannot determine what is ethical by resorting to legal arguments, it really never matters what the law of the land is. From this it follows that it doesn’t matter what uniform the guys with the guns and body armor who captured Martinez wore, nor does their belief that they thought they were using force for a legitimate reason completely absolve them of their crime (assuming an absence of evidence that Martinez had attacked or would probably attack someone). The real question is, was it ethical for them and the residents they are, in theory, representing, to have initiated violence against Martinez to deprive him of his liberty and property? Unless somebody can come forward with evidence that Martinez had or was very probably going to initiate violence against someone, an injustice has occurred, subsidized by all of us. Evil For-Profit Business Owner, if you had to bear the full costs of initiating force instead of benefiting from a system that socializes such costs, you might think twice about initiating force against people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:)