Truman Index

Kirksville soldier killed in Iraq

Published: Thursday, September 2, 2010

Updated: Thursday, September 2, 2010 01:09

A Kirksville resident was killed Aug. 22 in Basrah, Iraq, while serving in the army.

Sgt. Brandon Maggart, 24, died from insurgent mortal fire while on base, his aunt Kathie Potter said.

"It was rocket fire fired from a long distance away," Potter said.

Maggart graduated from Kirksville High School in 2005 and enlisted in the Army in 2006, Potter said, and served as an E-5 Sergeant and a C-RAM specialist. He's survived by his wife Teresa and 3-year-old son named Blake.

"He was a jokester," Potter said. "He loved to pull jokes on everybody. Sometimes he carried them a little too far, but that was just Brandon. If he could get the jump on playing a practical joke on you, he'd do it. And he helped anybody — he'd give you the shirt off his back if you needed it. That was just Brandon. He was a very giving person."

This was Maggart's second tour in Iraq, she said. He was scheduled to come home on leave in September and come home permanently in January 2011.

"People's definition of a hero is different," Potter said. "My definition of a hero is someone who takes the time out to do — even if it's their job — something special for someone, and Brandon was a hero long before he passed away. He was a hero in everybody's eyes and he'll be sadly missed. Fallen, but not forgotten for sure."

Potter said Maggart was a wonderful father, brother, husband and son.

"It's hard and it will get harder, but we also have something wonderful to look forward to — his sister is due anytime now," Potter said. "She's going to have a little baby and he was all excited for that. He'll still see it — he'll see it from heaven."

Travis Noe Funeral Home held the visitation Tuesday and Kirksville Middle School held the funeral Wednesday. The Patriot Guard was present at both events and held flags outside.

Terry Mahurin, of Kirksville, was with the Patriot Guard representing the Kirksville Veterans of Foreign Wars Hall. He said the group attends military funerals all over the U.S., and he attended to show his respect for his fallen comrade.

The objectives of the group are to show respect for fallen heroes, their families, and their communities, and also to shield the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors," according to the Patriot Guard's website.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

• Facebook Comments
• Site Comments

Be the first to comment on this article! Log in to Comment

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In

• E-mail:
• Password:

Take the Index's Oscar poll!

• Make your picks for this year's Academy Award winners

• Most Popular
• Latest Comment
Most Popular
• Marijuana legalization could benefit economy, reduce debt
• Super Bowl acts as cultural religious event
• Puff, puff, pass?
• Armed suspect reported outside Hy-Vee
• Birth control recalled
• Teaching the art of cuisine
• Trendy combination leads to heart strain, dehydration
• Paino addresses budget at University meeting
• Men sit on the womens bench
Latest Comment
• Immigration bill meets opposition
  "The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of law to any person within the state's jurisdiction, not specifically legal citizens."

  Actually, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees, according to Supreme Court jurisprudence, equal protection of the law for people similarly situated. The US and state tax codes are a case in point; hugely different tax burdens based on income, source of income, deductions, etc., etc. If the Constitution really did require what is claimed above, once someone was able to get to the US, they would be no different than a US citizen as far as the law was concerned. That clearly is not the case, nor should it be!

  In Plyler v. Doe, one of the rationals for this wrongly held decisions was that the Court, found, "... while the "exclusion of all undocumented children from the public schools in Texas would eventually result in economies at some level," ... funding from both the State and Federal Governments was based primarily on the number of children enrolled. In net effect, then, barring undocumented children from the schools would save money, but it would "not necessarily" improve "the quality of education. The court further observed that the impact of {the Texas law} was borne primarily by a very small subclass of illegal aliens."

  Assuming the Court was correct in 1982, which I do not, that the cost to taxpayers was negligible and the numbers of illegal alien children in K12 school was very small and their impact on the quality of education had little or no consequence, it's clearly not correct today. The number of children is huge, the costs in dollars is astronomical and the negative impact on the quality of education for the children of American citizens is likewise huge.

  The purpose of these laws, in part, is to gather irrefutable evidence of the terrible consequences to the American people and their children of the wrongly held Plyler v. Doe decision so that it maybe overturned. Of course the amnesty open borders crowd will fight tooth and nail to block any and all efforts to quantify the extent, costs, and all other consequences of illegal aliens and their children in our country.

  Make no mistake, massive immigration, legal and illegal, is not a partisan political issue. Both the Democratic and Republican parties not only support it but have passed the laws to effectuate it. They both talk about it from the perspective of their special interests, but neither has or will do anything to stop it until their election to office is sufficiently threatened.

  That is why the voters of this country must make it clear that their vote first and foremost is conditioned on the removal of all illegal aliens and the drastic reduction of legal immigration.

  posted by: Paul Cartier