Shooting at an occupied home for an hour = misdemeanor [Archive]

View Full Version : Shooting at an occupied home for an hour = misdemeanor

ZRX61

03-10-2009, 11:56 AM

NEENACH - Three months after revelers from the San Fernando Valley fired bullets at their rural Antelope Valley home, Wayne and Carol Hill of Neenach were shocked when a Santa Clarita judge lowered the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor and sentenced the partygoers to perform community service work.
"The judge wouldn't give them anything other then a misdemeanor for it," said Wayne Hill, who, along with his family, huddled in the back hallway of their Neenach home for an hour before sheriff's deputies put an end to the gunshots.

"I told him that you have now set a precedent that shooting at an innocent family for over an hour is a misdemeanor in California," Hill said. "We did not get any justice."

On the night of Dec. 13, five men and two women from the San Fernando Valley gathered at a shack near Avenue D-11 and 229th Street West. They were drinking and listening to music, then started shooting at beer cans, according to a Sheriff's report.

But in doing so, they were also shooting in the direction of the Hills' home, which was about 100 feet away. The shooters told deputies they did not notice the house. But Hill said that's impossible.

"There's no way they could not have known there was a house," Hill said. "We were lit up like a Christmas tree. In fact, we had two Christmas trees out front. They knew we were here."

Hill, a retired Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department jailer, said he is upset not only with the judge's decision to issue misdemeanor rather than felony charges but also with the slow response from the Sheriff's Department.

When he heard the gunshots, Hill went to the front door to investigate. He saw a bullet hole in the door; then another bullet whizzed over his head.

"I told the family to hit the floor and crawl for the back hall," he said. "They stayed down while I grabbed the phone."

Hill was connected to the Santa Clarita Sheriff's station, not to Lancaster or Palmdale. The Lancaster and Palmdale stations serve areas of the western Antelope Valley as far west as 220th street. Everything west of that - including Hill's home, near 229th Street - is served by the Santa Clarita Sheriff's station.

After waiting half an hour for deputies to arrive, he called again.

"I said, 'Get me some help; we're under siege,' " Hill said. "They don't know beans about this area in Santa Clarita."

Sgt. Darren Harris, a spokesman for the Santa Clarita station, said deputies are always on duty at a substation in Gorman, which is closer to Neenach than Lancaster.

"But if we've got an emergency-type situation, then we would be inquiring as to the units with the fastest response time," Harris said. "On a daily basis patrol, Gorman resident deputies would be the closest responding."

Eventually, deputies from Lancaster, Santa Clarita and Kern County responded, along with California Highway Patrol officers.

Hill said if he lived in the Lancaster station's patrol area, the hourlong barrage would have lasted half as long or less.

The long response time taken together with the judge's refusal to charge the perpetrators with felonies has left a bad taste in Hill's mouth.

"The whole thing has just left us feeling totally cheated," he said. "They're putting me in a position of how do I protect my family now? What am I left with?"

If nothing else, he said the Sheriff's patrol boundaries should be redrawn.

"When that line (at 220th Street) was drawn, there were probably a dozen people out here," Hill said. "Now there are thousands. And we feel very insecure about both situations. … We're going to have to protect ourselves."

CCWFacts

03-10-2009, 12:01 PM

Sentencing in our system is crazy sometimes. People get federal felonies these days for being rude to a flight attendant (ok, it's bad to be rude, but...) while these guys put bullets through an occupied home 100' away and got misdemeanors.

nick

03-10-2009, 12:09 PM

I wonder, if he'd be charged with a felony if he shot back...

tyrist

03-10-2009, 12:16 PM

I wonder, if he'd be charged with a felony if he shot back...

Nope...bullet holes in your home would give you a pretty rock solid defense.

nick

03-10-2009, 12:19 PM

Nope...bullet holes in your home would give you a pretty rock solid defense.

Despite the fact that, supposedly, they were unaware of shooting at him, while he would be quite consciously shooting at them? I mean, if they presented that version, as they did, he'd still not be charged?

Eroland7

03-10-2009, 12:19 PM

They probably would have gotten in more trouble if they had high capacity magazines than the actual shooting into a dwelling...

sorensen440

03-10-2009, 12:27 PM

They are morons but I agree with the judge they don't deserve a felony conviction

bwiese

03-10-2009, 12:30 PM

Not sure off the top of my head, but even misdemeanor shooting into a 'dwelling' may be a 3? 10? yr firearms prohibition. [May vary to whether dwelling was occupied or not - certainly was here.]

wash

03-10-2009, 12:45 PM

The police can't even protect the police.

This is disgusting.

ilbob

03-10-2009, 12:50 PM

what do you want to bet that one or more of the shooters has some clout somehow.

a few years ago some local cops decided to go do some target shooting on a park district golf course in the dead of night, stark naked. as you might guess, large quantities of alcohol were involved.

no charges were filed against any of them, and the worst any of them got was a short (like 3 day) suspension.

deleted by PC police

03-10-2009, 12:51 PM

ok, these guys get a misdameanor for shooting AT a house but a responsible gun owner gets a felony for having a detachable mag???? something wrong with the system here.

sorensen440

03-10-2009, 12:52 PM

ok, these guys get a misdameanor for shooting AT a house but a responsible gun owner gets a felony for having a detachable mag???? something wrong with the system here.
Yes and the thing that is wrong is that the guy with the magazine gets in any trouble

ohsmily

03-10-2009, 01:09 PM

Not sure off the top of my head, but even misdemeanor shooting into a 'dwelling' may be a 3? 10? yr firearms prohibition. [May vary to whether dwelling was occupied or not - certainly was here.]

Depends on what they were convicted of. If it was shooting at an occupied dwelling (246) and it was a misdo, no prohibition. If it was 246.3, then they will be prohibited for 10 years even as a misdo. 12021(c)(1)

ohsmily

03-10-2009, 01:11 PM

ok, these guys get a misdameanor for shooting AT a house but a responsible gun owner gets a felony for having a detachable mag???? something wrong with the system here.

Actually, they were shooting at cans but were drunk and/or stupid and a house was in the background. That may explain the reduction to misdemeanor.

professionalcoyotehunter

03-10-2009, 01:11 PM

Wonder what caliber was being fired;) .That was not said in the judges decision.it is was a high powered .177 then do you think a felony should be issued?

MikeinnLA

03-10-2009, 01:21 PM

I just want to know where they found the ammo!;)

SteveH

03-10-2009, 01:55 PM

ok, these guys get a misdameanor for shooting AT a house but a responsible gun owner gets a felony for having a detachable mag???? something wrong with the system here.

Can show me even one case of a "responsible gun owner" being convicted of a felony for having a detachable mag?

Kid Stanislaus

03-10-2009, 06:22 PM

They are morons but I agree with the judge they don't deserve a felony conviction

HUH?

Kid Stanislaus

03-10-2009, 06:24 PM

Actually, they were shooting at cans but were drunk and/or stupid and a house was in the background. That may explain the reduction to misdemeanor.

Oh, well, that makes it OK then!:confused:

socalgunrunner

03-10-2009, 06:31 PM

More than likely they got a plea bargain from the judge in lieu of a jury trial. Meaning that the felony charge got reduced to a misdemeanor because they agreed to plead guilty. Happens all the time.

Seesm

03-10-2009, 06:53 PM

They are morons but I agree with the judge they don't deserve a felony conviction

HUH? I had about 10-15 shots fored towards me (over my head) on purpose last week by a drunk neighbor and I think IT SHOULD BE a felony....

These people fired onto his home for 1 HOUR not 1 SHOT and you think it shoul NOT be a felony... That had to be a typo no?

Things have to make sense... thise story does not make sense...

saigon1965

03-10-2009, 06:57 PM

No it doesn't make it "OK" - But that facts are that the group of drunks were shooting at cans not at the house - That's their story - The judge believe them -

Oh, well, that makes it OK then!:confused:

paintballergb

03-10-2009, 06:59 PM

What!?! ARE THEY CRAZY!?!?!? A MISDEMEANOR!?!?!?!

It should have been an infraction!

Blue

03-10-2009, 07:04 PM

I woulda opened up with my 1919.

razorx

03-10-2009, 07:11 PM

Should morph into a civil case

kar6man

03-10-2009, 07:20 PM

man, those guys are lucky it wasn't my house. I'd melt the barrel on my black rifle if that were to happen.

Some Guy

03-10-2009, 07:23 PM

The homeowner should have shot at the cans also, as it was dark outside and he did not happen to notice the people outside.

tyrist

03-10-2009, 07:25 PM

Despite the fact that, supposedly, they were unaware of shooting at him, while he would be quite consciously shooting at them? I mean, if they presented that version, as they did, he'd still not be charged?

Yup....even if they said they did'nt know. You are judged by what you knew at the time not after the fact. A reasonable person who sees bullets coming into their dwelling can reasonable think whoever is firing them is trying to kill or seriously injury them and the other inhabitants so deadly force is authorized to protect life.

ohsmily

03-10-2009, 07:37 PM

Oh, well, that makes it OK then!:confused:

Hey kid, Can you please point to where I said their conduct was "OK" and/or where I said they don't deserve criminal penalties??? You have a very active imagination kid.

Codelphious

03-10-2009, 09:05 PM

1859sharps

03-10-2009, 09:55 PM

Yup....even if they said they did'nt know. You are judged by what you knew at the time not after the fact. A reasonable person who sees bullets coming into their dwelling can reasonable think whoever is firing them is trying to kill or seriously injury them and the other inhabitants so deadly force is authorized to protect life.

I was going to bring this up. Doesn't matter the other party's version of the story. If the evidence supports incoming rounds, particularly multiple rounds your defense for returning fire gets more and more solid.

I could see a case were a single stray round hits your house, and then you opening up on whoever happens to be standing out side might not be the most defensible action. But I don't the impression this is the case.

If sustained fire is directed at your house....AND you can see the people doing the shooting.... this home owner showed a lot of restraint.

sorensen440

03-10-2009, 10:16 PM

HUH?
What part of what I said did you not understand?

HUH? I had about 10-15 shots fored towards me (over my head) on purpose last week by a drunk neighbor and I think IT SHOULD BE a felony....

These people fired onto his home for 1 HOUR not 1 SHOT and you think it shoul NOT be a felony... That had to be a typo no?

Things have to make sense... thise story does not make sense...

There is a difference between being a complete idiot and not knowing your backdrop vs intentionally shooting towards someone

ZRX61

03-10-2009, 10:26 PM

I'm wondering just HTF you can be 100ft from a house with 2 illuminated xmas trees in the front yard & not see it? I think at that range I'd be returning fire with slugs out of the 590....

JayRuff

03-10-2009, 10:31 PM

WokMaster1

03-10-2009, 10:36 PM

Too bad the home owner's family were not tactically prepared. He could have his wife &/or older kid return fire while he flanks them & take out the machine gun nest........

Oops, that was in the movie.:D

CCWFacts

03-10-2009, 10:44 PM

HUH? I had about 10-15 shots fored towards me (over my head) on purpose last week by a drunk neighbor and I think IT SHOULD BE a felony....

I agree. That kind of thing is so reckless and shows such disregard for human life, it should be a felony. I'm surprised that these guys got to plea bargain. They're lucky their targets didn't return fire.

Sam

03-10-2009, 11:30 PM

Maybe he should have called in the artillery support?

My favorite line:

They're putting me in a position of how do I protect my family now?

and you relied on the police to protect you before?

Seesm

03-11-2009, 12:15 AM

It's just totally terrible how the judicial system works in my opinion anyway.... I would like to see the judges house get fired on like that....

hill billy

03-11-2009, 07:16 AM

This guy was a former jailer? Why didn't he shoot back?

ZRX61

03-11-2009, 11:46 AM

This guy was a former jailer? Why didn't he shoot back?

Maybe he thought they might be "former clients"?

CaliforniaCarry

03-11-2009, 02:14 PM

Sgt. Darren Harris, a spokesman for the Santa Clarita station, said deputies are always on duty at a substation in Gorman, which is closer to Neenach than Lancaster.

"But if we've got an emergency-type situation, then we would be inquiring as to the units with the fastest response time," Harris said. "On a daily basis patrol, Gorman resident deputies would be the closest responding."

I used to work at Santa Clarita city hall, and had a couple of meetings with Darren Harris about UOC-related things.

In talking with him and a few other deputies, I learned that the sheriffs in Santa Clarita are spread thin, underfunded, and that the station is WELL over-capacity (last I recall, by as much as 50%). I live in Santa Clarita proper, and heard several shots nearby the other night. I didn't hear any sirens until almost 10 minutes later.

Conveniently, it's still impossible to get a CCW :rolleyes:

sb_pete

03-11-2009, 02:40 PM

Well, you know,
"When seconds count, and the lead is raining down... deputies from the regional sheriff's sub-station are only an hour or so away..."

The drunken idiots were drunken idiots. If the judge believed that they were really just shooting at cans without a proper backstop, then a felony is really not called for imho.

I can also see how the guy went to his door, felt a round go over his head and hit the deck. For the next however long he was hunkered down and maybe didn't really know from where or why people were shooting his house. He has every right to be angry at them, but a former leo in particular should really have a better plan for people shooting at his house than "hit the deck in the hallway and dial 911."

This whole thing was a case of stupid on dumb. Luckily no one got hurt.
-Pete

Blackwater OPS

03-11-2009, 02:44 PM

Next time, shoot back.

Meplat

03-11-2009, 04:10 PM

One thing that doesn't make since is that this guy just cowered in his hallway for a hour while his home and family were "under assault". I know you cant expect too much from prison guards but give me a break. I'm thinking a high cap magazine dump well over their heads would have gotten the point across a lot faster than a phone call to the LASD.:43:

HUH? I had about 10-15 shots fored towards me (over my head) on purpose last week by a drunk neighbor and I think IT SHOULD BE a felony....

These people fired onto his home for 1 HOUR not 1 SHOT and you think it shoul NOT be a felony... That had to be a typo no?

Things have to make sense... thise story does not make sense...

Meplat

03-11-2009, 04:19 PM

As a former LEO this guy should know as well as anyone, you can't count on the police in a life-and-death situation.

Especially not in the boonies of the Antelope Valley. WTF is he thinkin.:TFH:

gunsmith

03-11-2009, 04:24 PM

the former jailer sounds like such a loser that the Judge decided "eh, what the heck, the dumbazz was asking for it anyway"

Knight

03-11-2009, 04:49 PM

They are morons but I agree with the judge they don't deserve a felony conviction

I would have to agree.

It's hard to say what the motivations of the shooters were, but I'm guessing that the judge believed that they were morons and not killers, and thus did not deserve a felony conviction.

If the homeowner is seeking justice, then it looks like the best place for him to find it would be in civil court.

B Strong

03-11-2009, 05:42 PM

The perps must have been in the protected class of citizens.

Like the ones that don't know that they have to stop if they hit someone or something while they're driving, so after they commit vehicular homicide and hit and run, they only face punishment for the lowest charge.

Lousey situation for the homeowner, and the partying shooters learned nothing.

N6ATF

03-11-2009, 05:51 PM

We'll see if they learned their lesson... hopefully the victim will buy a good scoped rifle, fortify his building, and stick a hugely powerful spotlight with remote control on top in case they didn't.

AaronHorrocks

03-12-2009, 08:52 AM

R.O.E.

If your house is getting shot up, shoot back.

retired

03-12-2009, 03:47 PM

I think it's more interesting that this former LEO (homeowner) doesn't even own a firearm. At least that's what is easily inferred from the article.

I seriously doubt it was a 1-hour barrage a-la opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan, for example. But none-the-less, permitting someone to shoot in your general direction without firing back, or yelling "STOP SHOOTING YOU IDIOTS!" is tantamount to gross negligence on the home owner's part.

As a former LEO this guy should know as well as anyone, you can't count on the police in a life-and-death situation.

I think what you and the others who posted after you do not understand is the victim is a former retired jailer. It does not say he is a former deputy. I know it is not good to assume, but in this case I will and I believe I'm correct. This means he probably held one of two different positions, both civilians, not sworn.

He was either an old time C.O. (Correction Officer) or a Custody Assistant.

When I first worked the jail in the late 70s, we had C.O.s working with us. They were all in their late 50s at that time. I do not believe there are any more on the dept.; they having all retired (otherwiswe, they'd be at least 80 and past the mandatory retirement age lol). Plus, that program does not exist anymore.

Custody Assistants work in the jail and sheriff's stations even to this day and assist the deputies. As I said, they are not sworn and do not carry a firearm. I do not know if any of them are issued ccw permits, but I would be surprised if they do knowing Baca's feelings on ccws.

So, any firearm he might have, would probably be one he had to purchase on his own and evidently he never did.

Meplat, the staff working the jails are not prison guards. For one thing, they work in a jail, not a prison.:p;) Secondly, they are either custody assistants as I've stated or they are sworn deputies. Some are new and others are experienced patrol deputies who have returned to the jail both for overtime and for some, a promotion. Many are street smart deputies who have decided they don't want to work patrol anymore. Others are just learning the ropes.

None of the deputies are "guards"; they are sworn law enforcement officers with the accompany powers that go along with that. As far as the new ones; they are just that and that's one of the places the noobies are assigned. The others are the courts and Transportation (TST). Just a fyi.

Meplat

03-12-2009, 08:18 PM

Just a G-man jibe. No real offense meant.

California "Correctional officers" (prison guards) are not deputies. They are people who choose to spend 1/3 of there lives in prison when they don't have to because it pays a relatively large salary for a Government job. I am both in awe of how they stand it and thankful that we can actually lure people into it. I could never do it. But, I am still suspicous of those who do.

I think what you and the others who posted after you do not understand is the victim is a former retired jailer. It does not say he is a former deputy. I know it is not good to assume, but in this case I will and I believe I'm correct. This means he probably held one of two different positions, both civilians, not sworn.

He was either an old time C.O. (Correction Officer) or a Custody Assistant.

When I first worked the jail in the late 70s, we had C.O.s working with us. They were all in their late 50s at that time. I do not believe there are any more on the dept.; they having all retired (otherwiswe, they'd be at least 80 and past the mandatory retirement age lol). Plus, that program does not exist anymore.

Custody Assistants work in the jail and sheriff's stations even to this day and assist the deputies. As I said, they are not sworn and do not carry a firearm. I do not know if any of them are issued ccw permits, but I would be surprised if they do knowing Baca's feelings on ccws.

So, any firearm he might have, would probably be one he had to purchase on his own and evidently he never did.

Meplat, the staff working the jails are not prison guards. For one thing, they work in a jail, not a prison.:p;) Secondly, they are either custody assistants as I've stated or they are sworn deputies. Some are new and others are experienced patrol deputies who have returned to the jail both for overtime and for some, a promotion. Many are street smart deputies who have decided they don't want to work patrol anymore. Others are just learning the ropes.

None of the deputies are "guards"; they are sworn law enforcement officers with the accompany powers that go along with that. As far as the new ones; they are just that and that's one of the places the noobies are assigned. The others are the courts and Transportation (TST). Just a fyi.

N6ATF

03-13-2009, 12:24 AM

thedrickel

03-13-2009, 02:40 AM

Man . . . they would have gotten a dose of STG-58 from me and they wouldn't be on trial . . . I would be!

Meplat

03-13-2009, 09:52 AM

You're plenty thankful just with your tax dollars paying for those huge union-negotiated salaries. ;)

I hear ya. But what can you do? Somebody has to watch the hen house and that's what it takes to get people to do it. You can sign up any time if you are willing. They are always looking for people. :shrug:

N6ATF

03-13-2009, 10:25 AM

There's willing, and then there's able. :sweatdrop: