Richmond man arrested for self defence shooting

[hvengel]

Found this http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_023150531.html today but it does not have much in the way of details. Anyone know more avout this?

[ldivinag]

every shooting will be investigated.

that is why, using your firearm is the LAST RESORT! and you must be sure what you are about to do.


now if you are in a state other than kalifornia, you might have better situation.

but here, it's arrest now and let the lawyers sort it out...

[blacklisted]

Guilty until proven innocent.

[Racenut]

I guess because the bad guy was only 'attempting' to break in is where the problem is?

Anyone know where I can pick up "Shooting Bad Guys for Dummies"?

[Omega13device]

Hard to know without all the details. When I took my safety class I was taught that you are only justified in the use of deadly force if a reasonable person would believe that you were in danger of serious bodily harm or death. The details (and evidence) are pretty key to determining this. Often you are not justified in using deadly force if you could have escaped by running away, and some states say that when you're in your own home, you're not required to flee from danger even if that is an option. I don't know whether California is one of those states.

[Rob Jones]

Often you are not justified in using deadly force if you could have escaped by running away, and some states say that when you're in your own home, you're not required to flee from danger even if that is an option. I don't know whether California is one of those states.

California is actually decent as far as the self-defense use of deadly force goes. You do NOT have to flee your residence, you do not have to wait until the bad guys have come crashing through the door (nor do you have to drag the body into your house should you justifiablly shoot him on the porch). The real key is: Would a reasonable person (as in a jury member) agree with you that you were in fear for your life (or the life of another innocent person) and was the force you used comparable to the threat; i.e., if you are 6'4" tall and weigh 240 lbs, you probably won't convince a jury that the unarmed 5'4" 125 lb guy (with no martial arts training that you were aware of) who was pounding on your front door presented a threat great enough to warrant the use of deadly force. Also, as soon as the threat ceases, you too, must cease - you cannot continue shooting at a fleeing bad guy.

Rob

[ryang]

California's laws regarding justifiable homicide include the following:
1. Reasonable fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm.
2. No requirement to retreat. You can stand your ground, but don't advance.

The first is really key. If you are on one side of a door and the assailant is on the other, unless he's shooting into the house you'd have a hard time meeting the imminent threat requirement. And while you can stand your ground, it looks better to the DA if you attempted to (safely) retreat first.

[odysseus]

And while you can stand your ground, it looks better to the DA if you attempted to (safely) retreat first.

What? Go running out of your house? I believe not. Imminent threat is certainly a requirement or yourself/family/etc. , and you are not expected to retreat out of your own home.

[maxicon]

Anyone know where I can pick up "Shooting Bad Guys for Dummies"?

That would be Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme".

Even if you're not an Ayoob fan, it's a recommended read for anyone contemplating using firearms for self-defense.

max

[highlandr]

A very good accounting of acceptable and unacceptable actions, and their consequences, as they apply to self-defense in Kali can be found in "How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail" by John Machtinger.
Highly recommended.
/

[zenthemighty]

What? Go running out of your house? I believe not. Imminent threat is certainly a requirement or yourself/family/etc. , and you are not expected to retreat out of your own home.

Unless you live in england. Then you have the "Duty to Retreat".. They must secretly have French Envy.

[bodyarmorguy27]

I'm in law enforcement and I'm not sure why they booked the guy, unless there are some extenuating circumstances (ie suspect was fleeing down the street).

They obviously know who the guy is. He's not a threat to the community. Let the DA mull it over, and if charges are filed, then arrest him.

I helped investigate a shooting where a suspect burglarized a house and was shot in the stomach by the 75 year old homeowner. I didn't know whether I should shake the guy's hand or give him a big hug. I love seeing crooks getting it (beat down or shot) from honest citizens!

Remember should you ever use your gun in self-defense, you are in fear for your LIFE or someone else's LIFE. Never use deadly force to defend property (ie your bike, car, trespassers, Bessie the Cow, etc.)

And in my experience, your home is considered your castle. Any competent cop, judge, DA, PD or juror who owns a home would feel the same.

[Henry47]

Remember should you ever use your gun in self-defense, you are in fear for your LIFE or someone else's LIFE.

I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything, but what if I were in fear of my dog's life? Is a dog considered "property"?

[bodyarmorguy27]

I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything, but what if I were in fear of my dog's life? Is a dog considered "property"?

In the eyes of the law, yes. But I, maybe like you, consider them to be a part of the family.

[Henry47]

In the eyes of the law, yes. But I, maybe like you, consider them to be a part of the family.

Thanks for the information. I consider them part of the family also, and will protect all my dogs as members of my family.

[Pablo]

California is actually decent as far as the self-defense use of deadly force goes. You do NOT have to flee your residence, you do not have to wait until the bad guys have come crashing through the door (nor do you have to drag the body into your house should you justifiablly shoot him on the porch). The real key is: Would a reasonable person (as in a jury member) agree with you that you were in fear for your life (or the life of another innocent person) and was the force you used comparable to the threat; i.e., if you are 6'4" tall and weigh 240 lbs, you probably won't convince a jury that the unarmed 5'4" 125 lb guy (with no martial arts training that you were aware of) who was pounding on your front door presented a threat great enough to warrant the use of deadly force. Also, as soon as the threat ceases, you too, must cease - you cannot continue shooting at a fleeing bad guy.

Rob


1+ And even if you are found innocent in a penal court. You can expect to be sue in a civil court. Remember in California criminals have the same if not more rights that law obedient citizens :(

[Fjold]

Here in Kern County we don't arrest people who shoot criminals in the act. We applaud them.


Elderly man shoots robbery suspects to protect his wife
By STEVE E. SWENSON, Californian staff writer
e-mail: sswenson@bakersfield.com

Posted: Tuesday January 24th, 2006, 12:34 PM
Last Updated: Tuesday January 24th, 2006, 1:21 PM

A 71-year-old Bakersfield man responded to his wife’s plea for help by shooting at three home invasion robbery suspects, killing one and wounding a second, Bakersfield police reported today.

Norman Laxson, who has sold guns online, rushed to the aid of his 69-year-old wife, Ramona, as she was confronted Monday night at her front door by the suspects, according to police and an Internet search.
Police responded to the 9:48 p.m. incident and found Laxson bleeding from multiple cuts as he was seated just outside his front door, the department reported.

Next to him was Jose Covarrubias, 18, who was on the ground with multiple gunshot wounds, police said.

Nearby, was Jermaine Dabbs, 24, who was dead from a fatal gunshot, police said. A loaded handgun was located next to him, police said.

Laxson was injured in a struggle with the third suspect, a 17-year-old boy who attacked Lawson after his buddies were shot, police said. The boy wrestled Laxson’s gun away from him, police said.

The youth ran away but was arrested a short distance from Laxson’s house in the 9900 block of Kearney Hills Drive, police said. That’s in Rosedale near Brimhall Road and Calloway Drive.

Covarrubias was in stable condition at a local hospital, police said.

He and the youth were arrested on charges of robbery, conspiracy, assault with a deadly weapon and murder, police said.

The murder charge stems from the state’s felony murder rule in which murder charges can be filed against suspects in a felony during which someone was killed, even if the suspects didn’t actually fire a weapon.

Laxson was also treated at Kern Medical Center for his injuries and he was in fair condition Tuesday morning, a nurse said.

His wife was not hurt, police said.

Dabbs has a long criminal record from 2000 to 2004, including theft of a firearm, battery, trespassing, several thefts and disrupting a school, according to records in Kern County Superior Court.

He recently got out of prison from a 2-year term he receive in the gun theft conviction, records indicate. Covarrubias has no record as an adult in Kern County Superior Court.

[zenthemighty]

Here in Kern County we don't arrest people who shoot criminals in the act. We applaud them.


Rock on! Norm was my FFL for a long time. Awesome guy! The scary part was that he was even in a decent area of town.

[bodyarmorguy27]

Here in Kern County we don't arrest people who shoot criminals in the act. We applaud them.


Elderly man shoots robbery suspects to protect his wife
He and the youth were arrested on charges of robbery, conspiracy, assault with a deadly weapon and murder, police said.


I love transferred intent!

[ldivinag]

Thanks for the information. I consider them part of the family also, and will protect all my dogs as members of my family.

learned this in traffic school.

dogs are property.

cats are... well, not property.

odd, but this was back in the late 80s...

[MrTuffPaws]

A very good accounting of acceptable and unacceptable actions, and their consequences, as they apply to self-defense in Kali can be found in "How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail" by John Machtinger.
Highly recommended.
/

I also recommend this book. Make sure you get the latest '06 version if it is out.

[MidnightSon117]

learned this in traffic school.

dogs are property.

cats are... well, not property.

odd, but this was back in the late 80s...

Learned the same thing, but through a different way. Cats aren't considered domesticated, whereas dogs are. Hence the whole property thing. I think this was from the officer in charge of the Contra Costa Sheriff's driving school, which I took a couple of months ago. Oops forgot to include why I learned it. We were going through emergency lane changes, and that's when the officer explained how swerving to avoid a cat and causing an accident could get you in trouble, while swerving to avoid a dog was a legitimate reason for swerving.

[Clodbuster]

From what I was told, cats are considered domesticated. If you shoot or poison them (even if it was on your property), you'd be arrested. Why and how I came to know this...I don't know....:rolleyes:

Clod

Learned the same thing, but through a different way. Cats aren't considered domesticated, whereas dogs are. Hence the whole property thing. I think this was from the officer in charge of the Contra Costa Sheriff's driving school, which I took a couple of months ago. Oops forgot to include why I learned it. We were going through emergency lane changes, and that's when the officer explained how swerving to avoid a cat and causing an accident could get you in trouble, while swerving to avoid a dog was a legitimate reason for swerving.

[m98]

Thanks for the information. I consider them part of the family also, and will protect all my dogs as members of my family.

I would defend my dog as well. so if the law states that dogs are just property.......then what about police dogs. If a criminal kills a police dog it's considered murder of an LEO. so basically the law is saying that the killing of a LEO is more important than the killing of an civilian? this should be challenged in court of how a family dog isn't considered a family member yet a police dog is considered a law enforcement officer/member......yet another stupid law made up by stupid people of the PRK.

[kantstudien]

If a criminal kills a police dog it's considered murder of an LEO.

Wrong, they are considered property, just like any other dog.

[bodyarmorguy27]

If a criminal kills a police dog it's considered murder of an LEO. so basically the law is saying that the killing of a LEO is more important than the killing of an civilian? this should be challenged in court of how a family dog isn't considered a family member yet a police dog is considered a law enforcement officer/member......yet another stupid law made up by stupid people of the PRK.


Point me to this law in the California Penal Code. Because I can't find it.

[one417]

Point me to this law in the California Penal Code. Because I can't find it.

I might have missed that one too....

BAG27, still hanging out at LF?

[delloro]

Wrong, they are considered property, just like any other dog.

I think yer both wrong. it's not "murder of an LEO" as in homicide to kill a po-lice dog, but it is different than treating any other dog similarly. it's "assault" or "battery" or "injuring an officer" or something like that.

[delloro]

...so basically the law is saying that the killing of a LEO is more important than the killing of an civilian...?

YES.

you are not allowed to defend against an erroneous search warrant, even if you or anybody else would have been fearing for their life. however, if a private person busts in your house by mistake and you fear for your safety, you can blow them away.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. I suspect if that were not the law, criminals would always defend against searches and claim they didn't know nothin' about no crime.

[bodyarmorguy27]

I might have missed that one too....

BAG27, still hanging out at LF?

Once in a while, bro, you may find me lurking there.

[Librarian]

You are not allowed to defend against an erroneous search warrant, even if you or anybody else would have been fearing for their life. however, if a private person busts in your house by mistake and you fear for your safety, you can blow them away.
Seems to me that until the folks breaking in satisfactorily identify themselves as LEO, you certainly do have the right to defend yourself. It's true a SWAT entry team is likely to take that unkindly. That's a nasty problem for the resident - are these bad guys, intent on robbing raping and killing, or are they cops? 2-5 seconds to decide, the door is going down...

I believe there's a long thread on that over at the Firing Line.

[Clodbuster]

Less than that I think. SWAT knocked down the door while a 70+ year old woman was still asleep. I think she took 10 in the chest while reaching for the revolver under her pillow.

Then they found out they knocked down the wrong door. :eek: Don't see this stuff on Court TV...

Clod

Seems to me that until the folks breaking in satisfactorily identify themselves as LEO, you certainly do have the right to defend yourself. It's true a SWAT entry team is likely to take that unkindly. That's a nasty problem for the resident - are these bad guys, intent on robbing raping and killing, or are they cops? 2-5 seconds to decide, the door is going down...

I believe there's a long thread on that over at the Firing Line.

[Jicko]

Maybe this is a question if we have some LE on the the forum....

Don't the SWAT or LE entry team need some kind of warrant before they can come and knock into your house? And in order to get that warrant, don't they need quite some evidences to get that warrant or court order??

:confused:



Less than that I think. SWAT knocked down the door while a 70+ year old woman was still asleep. I think she took 10 in the chest while reaching for the revolver under her pillow.

Then they found out they knocked down the wrong door. :eek: Don't see this stuff on Court TV...

Clod

[Librarian]

Sure, but how many times have they raided the wrong house?I'd really like to know the answer to that - what are the numbers?

A more than casual Google-fu kata come up with nothing but anecdotes, from Left and Right. It seems a problem internationally - Australia, Great Britain and the US for sure. US Bureau of Justice Statistics had a program to collect data on police use of force, which would have included some stuff about this, but it wasn't funded after its pilot program.

[Woodman]

"Norman Laxson, who has sold guns online, rushed to the aid of his 69-year-old wife"

What does that have to do with anything?

[delloro]

Seems to me that until the folks breaking in satisfactorily identify themselves as LEO, you certainly do have the right to defend yourself....

well, that might seem fair and all that, but it is not the law.