PDA

View Full Version : Saldinger case in Santa Cruz?


Sutcliffe
07-05-2010, 8:40 AM
Mercury news article

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15441528?ADID-www.mercurynews.com&nclick_check=1

Haven't heard of this one before and it doesn't involve a firearm. I was thinking this might not be a good case, because Saldinger used the 'weapon' in a potentially threatening manner over a property boundary issue. Kilmer's involved so I feel a little better about the situation, but still not quite sure if this is a great case.

Glock22Fan
07-05-2010, 8:50 AM
It should be ruled perfectly legal for her to carry a BB gun on her hip, but when she pointed it at her neighbors, threatening to shoot them for trespassing, that was going a bit too far, IMHO.

wjc
07-05-2010, 11:09 AM
yeah, I noticed it this morning. Funny, how the San Jose Murky News puts
articles like this on the front page but pro-gun stuff gets in the middle of the paper.

fish-wrap I tell ya'

I agree "brandishing" may have been a bad idea. According to the article, there's also a boundry dispute between the neighbors so don't know how that's going to enter into the case.

hoffmang
07-05-2010, 11:16 AM
Just FYI that CGF is in the loop here.

-Gene

BKinzey
07-05-2010, 11:29 AM
So she armed herself with a BB gun and ran over to people who she thought was trespassing. She was concerned for their safety so she threatened to shoot them.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Something is missing.

GuyW
07-05-2010, 11:57 AM
Eh, guns and boundary disputes are a time-honored American tradition....back when private property actually meant something, and was deadly serious....

...its sort of a parallel to "whisky is for drinkin', water is for fightin'"....

...not that I expect KA to give a fig about private property rights (except to identify such for confiscation via taxation)....

.

Flopper
07-05-2010, 1:43 PM
At first I was scared this might be another bad precedent-setting case.

Then I read that Don Kilmer was involved :D

PS-folks, make sure to read the paper on Fridays before three day weekends, Saturdays, and holidays: the low-readership days. Newspapers hide their interesting but inconvenient stories on those days.

Meplat
07-05-2010, 2:04 PM
Not the brightest broad in the world. I got a bad feeling about this one. Are we involved out of choice or necessity?

CSACANNONEER
07-05-2010, 2:12 PM
Todd Saldinger handed his wife a BB gun he was using to spook deer meandering near the horses

So, to begin with, the weapon was being used for illegal activities. It is illegal to shoot at deer with a BB gun PERIOD. As far as the boundary dispute, a simple survey would have settled the matter. BTW, tresspassing is not always illegal. I legally trespass on other people's property all the time. I've even had to educate LAPD and LASO about this. They have then detained the property owners and allowed me to do my job.

hoffmang
07-05-2010, 2:27 PM
Not the brightest broad in the world. I got a bad feeling about this one. Are we involved out of choice or necessity?

Mostly necessity. 60 days in jail for (assuming it's true) brandishing on your own property?

-Gene

Lulfas
07-05-2010, 5:21 PM
Mostly necessity. 60 days in jail for (assuming it's true) brandishing on your own property?

-Gene

I guess she shouldn't threaten people randomly. It wasn't self-defense or anything. She should spend the time in jail. Could swear I remember one of the rules of using a gun (was taught it with BB guns originally, then real ones) was "do not point a gun at something you do not plan to destroy". She screwed up, she deserves to pay up.

Apocalypsenerd
07-05-2010, 5:53 PM
Hmmm, I am thinking people have a right to defend their property. If it was two men coming on the property would it have been ok? I would think so.

Lulfas
07-05-2010, 6:49 PM
Hmmm, I am thinking people have a right to defend their property. If it was two men coming on the property would it have been ok? I would think so.

Completely agree. Next time those school kids come on my land (or, at least, where I think my land is, maybe), totally going to draw on them. Sure it won't be a problem.

That's the same argument you just made. Do you see a problem with it now?

hoffmang
07-05-2010, 9:24 PM
Completely agree. Next time those school kids come on my land (or, at least, where I think my land is, maybe), totally going to draw on them. Sure it won't be a problem.

That's the same argument you just made. Do you see a problem with it now?

Are you certain those two "school kids" aren't packing?

-Gene

Glock-matic
07-05-2010, 10:00 PM
Face it folks, the Santa Cruz hills are not packed with amiable law abiding citizens these days. If she is guilty of anything, it is probably not bringing enough gun to the fight. The only witnesses against her were the people doing the trespassing. She had a BB gun with her, that is undisputed; however, only one party claimed the BB gun was being waved around. The law regarding Brandishing is poorly written and interpreted. All the offended party has to do is claim they thought it was a gun, even if it was a weed wacker, then you are stuck in jail waiting for court.

As far as being a quack, she is a doctor, a respected profession, perhaps that will make her seem trustworthy to a jury, but you never know. Hopefully this case comes to our favor, personal property rights have been in jeapordy for a while, the folks in that area believe that you are required to buy the property so everyone else can use it. And when someone does something stupid on your property and gets hurt, you should have to pay for it even though they were trespassing. Not the way it should be IMO.

dantodd
07-05-2010, 10:01 PM
Are you certain those two "school kids" aren't packing?

-Gene

I'm pretty sure they aren't packing anything against which a BB gun would be helpful, but then again they are charging her with the same crime they would use if she drew a bead on them with a deadly .50 BMG sniper gun with sniper scope and thing that goes up.

Lulfas
07-06-2010, 11:45 AM
Are you certain those two "school kids" aren't packing?

-Gene

Let me just double check. Are you implying that it is perfectly fine to draw on anyone who might be on your disputed property because they may have a weapon? Really?

rabagley
07-06-2010, 11:50 AM
Let me just double check. Are you implying that it is perfectly fine to draw on anyone who might be on your disputed property because they may have a weapon? Really?

I think it's fine, yes. But then again, I moved to California from Texas and still miss a lot about Texas. As to whether it's legal in California to hold a gun on a trespasser, that's an entirely separate issue from whether it's right and moral.

wildhawker
07-06-2010, 12:14 PM
Let me just double check. Are you implying that it is perfectly fine to draw on anyone who might be on your disputed property because they may have a weapon? Really?

Is your question one of law or philosophy?

creekside
07-06-2010, 12:37 PM
Face it folks, the Santa Cruz hills are not packed with amiable law abiding citizens these days.

I concur completely. This is a reason to be quiet, respectful, thoughtful and appropriately armed as it may be lawful and prudent. This is not a reason to wave around guns, let alone a BB gun.

I have yet to meet a neighbor in them thar hills who was NOT carrying a firearm on their person and/or in their vehicle. Some are said to be convicted felons. Do NOT go poking about private or public land without local knowledge and detailed precautions; if the meth-heads and amateur pot-growers don't get you, the aging hippies and [REDACTED] with their industrial marijuana grows will.

I would caution everyone in the County who owns a firearm to consult County Code Section 8.28.030 and 8.28.050 (http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/santacruzcounty/html/SantaCruzCounty08/SantaCruzCounty0828.html) and especially this handy map in PDF format (http://gis.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/GIS/Map_Gallery/pdfs/Map%20Gallery/Land%20Use%20and%20General%20Plan/No%20Shoot%20Zones.pdf) which shows where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm in the county. Carry your own print of this to show the nice sheriff's deputy as needed. Consider carefully the interaction with PC 12031. 8.28.050 also sets up a 150 yard prohibited discharge zone around any 'occupied dwelling house, residence or other building or barn or other outbuilding.'

bwiese
07-06-2010, 5:17 PM
I'm unclear, but I believe there were allegations that people were throwing fecal matter onto the property/at the person.

If so, that's biological attack - if a cook spits on a cop's hamburger in the local diner, that cook gets popped for all sortsa assault/bioterror crap now.

M. Sage
07-06-2010, 8:48 PM
Completely agree. Next time those school kids come on my land (or, at least, where I think my land is, maybe), totally going to draw on them. Sure it won't be a problem.

That's the same argument you just made. Do you see a problem with it now?

No, there is no problem with that. Or do you not think that you have the right to defend your property?

In fact, it's perfectly legal to do just that in Texas.

Meplat
07-07-2010, 10:52 AM
Trust me, one does not have to shoot at deer with anything to spook them. A BB in their general vicinity will suffice.

So, to begin with, the weapon was being used for illegal activities. It is illegal to shoot at deer with a BB gun PERIOD. As far as the boundary dispute, a simple survey would have settled the matter.

Probably not. When neaighbors get to butting heads over such things facts will not quell the animosity!

BTW, tresspassing is not always illegal. I legally trespass on other people's property all the time. I've even had to educate LAPD and LASO about this. They have then detained the property owners and allowed me to do my job.

I also have a job that gives me right of entry, but you sound just a little too proud of it.:rolleyes:

Meplat
07-07-2010, 10:54 AM
Mostly necessity. 60 days in jail for (assuming it's true) brandishing on your own property?

-Gene

Thought so, thanks Gene.

Meplat
07-07-2010, 11:01 AM
Let me just double check. Are you implying that it is perfectly fine to draw on anyone who might be on your disputed property because they may have a weapon? Really?

Depending on circumstances I am. Note I did not say it would be a smart thing to do.

Meplat
07-07-2010, 11:09 AM
I think we may have finally answered the question: "what's dumber than bringing a knife to a gun fight."

I concur completely. This is a reason to be quiet, respectful, thoughtful and appropriately armed as it may be lawful and prudent. This is not a reason to wave around guns, let alone a BB gun.

I have yet to meet a neighbor in them thar hills who was NOT carrying a firearm on their person and/or in their vehicle. Some are said to be convicted felons. Do NOT go poking about private or public land without local knowledge and detailed precautions; if the meth-heads and amateur pot-growers don't get you, the aging hippies and [REDACTED] with their industrial marijuana grows will.

I would caution everyone in the County who owns a firearm to consult County Code Section 8.28.030 and 8.28.050 (http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/santacruzcounty/html/SantaCruzCounty08/SantaCruzCounty0828.html) and especially this handy map in PDF format (http://gis.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/GIS/Map_Gallery/pdfs/Map%20Gallery/Land%20Use%20and%20General%20Plan/No%20Shoot%20Zones.pdf) which shows where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm in the county. Carry your own print of this to show the nice sheriff's deputy as needed. Consider carefully the interaction with PC 12031. 8.28.050 also sets up a 150 yard prohibited discharge zone around any 'occupied dwelling house, residence or other building or barn or other outbuilding.'

andalusi
07-07-2010, 11:35 AM
BTW, tresspassing is not always illegal.

Yes, it is. Trespassing is the unlawful entry onto another's property, i.e., entering without a legal right allowing you entry or entering without the owner's permission.

I legally trespass on other people's property all the time. I've even had to educate LAPD and LASO about this. They have then detained the property owners and allowed me to do my job.

Per the defintiion above, if you have a lawful excuse to be on the person's property, then you are not trespassing.

jdberger
07-07-2010, 2:26 PM
It should be ruled perfectly legal for her to carry a BB gun on her hip, but when she pointed it at her neighbors, threatening to shoot them for trespassing, that was going a bit too far, IMHO.

She didn't point the BB gun at the "trespassers".

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT (publ. 7/7/2010, page A2)
Because of an editing error, an article about a legal battle over a woman's defense of her property with a BB gun incorrectly stated how Barbara Saldinger carried the gun. Saldinger did not point the BB gun at the two women she believed to be trespassing on her property in 2007.

^^ is above the article linked in the OP.

Sorta changes the story, eh?

Especially accounts like....

"I think the Saldingers are simply being unreasonable," said Jack Bloxham, a Walnut Creek lawyer who with his sister co-owns the adjacent 30 acres of mountain land. "Based on what my sister told me, (Saldinger) threatened her with a firearm. I expect people who do that run the risk of being convicted."

creekside
07-07-2010, 4:00 PM
I think we may have finally answered the question: "what's dumber than bringing a knife to a gun fight."

Ignorance of the law is no excuse -- not even for the S/O. If I had $0.02 for every time a cop has told me something stupid about firearms law, I could buy a much nicer piece of land.

Yes, I could fight the bad arrest, but it's so much easier and less time-consuming and costly to simply prove in the field, in a meaningful and intelligent way that even a sergeant can understand, that I'm nowhere near breaking the law.

Of course, if you're in the habit of pushing the edges of the law, the advice "STFU STFU STFU" might be more useful.

LiquidFlorian
07-07-2010, 4:08 PM
As an Airsofter I really hope this doesn't spawn a whole new round of bb gun bans...

Stealth
07-07-2010, 4:59 PM
I got a good feeling that Saldinger was in the right and will come out the winner.

Nose Nuggets
07-07-2010, 5:04 PM
so per the updated article, there was no brandishing.

this should move quickly.

bwiese
07-07-2010, 5:25 PM
so per the updated article, there was no brandishing.

this should move quickly.

Don's on it.

Glock-matic
07-07-2010, 6:31 PM
Let me just double check. Are you implying that it is perfectly fine to draw on anyone who might be on your disputed property because they may have a weapon? Really?


The Police can put a gun to your head because they think you might be armed.

Glock-matic
07-07-2010, 6:36 PM
I am hoping this ends well for them and the County of Santa Cruz will donate a proper airgun range on their property for their indiscretion.

Nose Nuggets
07-07-2010, 7:52 PM
The Police can put a gun to your head because they think you might be armed.

but but but, that's "different". and i dont mean short bus different. wait... maybe i do.

Meplat
07-07-2010, 8:24 PM
What does that have to do with bringing a BB gun to a gunfight?
:43:


Ignorance of the law is no excuse -- not even for the S/O. If I had $0.02 for every time a cop has told me something stupid about firearms law, I could buy a much nicer piece of land.

Yes, I could fight the bad arrest, but it's so much easier and less time-consuming and costly to simply prove in the field, in a meaningful and intelligent way that even a sergeant can understand, that I'm nowhere near breaking the law.

Of course, if you're in the habit of pushing the edges of the law, the advice "STFU STFU STFU" might be more useful.

creekside
07-08-2010, 1:35 PM
What does that have to do with bringing a BB gun to a gunfight?
:43:

What does that have to do with ""what's dumber than bringing a knife to a gun fight."" in reply to my post about the specific local ordinances in the county in which I am a resident, and in which this case took place?

If you just wanted to say that, why reply to my post?

I thought you were suggesting that carrying a map and the text of the law was dumb for some reason. In a UOC context it certainly can be -- demonstrates intent -- but I'm not trying to prove the difference between gray area and a crime, I'm proving that I'm not even in the gray area.

masameet
07-08-2010, 7:13 PM
If CGF is going to bat for Saldinger, will it be because she exhibited an "imitation firearm" in an angry manner and thus should have been convicted of an infraction and sentenced to 30 days?

Or is CGF going for the whole shebang by trying to get her conviction thrown out?

And did anybody else think it odd that her husband handed her the BB gun and let her do the brandishing? I guess her being a Stanford-educated medical doctor and all makes a big difference in their marriage too. lol

yellowfin
07-08-2010, 8:10 PM
Don's on it.
Am I the only one that gets a huge grin reading this? I LOVE reading and/or listening to his work.

Meplat
07-08-2010, 11:10 PM
Maybe I replied to the wrong post, Sorry, my bad.
:o
What does that have to do with ""what's dumber than bringing a knife to a gun fight."" in reply to my post about the specific local ordinances in the county in which I am a resident, and in which this case took place?

If you just wanted to say that, why reply to my post?

I thought you were suggesting that carrying a map and the text of the law was dumb for some reason. In a UOC context it certainly can be -- demonstrates intent -- but I'm not trying to prove the difference between gray area and a crime, I'm proving that I'm not even in the gray area.