PDA

View Full Version : 2A helps stop car thief!


LHC30
07-29-2010, 6:49 AM
From the Ventura County Star:


Police and Fire: A suspected auto thief was arrested in Camarillo early this morning after a victim chased him down and detained him at gunpoint until police arrived, authorities said.

The arrest followed a vehicle theft reported about 1:55 a.m. today in the 2800 block of Golf Villa Way in Camarillo.

A man was awake when he heard noises outside his home, looked out and saw a man taking off in his car, said Capt. Mike De Los Santos of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department.

The victim then armed himself with a handgun, gave chase, and cut the fleeing thief off inside the his gated community, De Los Santos said. Meanwhile, the victim's wife called police.

The victim was on foot, but he caught up with the thief after the man made a U-turn and doubled back on the horseshoe-shaped street, said the captain.

After seeing the victim, the thief stopped the vehicle, got out and started to run. The armed victim told him to get on the ground and he complied, said the captain.

The car, which the thief hadn’t put in park, crashed into a retaining wall, causing some damage but no injuries, De Los Santos said.

Sheriff’s deputies arrived and took the suspected thief into custody.

The suspect, Jacob Aydelotte, 19, of Ventura, was booked into Ventura County Jail on suspicion of auto theft and an outstanding warrant for auto theft, said the captain.

Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/29/morning-report-auto-theft-suspect-arrested-after/#ixzz0v5CrvS00
- vcstar.com

longhairchris
07-29-2010, 7:46 AM
Awesome!

doc1buc
07-29-2010, 7:49 AM
It's nice to hear this but I'm sure this jacked up legal system and its ugly twin sister the media, will somehow turn this into: "GUN TOTING LOON CAUSES RESIDENTIAL CAR MASSACRE!"

Andy Taylor
07-29-2010, 7:52 AM
Thats fantastic. I just hope the victim doesn't get cr@p end of the stick from the media, or worse the legal system.

Dr Rockso
07-29-2010, 7:54 AM
Hope we don't see the good guy posting on here in a couple of weeks with 'help the DA is charging me with 12031, etc!'

Untamed1972
07-29-2010, 7:54 AM
Man......not even safe in a gated community. What is this world comin' to!

Donny1
07-29-2010, 8:09 AM
I hope his gun is registered.

tuolumnejim
07-29-2010, 8:12 AM
I hope his gun is registered.

Why?
None of mine are and they never will be, its also perfectly legal.

KAG
07-29-2010, 8:18 AM
Why?
None of mine are and they never will be, its also perfectly legal.

Huh? I thought handguns had to be registered in this state?

tommyid1
07-29-2010, 8:24 AM
If purchased or transfered after 19**???

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

FatalKitty
07-29-2010, 8:32 AM
nicely done
no one was injured or killed and the criminal is in jail.
that's how it should be :D

bruss01
07-29-2010, 8:33 AM
So how do you hold someone at gunpoint? If they just ignore you and walk away, they have to know you can't just shoot them if they aren't attacking you. The only way I can see is to have them down on the ground, and you be on top of them with a gun pointed at their head, that way if they try to get up, squirm around or anything you can claim they were trying to "overpower" you and get the gun.

Someone please explain if I am misunderstanding something. You can't shoot them for just walking away even if they did commit some non-violent crime, like theft, right? Is it just ignorance that they continue to stand there? How do you persuade someone to remain "at gunpoint" while waiting on the police?

Untamed1972
07-29-2010, 8:37 AM
So how do you hold someone at gunpoint? If they just ignore you and walk away, they have to know you can't just shoot them if they aren't attacking you. The only way I can see is to have them down on the ground, and you be on top of them with a gun pointed at their head, that way if they try to get up, squirm around or anything you can claim they were trying to "overpower" you and get the gun.

Someone please explain if I am misunderstanding something. You can't shoot them for just walking away even if they did commit some non-violent crime, like theft, right? Is it just ignorance that they continue to stand there? How do you persuade someone to remain "at gunpoint" while waiting on the police?


Pull a Det. Tuason and tell them not to make any "furtive movements that cause you to fear for your life cuz you dont wanna be on vacation for 2 weeks".

LHC30
07-29-2010, 8:39 AM
Holding someone at gunpoint simply requires their submission your commands while facing the threat of using the gun.

Yes, they can disobey whatever commands you give them and the ball would be in your court. As to whether or not you can shoot - well, that depends on a lot of circumstances that are as individual to the event as the event is itself.

Maestro Pistolero
07-29-2010, 9:03 AM
So how do you hold someone at gunpoint? If they just ignore you and walk away, they have to know you can't just shoot them if they aren't attacking you.
Have another tool on your belt. Pepper spray, baseball bat (not saying bash his head in), stick, 2X4, big-*** mag-light, whatever. Have it handy when you confront a criminal.

A good liberal shot of pepper spray combined with a a swift kick or a jab from the end of the bat can be pretty persuasive. The gun is a backup. If he overcomes step one and two, then comes to take your (by then, lawfully carried) gun, he gets what he gets.

It's all about matching the level of resistance to the threat. I believe you have a right to hold him for police, but not a right to use force any more than necessary. By escalating only as much as necessary, you will look all the more reasonable when it goes to court.

The pepper spray could be used immediately upon discovering the thief. I would do it without saying a word. No warning, just 'here ya go' (Unless he's armed, in which case any discussion of less lethal weapons is mute).

Imagine trying to run when you are in the worst pain of your life, and blind.

Wherryj
07-29-2010, 10:13 AM
It's nice to hear this but I'm sure this jacked up legal system and its ugly twin sister the media, will somehow turn this into: "GUN TOTING LOON CAUSES RESIDENTIAL CAR MASSACRE!"

I was thinking the same thing. I wonder when we'll see the story about the overzealous DA who charges the guy for having that "evil, baby-killing, society-rending assault weapon of mass-destruction" out of his "home where the Supreme Court stated it belonged"?

He really was taking a risk chasing the guy outside of his home. CA isn't exactly Texas and our LEOs don't seem to allow protection of property as a reason for threat of deadly force.

advocatusdiaboli
07-29-2010, 10:28 AM
We also glossed over a point of concern I have: he ran outside with his loaded pistol to confront the thief and chased him. Technically, since the thief was fleeing, his life nor someone else's life was not in danger. Could a DA in a gun-hating city (i.e. SF) could charge him with brandishing and unlawful carrying of a loaded weapon in public? The only way he could use the gun is if the perp attacked him or tried to run him over. Heaven help him if the police happened on him--they'd probably shoot first and ask questions later thinking he was a car jacker.

I am not agreeing with the above, just trying to understand when I can take a loaded pistol off my property in pursuit without getting charged with something. I get that I could use it if threatened or in fear of serious bodily injury or death or to protect someone else from the same. It is the gray area between leaving my private property where I am legal loaded and when the confrontation and fear/threat occurs or might occur.

bodger
07-29-2010, 10:52 AM
I'm glad it turned out the way it did, but I would not chase a car thief with my gun.
In Los Angeles, I would expect to be charged with brandishing, GFSZ violation, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.

Rossi357
07-29-2010, 10:55 AM
OOPS! Wrong car.

glockman19
07-29-2010, 11:08 AM
I'm glad it turned out the way it did, but I would not chase a car thief with my gun.
In Los Angeles, I would expect to be charged with brandishing, GFSZ violation, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.

This is EXACTLY TRUE.

Los Angeles cares NOTHING for your inalieable California Constitutional Rights to protect yourself, your property and to obtain safety. The DA wouldn't file charges but the City Attorney would certianly and they have in the past.

If you own any firearms they will go for the charge that will, "take the evil guns off the streets and out of the hands of dangerous people", making you a prohibited person. It will also cost $10,000 before it's all said and done.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

GrizzlyGuy
07-29-2010, 11:29 AM
I am not agreeing with the above, just trying to understand when I can take a loaded pistol off my property in pursuit without getting charged with something. I get that I could use it if threatened or in fear of serious bodily injury or death or to protect someone else from the same. It is the gray area between leaving my private property where I am legal loaded and when the confrontation and fear/threat occurs or might occur.

There are two exemptions in 12031 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12031.html) for that kind of situation:

j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the
carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would
otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the
person or property of himself or herself or of another is in
immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is
necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in
this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and
after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has
been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its
assistance.

(k) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying
of a loaded firearm by any person while engaged in the act of making
or attempting to make a lawful arrest.

417 (brandishing) (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/417.html) has a self-defense exception. If you are giving chase to a felon in an attempt to arrest him, it seems safe to assume that you may need to defend yourself during the process. And, 835 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/835.html) allows you to use "such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and detention". Restraining the felon by holding him at gunpoint seems like a reasonable restraint.

However, there are no similar self-defense or private party arrest exceptions in 626.9 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/626.9.html) (state GFSZ law). That's one more reason why that law needs to go.

YMMV of course, and an anti-gun DA might still decide to charge you with something if you chased down a bad guy in this way. Personally, I'd stay in my house (armed) and let the cops risk their lives nabbing him if it was only a property crime.

OleCuss
07-29-2010, 11:35 AM
Yeah, I read the story and did not think nice thoughts about the behavior of the citizen who gave chase. Oh, maybe it should be legal and even expected that people behave as he did, but it's not.

A license for CCW does not make you a cop or mean that you can point it at people for any reason other than self-defense (OK, you can argue this one but you'll likely have to argue in court if you do this).

The guy can give chase if he can do so while staying within the speed limits and if he doesn't ignore traffic signals and the like. In fact, this is a good thing to do - especially if you've got a hands-free cell phone which allows you to continually vector the cops onto the bad guy's location. In this scenario you are not threatening the thief at all but if he takes exception to you and threatens your life - then you've got your pistol for self-protection.

And no, I'm not the expert, but I know enough to think he was a fool to do what he did. A car isn't worth jeopardizing your freedom, your familial responsibilities, your job (and others who depend on you), and possibly your life. The state may be your biggest enemy in this case - and you shouldn't ignore its threat to your liberty.

Anyway, read and enjoy the story and don't do that!

advocatusdiaboli
07-29-2010, 11:38 AM
However, there are no similar self-defense or private party arrest exceptions in 626.9 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/626.9.html) (state GFSZ law). That's one more reason why that law needs to go.


My house is within 1,000 ft of two schools: one public and one private so I'd be nailed to the wall right there.

YMMV of course, and an anti-gun DA might still decide to charge you with something if you chased down a bad guy in this way. Personally, I'd stay in my house (armed) and let the cops risk their lives nabbing him if it was only a property crime.

Yep. I wouldn't even zap a fleeing thief with taser--the perp might have a heart attack and I'd be charged with manslaughter AND be sued by the perp's survivors in a civil suit for wrongful death. Heck, you would probably be charged and sued if the perp blinded by pepper spray fell off an embankment to their death or wandered into the street to be hit by a vehicle. Modern city life is really starting to suck.

California's legal system--protecting the rights of criminals from interfering victims thereby insuring their trade is safe to conduct everywhere and anywhere.

RobG
07-29-2010, 11:44 AM
Great job. Unfortunately, I can picture a bad outcome for the vehicle owner.

Aldemar
07-29-2010, 11:52 AM
(j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the
carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would
otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the
person or property of himself or herself or of another is in
immediate,grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is
necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in
this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and
after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has
been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its
assistance.

I am wondering how property can be in grave danger? I was under the impression one could not use deadly force to defend property.

My understanding is even if you see someone in your backyard beating your dog with a club, deadly force could not be used to stop the attack since a dog is considered property.

Very confused:confused::confused:

bigcalidave
07-29-2010, 11:52 AM
He broke all sorts of laws chasing down the guy who stole his car. He probably won't get any trouble out of it, but it was absurdly stupid. You are to use the gun to protect yourself and your family, peoples lives, not property. Remember all the **** we gave the FBI agent who fired at the fleeing suspects that were in his garage?? You don't get to chase down a criminal who stole your car!!! He was perfectly fine when the guy stole his car, his life wasn't in danger, and only the act of chasing him down created the risk. If he actually shot the guy, he would likely be prosecuted for murder.
Unless you are LEO, don't enforce the law. You can use deadly force to stop a felony in progress, but it isn't a catchall. Without the fear for your life, you will probably go down hard.

N6ATF
07-29-2010, 12:03 PM
The pepper spray could be used immediately upon discovering the thief. I would do it without saying a word. No warning, just 'here ya go' (Unless he's armed, in which case any discussion of less lethal weapons is mute).
MOOT!

Bhobbs
07-29-2010, 2:25 PM
Isn't there a system that would kill the car's engine and lock the doors? Would it be legal to use in a situation like that? I know the cops use it to catch car thiefs but could a private citizen use it?

Davidoff
07-29-2010, 3:14 PM
I'm glad the homeowner is OK and that nobody was hurt. The perp is obviously not smart since he couldn't figure out that a 2,000 lb vehicle is a decent bullet shield and can also function as a deadly weapon.

The victim should not have gone after the car, he put himself into a very dangerous situation both physically and legally.

ke6guj
07-29-2010, 3:20 PM
Huh? I thought handguns had to be registered in this state?

it is not illegal to possess a handgun that is not registered to you. Now, if you are convicted of carrying concealed a handgun that is not registered to you, the penalty may be greater than if ithe handgun was registered to you.

Army
07-29-2010, 3:54 PM
Gated community means he's HOA too, so all the property within the gates and wall/fenceline could be considered private property. He didn't run down a public avenue, and caught the guy when he couldn't get through the locked gate (why the bad guy didn't think of that BEFORE he stole a car inside a locked gate...)

I say good for him.

Property can be in "grave danger" from arson or vandalism.

jbt56
07-29-2010, 4:07 PM
So how do you hold someone at gunpoint? If they just ignore you and walk away, they have to know you can't just shoot them if they aren't attacking you. The only way I can see is to have them down on the ground, and you be on top of them with a gun pointed at their head, that way if they try to get up, squirm around or anything you can claim they were trying to "overpower" you and get the gun.

Someone please explain if I am misunderstanding something. You can't shoot them for just walking away even if they did commit some non-violent crime, like theft, right? Is it just ignorance that they continue to stand there? How do you persuade someone to remain "at gunpoint" while waiting on the police?

Criminals, being, by definition law breakers who don't hesitate to break any law, assume everybody is the same. Therefore, they have to feel that you will shoot them, since pretty much anybody in their peer group would do exactly that. It's their only frame of reference. It's kinda like terrorists being amazed that we don't simply kill them on sight. They do, so why wouldn't we (the US)?

thayne
07-29-2010, 4:25 PM
So how do you hold someone at gunpoint? If they just ignore you and walk away, they have to know you can't just shoot them if they aren't attacking you. The only way I can see is to have them down on the ground, and you be on top of them with a gun pointed at their head, that way if they try to get up, squirm around or anything you can claim they were trying to "overpower" you and get the gun.

Someone please explain if I am misunderstanding something. You can't shoot them for just walking away even if they did commit some non-violent crime, like theft, right? Is it just ignorance that they continue to stand there? How do you persuade someone to remain "at gunpoint" while waiting on the police?

I caught and held a home invader with my German Shepherd. He broke into my neighbors house while she was home. She came to my house and told me. I went outside with my dog while calling the police and the guy came out and was going to run. I told him, "You might out run me, but you wont out run him" (referring to my dog) The guy gave up and sat down and waited for the police to show up.

Had he run i wouldnt have set my dog after him. I was bluffing LOL thats all it takes, because they dont know what you will do...

Theseus
07-29-2010, 6:22 PM
Hope we don't see the good guy posting on here in a couple of weeks with 'help the DA is charging me with 12031, etc!'

There are two exemptions in 12031 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12031.html) for that kind of situation:

(j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the
carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would
otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the
person or property of himself or herself or of another is in
immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is
necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in
this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and
after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has
been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its
assistance.

(k) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying
of a loaded firearm by any person while engaged in the act of making
or attempting to make a lawful arrest.

417 (brandishing) (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/417.html) has a self-defense exception. If you are giving chase to a felon in an attempt to arrest him, it seems safe to assume that you may need to defend yourself during the process. And, 835 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/835.html) allows you to use "such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and detention". Restraining the felon by holding him at gunpoint seems like a reasonable restraint.

However, there are no similar self-defense or private party arrest exceptions in 626.9 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/626.9.html) (state GFSZ law). That's one more reason why that law needs to go.

I get to play pretend lawyer!

Gated communities aren't public places: People v. Krohn (2007) , Cal.App.4th - Defendant was detained inside his gated apartment complex, which was not readily accessible to the public.
Thus, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion defendant was drinking alcohol in a public place.

Fenced yards are not public places: People v. Strider - Because the fenced yard was not a public place within the meaning of section 12031, Strider’s suppression motion should have been granted.

advocatusdiaboli
07-29-2010, 6:48 PM
I get to play pretend lawyer!

Gated communities aren't public places: People v. Krohn (2007) , Cal.App.4th - Defendant was detained inside his gated apartment complex, which was not readily accessible to the public.
Thus, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion defendant was drinking alcohol in a public place.

Fenced yards are not public places: People v. Strider - Because the fenced yard was not a public place within the meaning of section 12031, Strider’s suppression motion should have been granted.

Thanks for that. That's one good reason to live in a gated community I guess, but the CC&Rs and other restriction give me cause not to.

advocatusdiaboli
07-29-2010, 6:50 PM
Gated community means he's HOA too, so all the property within the gates and wall/fenceline could be considered private property. He didn't run down a public avenue, and caught the guy when he couldn't get through the locked gate (why the bad guy didn't think of that BEFORE he stole a car inside a locked gate...)

I say good for him.

Property can be in "grave danger" from arson or vandalism.

I say good for him too. I was just probing the corners of this stuff so i know what I can and cannot do that's all. My wife and daughters need me home not in prison and I don't want to lose my firearms rights over some scumbag.

markw
07-29-2010, 7:17 PM
it is not illegal to possess a handgun that is not registered to you. Now, if you are convicted of carrying concealed a handgun that is not registered to you, the penalty may be greater than if ithe handgun was registered to you.

Nor are you required to register a hangun purchased before a certain date, I think 1991 or so. There's a multitude of ways to legally own weapons that aren't "registered", which is a good thing IMHO.

morfeeis
07-29-2010, 7:21 PM
why dont stories like this make it in the headlines,

Anothercoilgun
07-29-2010, 7:36 PM
I'm glad the homeowner is OK and that nobody was hurt. The perp is obviously not smart since he couldn't figure out that a 2,000 lb vehicle is a decent bullet shield and can also function as a deadly weapon.

The victim shall go after the car, he sets a precedence badly needed to be placed into this nation.

Corrected.