PDA

View Full Version : Stockton - Halloween 2009 SD shooting.


pat038536
04-09-2011, 11:38 PM
For original thread refer to http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=247287 post #63

A similar situation happened to an associate of mine.. and he is currently in custody. This is what the 'ordinary people' get for defending their girlfriends with a firearm.
Note: I only know what I read about it from the news articles, I have no additional info to add.

PC 12022.5(A)(1) USE OF A FIREARM
PC 12022.53(B)<F1 PERSONAL USE OF A FIREARM (10 YEARS)
PC 12022.53(C)<F1 INTENTIONAL & PERSONAL DISCHARGE OF FIREARM
PC 12022.53(D)<F3 INTENTIONAL & PERSONAL DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM - GBI (25 TL)
PC 12025(A)(2)<MISD Misdemeanor HAVING CONCEALED WEAPON ON PERSON
PC 12031(A)<F1 Misdemeanor CARRY LOADED FIREARM IN PUBLIC PLACE
PC 187 Felony MUURDER
PC 246.3 Felony DISCHARGE WEAPON-GROSS NEG.

Forgot to add.. this individual is not a LEO..just in case you missed it.


**Update: 4/10/2011***

For the complete article you will have to use a little Google-fu, its not difficult to find. I removed his name from my posting, but if you find the article I clipped it from you will get all the details.

Jurors on Thursday found that he acted in self-defense when he shot and killed a man at a 2009 Halloween party in Stockton.

"The jurors wished him well in his life," San Joaquin County Deputy Public Defender Jennifer Perkins said. She added that jurors also told her they were confused over why the case went to trial.

"They're not sure how it got this far," she said.

Jurors seated before San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Bernard Garber deliberated about two hours Thursday before returning with their verdicts.

They found Him guilty of misdemeanor possession of a loaded weapon but cleared him of the murder. He was also acquitted of negligent discharge of a firearm and carrying a concealed weapon, Perkins said.

San Joaquin County Deputy District Attorney Zoette Dobbert prosecuted the case.

jshoebot
04-09-2011, 11:42 PM
Glad to hear he was found not guilty. Was he in jail the entire time?!

pat038536
04-10-2011, 1:36 AM
yep.. no bail allowed

jshoebot
04-10-2011, 1:38 AM
Wow.. Two years of his life gone, stuck in jail for no reason. Does he have any legal recourse, or is he just out of 2 years of his life?

Andy Taylor
04-10-2011, 2:31 AM
Congrats to him. I wish him the best.

Window_Seat
04-10-2011, 5:03 AM
Was your friend Law Enforcement? If so, I don't understand why he would have been convicted of misdemeanor possession of a loaded firearm. This will make him a "prohibited person", for 10 years, right?

What happened to the LEOSA (if he was a LEO), and I hope he gets millions for being thrown away for 2 years without bail.

This needs to be stopped, and I'm hoping that CGF/SAF can put a complete stop to this BS.

Erik.

cdtx2001
04-10-2011, 5:58 AM
Was your friend Law Enforcement? If so, I don't understand why he would have been convicted of misdemeanor possession of a loaded firearm. This will make him a "prohibited person", for 10 years, right?

What happened to the LEOSA (if he was a LEO), and I hope he gets millions for being thrown away for 2 years without bail.

This needs to be stopped, and I'm hoping that CGF/SAF can put a complete stop to this BS.

Erik.

I'm a little confused on that too. It's kinda like the BART cop jury that convicted him of using a firearm. Well no sh** he used a gun, he's a police officer and can carry one. Anyhow, the judge threw out that conviction in that case.

As for this guy, usually off duty are allowed to carry as well. I'm sure he can get that thrown out as well.

Too bad he was in the slammer all this time. He might be able to sue. It's really a shame that the SJco DA tried to make an example of this guy, but on the other hand it's encouraging to know there's still a jury out there with some brains and didn't allow the DA to win this one.

negolien
04-10-2011, 5:59 AM
Sounds like two different stories here one with cop one not. Ones in Stockton the original article was boyle heights. One was a well trained law enforcement officer legally carrying a weapon. One was some dude illegally carrying a concealed weapon? I mean really there's such a contrast here you can't honestly compare cases. If the attempt was to say a cop gets away with he same thing a normal person wouldn't have anyways /shrug. I' am not sure I can say I' am glad he got off if he was knowingly committing a felony by concealed unlicensed carry though.

Not really sure where the OP is going or it's just too early and I' am just lost and retarded which wouldn't be new LOL.

FF/EMT Nick
04-10-2011, 6:55 AM
if he was knowingly committing a felony by concealed unlicensed carry though.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but unlicensed concealed carry is a misdemeanor, yes? :confused:

Kid Stanislaus
04-10-2011, 10:10 AM
Correct me if i'm wrong, but unlicensed concealed carry is a misdemeanor, yes? :confused:

Correct ME if I'm wrong but I think it can fall into either camp depending on circumstances. IANAL

pat038536
04-10-2011, 10:24 AM
Sounds like two different stories here one with cop one not. Ones in Stockton the original article was boyle heights. One was a well trained law enforcement officer legally carrying a weapon. One was some dude illegally carrying a concealed weapon? I mean really there's such a contrast here you can't honestly compare cases. If the attempt was to say a cop gets away with he same thing a normal person wouldn't have anyways /shrug. I' am not sure I can say I' am glad he got off if he was knowingly committing a felony by concealed unlicensed carry though.

Not really sure where the OP is going or it's just too early and I' am just lost and retarded which wouldn't be new LOL.


The one is Stockton happened at a Halloween party at the Waterloo Gun and Bocci Club. He was came to the party dressed as a security guard and had not been wearing the handgun as part of his costume. He retrieved it during the fight.
This is according to the article..

Personally, I think he was carrying..

FF/EMT Nick
04-10-2011, 11:08 AM
PC 12025(A)(2)<MISD Misdemeanor HAVING CONCEALED WEAPON ON PERSON
PC 12031(A)<F1 Misdemeanor CARRY LOADED FIREARM IN PUBLIC PLACE

says it right there, and i've read it else where, carry without a permit IS a misdemeanor!!!

scarville
04-10-2011, 11:37 AM
Wow.. Two years of his life gone, stuck in jail for no reason. Does he have any legal recourse, or is he just out of 2 years of his life?
The Public Defender, Jennifer Perkins, is quoted here (http://m.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110408/A_NEWS/104080311/-1/WAP&template=wapart&m_section=WAP) as saying, "The jury system worked. Justice was served."

This is how the system is supposed to work? When I read about stuff like this I wonder who is bigger threat: The goblins or the legal system.

harbinger007
04-10-2011, 12:08 PM
Jury didn't waste much time, only deliberated for two hours.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110408/A_NEWS/104080311/-1/A_COMM01

N6ATF
04-10-2011, 1:04 PM
She added that jurors also told her they were confused over why the case went to trial.

The jury I was sworn on was similarly confused about why the defendant was charged and not the person he was defending himself non-lethally/bloodily from. Prosecutors need to be punished severely every time they go after a self-defender.

BKinzey
04-10-2011, 5:00 PM
This is how the system is supposed to work? When I read about stuff like this I wonder who is bigger threat: The goblins or the legal system.

She was speaking of the jury system and yes it worked.

Maestro Pistolero
04-10-2011, 5:04 PM
I cannot help but wonder how they can rectify a justified defensive use of force with a weapons possession charge.

Wasn't it Scalia who said it was doubtful that a person who lawfully defended himself would be charged with violation of a possession law? Well here's the test case.

SparrowHanger
04-10-2011, 9:00 PM
I cannot help but wonder how they can rectify a justified defensive use of force with a weapons possession charge.

Wasn't it Scalia who said it was doubtful that a person who lawfully defended himself would be charged with violation of a possession law? Well here's the test case.

I think it fairly simple. He violated the law in that he was in possession of a loaded weapon. The issue of whether the shooting was or was not justified is independent of whehter he had a CCW and the shooting was found to be justified.