PDA

View Full Version : SacPD mistakenly arrests gun owner


secretasianman
04-14-2007, 12:36 PM
Police probe mistaken arrest of resident in shooting
Man was returning fire when he shot at group, hitting one, official says.
By Ryan Lillis - Bee Staff Writers

Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, April 14, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B2

A 46-year-old man was wrongfully arrested Sunday after he shot an alleged gang member in self-defense, police said Friday.

Now the Sacramento Police Department is conducting an internal investigation into how the mistake was made, authorities said.

Patrick Malcolm fired his gun at a group of men who had shot at him first near his Meadowview home, said Sacramento Police Sgt. Matt Young. One of the men was hit, Young said.

Officers responding to a call of shots fired near Twilight Drive and Sweetfern Way about 5 a.m. Sunday were approached by Malcolm, Young said. Malcolm told police he was in his living room when he saw a suspicious car outside.

He grabbed his gun, went outside to investigate and was shot at several times, Young said. He fired back in self-defense, Young said.

Investigators do not know why someone shot at Malcolm.

About 20 minutes after speaking with Malcolm, officers were notified that a man had been taken to an area hospital with a gunshot wound to the upper torso, Young said. They then arrested Malcolm on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon.

"Follow-up investigation revealed the resident should not have been arrested, and we're taking steps to rectify this situation," Young said Friday. "We made a mistake. We arrested the wrong guy."

Malcolm was released Monday, Young said.

Police are working with the Sacramento District Attorney's Office to make sure charges are not filed against Malcolm and that his "record is expunged" of his arrest, Young said.

Malcolm did not return calls from The Bee on Friday evening.

Young said the decision to arrest Malcolm was made by the responding officers' immediate supervisor, who is a sergeant, and the watch commander on duty, a lieutenant. Young said the responding officers at the scene "did everything right" but declined to elaborate.

The department's internal affairs unit has begun an investigation "to ascertain why the mistake was made," Young said. He said "necessary information was not communicated" between the two crime scenes -- the street where the shooting occurred and the hospital where the wounded man was found.

On Friday, police arrested the man who had been shot, 18-year-old Salvador Thomas Williams, on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon and negligent discharge of a firearm and with a criminal street gang enhancement.

I gotta say... Sac PD isn't making many friends.

Matt C
04-14-2007, 12:38 PM
Not a very smart move though, walking outside like that. And what exactly is a "suspicious car"? One that looks at you funny?

Richie Rich
04-14-2007, 12:41 PM
Oops. Sorry about that.

Howsabout a CCW permit for the mans troubles...

And DO NOT forget to give him his gun back.

Not a bad shot, into a moving car, at night while under fire. Managed to pop one of the dirtbags.

A "suspicious car" is one driving slowly down your street in the wee hours of the morning, full of gang bangers with guns.

dicast
04-14-2007, 12:43 PM
+1 for the good guy

Surveyor
04-14-2007, 12:47 PM
IA is already involved. The problem lies with the luitenant and the sergeant who ordered the arrest.

There sure has been a lot of interesting activity regarding gun rights, in the Sacramento area lately.

Rumpled
04-14-2007, 12:50 PM
I'd expect that almost anyone who fires at someone would be arrested in most jurisdictions in CA. I fully expect that to happen to me if I should shoot an intruder in my home.
They'll sort it all out later.

secretasianman
04-14-2007, 12:51 PM
I'm hoping these events lead to a change in the law in regards of defense of property.

CalNRA
04-14-2007, 12:53 PM
the trend of immediately arresting everyone involved in the shooting is disturbing. The concept of self-defense in California is now tainted by the shadow of "you shoot, you go to jail first and get cleared if you are lucky" and the police departments are happy to run under that protocol.

secretasianman
04-14-2007, 12:57 PM
I fully expect that to happen to me if I should shoot an intruder in my home. They'll sort it all out later.

I sure hope they follow the law and ASSUME you are innocent if it occurred in your home.

Surveyor
04-14-2007, 1:09 PM
Not a very smart move though, walking outside like that. And what exactly is a "suspicious car"? One that looks at you funny?

Meadowview Blvd is the "Crenshaw" of South Sac. It actually becomes another infamous road as you head east (Mack Rd). If you live there, and a car full of gangsters slowly drives by your house a couple of times, more than likely you are about to have your house shot at, or fire-bombed. The cops will show up just in time to tell you that your neighbors "didn't see anything".
Then you get to live in fear until the next time.

People are getting murdered, in broad daylight sometimes, for nothing. (It's almost as if the gang bangers are becoming imboldened by the constant retreat of "civilized" society :rolleyes: ).

Some of the good guys in the hood are sick of living in fear. They're mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore.
The decent people in the hood, that work to clean it up, are always singled out by gangs. So they have to be willing to take risks and fight harder than the wicked.

I'm not advocating hunting down suspected criminals and punishing them, but
I do think we need to stand firmer, faster.

halifax
04-14-2007, 1:28 PM
If the officers "did everything right", why are they apologizing?

E Pluribus Unum
04-14-2007, 1:31 PM
I'd expect that almost anyone who fires at someone would be arrested in most jurisdictions in CA. I fully expect that to happen to me if I should shoot an intruder in my home.
They'll sort it all out later.

Detained, yes.... arrested.... no.

If the officers "did everything right", why are they apologizing?

The responding officers did everything right. Their supervisors ordered them to make the arrest; the blame lies on the supervisors, not the responding officers.

Surveyor
04-14-2007, 1:33 PM
If the officers "did everything right", why are they apologizing?

The officers responding to the scene "did everything right" (they just did what they were told).

The lieutenant and sergeant who told them what to do are the ones in trouble.



Edit: Damn! EPU beat me by two minute!

dwtt
04-14-2007, 1:41 PM
Meadowview Blvd is the "Crenshaw" of South Sac.
Some of the good guys in the hood are sick of living in fear. They're mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore.
The decent people in the hood, that work to clean it up, are always singled out by gangs. So they have to be willing to take risks and fight harder than the wicked. What's the police's excuse for not going after the gangs? Is it the ACLU? Is it like San Franisco where the police keep claiming they can't stop the gangs because no witnesses would come forward when in reality all they have to do is get out of their cruisers and walk the streets to see plenty of crime?

Surveyor
04-14-2007, 2:36 PM
actually as soon as the home owner left the saftey of his house with a gun he confrunted the "gang member" with deadly force and the gang member had every right to defend himself.property or stuff is not a justifiable with deadly force.that is just how the law is.



The article doesn't say that he brandished a gun, just that he grabbed it.

Pleeeeease believe me,
if he'd brandished that gun, they would have spared themselves the embarrassment of a public apology and an Internal Affairs investigation ;) .

Sac. PD is not about to let people get comfortable with the idea of shooting at bad guys. They don't even want you to buy more than 50 rounds a month of handgun ammo, after all.

CalNRA
04-14-2007, 2:40 PM
actually as soon as the home owner left the saftey of his house with a gun he confrunted the "gang member" with deadly force and the gang member had every right to defend himself.property or stuff is not a justifiable with deadly force.that is just how the law is.

wouldn't the fact that the gang members shot at hi FIRST constitute as a legitimate fear for one's own life? he grabbed a gun, but he most likely he was still on his property when he was being shot at.

Surveyor
04-14-2007, 2:45 PM
What's the police's excuse for not going after the gangs? Is it the ACLU? Is it like San Franisco where the police keep claiming they can't stop the gangs because no witnesses would come forward when in reality all they have to do is get out of their cruisers and walk the streets to see plenty of crime?


Local law enforcement is actually making a pretty good effort to deal with the gang problem. A couple of years ago the local DA got a restraining order against the local "Broderick Boys" gang. The whole gang, not individually named members. They enforced it, and the ACLU sued. It's still in court.

Locals being to scarred to testify is also a problem.

Ford8N
04-14-2007, 2:57 PM
Why don't big city police departments make it a requirement that cops have to live in the high crime areas? Especially the Chief. Otherwise the gangs have won and cops are just there to pick up the bodies.

hitnrun
04-14-2007, 3:07 PM
I wonder what the car full of bangers thought when they see a guy walk out of his house toward them with a gun in his hand. Of course they're going to shoot!! If the car was on the street, he has no obligation to "investigate" it. He should have called the police. If they were on his property or something like that, then by all means. This guy pushed his luck.

I'm not saying he should have been arrested, but I do think that he escalated the situation by confronting them with a gun. It definitely could have been avoided.

Shane916
04-14-2007, 3:31 PM
Why don't big city police departments make it a requirement that cops have to live in the high crime areas? Especially the Chief. Otherwise the gangs have won and cops are just there to pick up the bodies.

Because no one would work for those departments and I would be in the ghetto.

socom308
04-14-2007, 3:34 PM
There is WAY more to this story than what the media has at this point, nevermind the armchair policing going on, trust me on that point (I am not allowed to elaborate any further). In time the facts will be disseminated and you will have an informed picture of what occurred.

Please believe me that SPD officers are with the community in combating violent crime and gangs. They are doing the best they can with their available resources, and we all know that change can't happen overnight.

WokMaster1
04-14-2007, 3:40 PM
ACLU is turning into the biggest gang. If you're a gang member, you have already given up all of your rights to the gang so why cry about it when the cops bust their arses? ACLU should be going after the gang leaders for infringement of their member's rights. But of course they are too chickensh*t to deal with the gangs, fearing for their lives. So they turn to an easier target.:mad:

Dont Tread on Me
04-14-2007, 4:20 PM
Not a very smart move though, walking outside like that. And what exactly is a "suspicious car"? One that looks at you funny?

+1. Heading out with a gun to protect property is not a good idea. I'm surprised the cops feel bad enough to apologies for this one.

Super_tactical
04-14-2007, 4:39 PM
Hey guys...

LET'S GIVE THE HOMEOWNER THE BENEFIT OF A DOUBT!!!

Maybe he had the gun behind his back, maybe he had it in a concealed holster. I personally wouldn't have cared if he was brandishing it!! It is a felony for a gangbanger to drive by with a gun in his car. I wish he had an OL Ar15 and finished the job.

Why are we siding with criminals instead of lawfull citizens. My gosh!

I've had to confront groups in cars in front of my house in the middle of the night. You better believe that my Glock is at my hip. If more homeowners stood up for themselves and confronted these little varmint gangbangers, the hoodlums wouldn't have power over the neighborhood.

Matt C
04-14-2007, 4:42 PM
Hey guys...

LET'S GIVE THE HOMEOWNER THE BENEFIT OF A DOUBT!!!

Maybe he had the gun behind his back, maybe he had it in a concealed holster. I personally wouldn't have cared if he was brandishing it!! It is a felony for a gangbanger to drive by with a gun in his car. I wish he had an OL Ar15 and finished the job.

Why are we siding with criminals instead of lawfull citizens. My gosh!

I've had to confront groups in cars in front of my house in the middle of the night. You better believe that my Glock is at my hip. If more homeowners stood up for themselves and confronted these little varmint gangbangers, the hoodlums wouldn't have power over the neighborhood.

Calm down, you are tilting at windmills in your last couple posts.

Super_tactical
04-14-2007, 4:49 PM
Calm down, you are tilting at windmills in your last couple posts.

haha

I'm really getting tired of all this CA crap.

rg_1111@yahoo.com
04-14-2007, 4:52 PM
hitnrun He should have called the police. Yeah right,
The police have a 20 minutes to over an hour response after shoots have been fired in Meadowview Rd area.
The good citizens in meadowview have to protect them self's from gang members.

Shane916
04-14-2007, 5:14 PM
The police have a 20 minutes to over an hour response after shoots have been fired in Meadowview Rd area.


Any documents to back that up? :)

DirtySanchez
04-14-2007, 5:44 PM
I have an idea, maybe he thought something was up outside and took the gun in case some gangbanger tried something......oh wait thats what seems to have happened isn't it?? well then it was pretty F'n smart for him to have had a gun.

Matt C
04-14-2007, 5:53 PM
I have an idea, maybe he thought something was up outside and took the gun in case some gangbanger tried something......oh wait thats what seems to have happened isn't it?? well then it was pretty F'n smart for him to have had a gun.

I'll tell you what, nothing that's "up" outside is worth me getting killed. That's what I pay my taxes to have the local PD take care of. I'll stick to defending what's INSIDE my house, they are a lot more important to me. Not to mention that walking outside puts one at a tactical disadvantage. Outside BS is what 911 is really for IMO. Inside BS is what my guns are for.

secretasianman
04-14-2007, 6:02 PM
I have an idea, maybe he thought something was up outside and took the gun in case some gangbanger tried something......oh wait thats what seems to have happened isn't it?? well then it was pretty F'n smart for him to have had a gun.

Exactly. It wasn't long ago that another South Sac resident confronted three car thieves and shot one (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=54092&highlight=sac). It turned out at least one of the thieves was on parole for illegal firearms possession and he (homeowner) was right in bringing a firearm when he went outside.

Residents in South Sac are on edge and sick and tired of these thugs running rampant. The police are not able to catch these guys so these residents are feeling the need to take a stronger stand when it comes to preservation of life and property. Hell, the Sac Sheriff who sat in for Tom Sullivan stated that you can bring a firearm as a SELF DEFENSE tool if you feel the need to confront burglars outside your home. Don't fire the weapon if they don't stop trying to steal your vehicle.

In this case, the homeowner must have noticed something really odd to go outside with a firearm. There is no mention of him brandishing and pointing it at the perps. He was fired on first.

It's a personal decision everyone has to make in determining whether you want to confront these criminals or not. For most of these folks, they've been repeat burglary victims where the police just tells them "That's what insurance is for." I can understand a homeowner getting fed up with having to pay the deductible and decides NO MORE BEING A VICTIM.

I hope the two homeowners come out ok after dealing with the stress of using their firearms and then worrying about the arrests.

383green
04-14-2007, 7:32 PM
I'll tell you what, nothing that's "up" outside is worth me getting killed. That's what I pay my taxes to have the local PD take care of. I'll stick to defending what's INSIDE my house, they are a lot more important to me. Not to mention that walking outside puts one at a tactical disadvantage. Outside BS is what 911 is really for IMO. Inside BS is what my guns are for.

If a car full of bangers decides to do a drive-by shooting near your home, then any shots fired towards your home may well end up inside with you.

Speaking hypothetically, if the homeowner has reason to believe that shooting is about to start in the street outside his home, then he's not just protecting his property by preparing to defend himself. He's protecting his life. That being said, going outside to investigate might not have been as good a tactical choice as taking cover with a rifle and preparing to return fire if and only if necessary.

With the details that have been disclosed here so far, I don't think we know if the homeowner even displayed a weapon before shooting commenced, let along brandished one. Perhaps he tucked a pistol in his waistband and walked outside to see what was going on, with no intention of putting himself in unnecessary danger, and the thugs initiated the violence without any real provocation?

TheMan
04-14-2007, 7:42 PM
I'll tell you what, nothing that's "up" outside is worth me getting killed.

Never?

What if you called the police, waited the 30 minutes for them to show up, only to find out that it was your daughter(or wife, mom, etc), who had been attacked, raped, killed as they had arrived at your house?

Generally, I'd agree with you, that property is not worth getting killed for. But that may not be all that's "up" outside.

Matt C
04-14-2007, 7:45 PM
Never say never. ;) But tactically, walking outside is stupid any way you cut it. If your car is worth you life, go for it. I probably would if I had a really nice car... But I'd have more than a pistol. :D

383green
04-14-2007, 7:48 PM
Never say never. ;) But tactically, walking outside is stupid any way you cut it. If your car is worth you life, go for it. I probably would if I had a really nice car... But I'd have more than a pistol. :D

Definitely stay inside. Fire from hard cover, and light off the Claymores if they get too close to the perimeter. :D

hoffmang
04-14-2007, 8:38 PM
Property is worth investigating. Bringing a concealed firearm while on your own property is common sense. If the gun stays concealed and you get shot at you have every right to shoot to kill. That's not using a gun to protect property, its using a gun to protect yourself while protecting property.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness was originally Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of property.

-Gene

VeryCoolCat
04-14-2007, 9:18 PM
Heh Suspicious car.


Half the cars where I live are suspicious.... whats really suspicious is seeing a porsche, expensive merecedes, or 7 series bmw in my area :p

MedSpec65
04-14-2007, 9:21 PM
I wonder what the car full of bangers thought when they see a guy walk out of his house toward them with a gun in his hand. Of course they're going to shoot!! If the car was on the street, he has no obligation to "investigate" it. He should have called the police. If they were on his property or something like that, then by all means. This guy pushed his luck.

I'm not saying he should have been arrested, but I do think that he escalated the situation by confronting them with a gun. It definitely could have been avoided.In most "Shall Issue" States this homeowner would have been charged with elevating the jeopardy factor by introducing deadly force into a "disturbing the peace" situation. At a minimum, he should have dialed 911 before he went outside gun un-holstered and made himself a bullet magnet. :rolleyes:

Jicko
04-14-2007, 9:42 PM
I think now, this guy is in REAL danger.... I bet those "gang members" are going to come back, and show him some real colors.....

*sigh*

LAK Supply
04-14-2007, 10:00 PM
I can't believe some of the posts I am reading here on this thread! The guy should not have grabbed his gun?! Property is not worth protecting?! He should have stayed in his house?!

I don't give a damn what kind of property we are talking about here....the people that are saying the homeowner should have cowered in his house and waited for the cops are engaging in the same line of thought that created these problems in the first place!

The notion that the police are responsible for protecting people and property is absolutely insane. There can NEVER be a cop standing on every corner to prevent theft, assault, rape, murder, etc. It's about time people started standing up agains scum like these gangsters POS's!

I didn't say much in the last thread about the homeowner that got arrested last week, but at this point I'm tired of the drivel about "life is worth more than property," and "he should have stayed in his house."

If life is worth more than property, then the scumbags that are committing the crimes obviously aren't aware of it because they keep doing things that could result in their getting shot/killed by the victims.

This **** will not stop until people stand up for themselves AND their property and stop acting like whipped dogs by hiding in their houses waiting for a badge to show up.

Matt C
04-14-2007, 10:05 PM
I'm all for setting up on the local hoods, put a dirt bike in your driveway, camp out in the back of your tinted window SUV (in your driveway facing away from the bike) wearing body armor and arrest the first guy that tries to steal it at shot gun point. All legal, and and with not too much risk involved. Running outside with a gun because you hear a noise or see a strange car just does not make sense to me, but then again I'm paranoid as hell and I value my hide.

Richie Rich
04-14-2007, 10:07 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with you LAK.

Sadly, the bottom line is that the law says you cannot use deadly force to protect your property.

A murder rap is much tougher to deal with then a stolen car. Most DAs offices will prosecute you just as quickly as if you were the one who was commiting the crime in the first place.

That being said, I not hide in my house waiting for the police to arrive if I observed someone trying to steal or damage my property. I would confront them and I would not do it unarmed.

Super_tactical
04-15-2007, 12:18 AM
I can't believe some of the posts I am reading here on this thread! The guy should not have grabbed his gun?! Property is not worth protecting?! He should have stayed in his house?!

I don't give a damn what kind of property we are talking about here....the people that are saying the homeowner should have cowered in his house and waited for the cops are engaging in the same line of thought that created these problems in the first place!

The notion that the police are responsible for protecting people and property is absolutely insane. There can NEVER be a cop standing on every corner to prevent theft, assault, rape, murder, etc. It's about time people started standing up agains scum like these gangsters POS's!

I didn't say much in the last thread about the homeowner that got arrested last week, but at this point I'm tired of the drivel about "life is worth more than property," and "he should have stayed in his house."

If life is worth more than property, then the scumbags that are committing the crimes obviously aren't aware of it because they keep doing things that could result in their getting shot/killed by the victims.

This **** will not stop until people stand up for themselves AND their property and stop acting like whipped dogs by hiding in their houses waiting for a badge to show up.

I think I love you. ;)

CalNRA
04-15-2007, 12:31 AM
Why don't big city police departments make it a requirement that cops have to live in the high crime areas? Especially the Chief. Otherwise the gangs have won and cops are just there to pick up the bodies.

it's too dangerous. the bullets might hurt the cops. But it's not dangerous enough to give people with no criminal record CCWs, not a good cause. :rolleyes:

scrat
04-15-2007, 8:31 AM
Oops. Sorry about that.

Howsabout a CCW permit for the mans troubles...

And DO NOT forget to give him his gun back.

Not a bad shot, into a moving car, at night while under fire. Managed to pop one of the dirtbags.

A "suspicious car" is one driving slowly down your street in the wee hours of the morning, full of gang bangers with guns.

Not a bad shot. Depends on how you look at. I would have been outside with my 12 guage. im pretty sure i could hit a moving car with a 12 guage. I bet he could have gotten more than one with a 12 guage too.

heyjak
04-15-2007, 9:16 AM
Definitely stay inside. Fire from hard cover, and light off the Claymores if they get too close to the perimeter. :D

Now that's funny! I thank God I don't need Claymores where I currently live.:D

WolfMansDad
04-15-2007, 9:29 AM
+1 LAK

If you are too afraid to go outside when suspicious people are hanging around, you don't own your yard. They do.

LAK Supply
04-15-2007, 10:10 AM
There are always people willing to walk on those who would do nothing to stop them.

What was the quote? Something about good societies going bad not because of bad people but because of good people doing nothing?

I can't remember it right now.......

whomper
04-15-2007, 11:27 AM
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Well said earlier, LAK.

Paladin
04-15-2007, 1:06 PM
Big problem:
Meadowview Blvd is the "Crenshaw" of South Sac. It actually becomes another infamous road as you head east (Mack Rd). If you live there, and a car full of gangsters slowly drives by your house a couple of times, more than likely you are about to have your house shot at, or fire-bombed. The cops will show up just in time to tell you that your neighbors "didn't see anything".
Then you get to live in fear until the next time.

People are getting murdered, in broad daylight sometimes, for nothing. (It's almost as if the gang bangers are becoming imboldened by the constant retreat of "civilized" society :rolleyes: ).

Some of the good guys in the hood are sick of living in fear. They're mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore.
The decent people in the hood, that work to clean it up, are always singled out by gangs. So they have to be willing to take risks and fight harder than the wicked.

I'm not advocating hunting down suspected criminals and punishing them, but
I do think we need to stand firmer, faster.

Locals being to scarred to testify is also a problem.

Solution: Part 1: Put political pressure on the County Sheriff and Sups (they control sheriff's budget) and/or city councilmembers (who influence the CoP) to go to "reasonable issue" of CCWs (ck out my sig line). Use www.californiaccw.org to organize on the local level. Just print out their flyers (http://www.californiaccw.org/files/ in English and/or Spanish) and pass them around to those "good guys" who are "mad as hell." Post them on telephone poles, stick them under windshield wipers on cars, drop them off at houses/apartments, or tape them to front door knobs.

Part 2: Get in contact w/"Team Billy Jack" (www.californiaconcealedcarry.com) to see what can be done via the courts to increase issuance in your jurisdiction.

You've got to take back your local gov't before you can take back your neighborhoods. The cutoff for applications for running for sheriff in 2010 is less than 2 yrs away -- you've got to have an organization up and running a year before that to find viable contenders who will issue like Sheriff Carona does in Orange County. In 2008 you'll have other local elections, so you've got to get organized immediately. There's no time to waste!

Or you can just huddle in fear while the BGs rule your neighborhoods and you discover that the "thin blue line" is more like a "thin blue dotted line" w/more gaps than dots.

LAK Supply
04-15-2007, 8:03 PM
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Well said earlier, LAK.

Thanks....that's what I was alluding to.........

Racefiend
04-16-2007, 1:28 PM
Sure, your life is more valuable than your property, but how much do you value your principles? Many have said principles are worth dying for.

mdhpper
04-16-2007, 1:39 PM
He should have stayed in his home, and called the cops to investigate any "suspicious" vehicle.

leelaw
04-16-2007, 1:49 PM
Police are working with the Sacramento District Attorney's Office to make sure charges are not filed against Malcolm and that his "record is expunged" of his arrest, Young said.

That's rich.

Records are never expunged, they're merely hidden from public view. There will always be records of arrests, even bad ones.

Surveyor
04-16-2007, 2:02 PM
He should have stayed in his home, and called the cops to investigate any "suspicious" vehicle.


"Hello, Sac. PD? I'd like to report a suspicious vehicle outside my house. Yes, I live at 1234 Meadowview Rd."

"No, they haven't fired any shots or done anything illegal yet."

"Someone will be right out? Okay, I'll wait"

(A Long time goes by....)

"Hello, Sac. PD? Where are you?"

"A shooting, huh?"

"A domestic too?"

"Another shooting, huh?"

"I'm sorry, I have to go. My house is on fire and bullets are coming through the window."

Sometimes you have to go outside, to protect what's inside. I would rather have fire directed at me, than at the general direction of my house. There're kids in my house.

Also, we don't know all of the details but we do know that it would be counter-productive for a police dept. to apologize and call IA, (IA for cryin' out loud!), when they could simply arrest someone for an easy brandishing charge.

1911_sfca
04-16-2007, 2:03 PM
Sorry to say, but if that happened in San Francisco, they would have arrested the guy, the DA would charge him, and after the court convicted him they would hand the gang banger the keys and deed to the poor guy's house..

E Pluribus Unum
04-16-2007, 2:24 PM
Records are never expunged, they're merely hidden from public view. There will always be records of arrests, even bad ones.

Not always true bud....

Penal Code 851.8. (a) In any case where a person has been arrested and no accusatory pleading has been filed, the person arrested may petition
the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense to
destroy its records of the arrest. A copy of such petition shall be
served upon the prosecuting attorney of the county or city having
jurisdiction over the offense. The law enforcement agency having
jurisdiction over the offense, upon a determination that the person
arrested is factually innocent, shall, with the concurrence of the
prosecuting attorney, seal its arrest records, and the petition for
relief under this section for three years from the date of the arrest
and thereafter destroy its arrest records and the petition. The law
enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense shall notify
the Department of Justice, and any law enforcement agency which
arrested the petitioner or participated in the arrest of the
petitioner for an offense for which the petitioner has been found
factually innocent under this subdivision, of the sealing of the
arrest records and the reason therefor. The Department of Justice and
any law enforcement agency so notified shall forthwith seal their
records of the arrest and the notice of sealing for three years from
the date of the arrest, and thereafter destroy their records of the
arrest and the notice of sealing. The law enforcement agency having
jurisdiction over the offense and the Department of Justice shall
request the destruction of any records of the arrest which they have
given to any local, state, or federal agency or to any other person
or entity. Each such agency, person, or entity within the State of
California receiving such a request shall destroy its records of the
arrest and such request , unless otherwise provided in this section.

leelaw
04-16-2007, 2:44 PM
Not always true bud....

In my experience that is particularily true... bud.

I've heard from several people who have applied for law enforcement positions, in which they sign a waiver to privacy, in which all arrest records and whatnot become available for review by the agency.

In their cases, their arrest record was still there, even though it was supposed to have been "expunged" - it was merely hidden from the public view, not destroyed.

Now, may this be against the law? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not going to argue that position, I'm merely relaying what has actually happened.

E Pluribus Unum
04-16-2007, 4:23 PM
In my experience that is particularily true... bud.

I've heard from several people who have applied for law enforcement positions, in which they sign a waiver to privacy, in which all arrest records and whatnot become available for review by the agency.

In their cases, their arrest record was still there, even though it was supposed to have been "expunged" - it was merely hidden from the public view, not destroyed.

Now, may this be against the law? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not going to argue that position, I'm merely relaying what has actually happened.

You are generally right with regards to an expungment. What I quoted was not an expungment but a factual finding of innocence. Because the PD has conceded that he is factually innocent he can require them to destroy the arrest record as if it never happened. If that is his only arrest he could then answer "no" if ever asked "have you ever been arrested".

Matt C
04-17-2007, 12:52 AM
You are generally right with regards to an expungment. What I quoted was not an expungment but a factual finding of innocence. Because the PD has conceded that he is factually innocent he can require them to destroy the arrest record as if it never happened. If that is his only arrest he could then answer "no" if ever asked "have you ever been arrested".

He could say that but the record is still there. That can have all sorts of affect on any kind of BGI, including one for buying guns. Most likely just a delay, but he may have to explain the situation a few times. You can destroy paper, but once something goes into the computer it sticks around. Forever. Ask me how I know.

E Pluribus Unum
04-17-2007, 4:39 AM
He could say that but the record is still there. That can have all sorts of affect on any kind of BGI, including one for buying guns. Most likely just a delay, but he may have to explain the situation a few times. You can destroy paper, but once something goes into the computer it sticks around. Forever. Ask me how I know.

Negative ghostrider.... he would never have to explain an arrest when buying a gun. Even if the arrest is not sealed, destroyed, or expunged. The only time an arrest would show up where no charges were filed would be in a background for government employment. Even regular employment background checks do not show arrests....


ask me how I know... ;)

P.S.
I used to work at a law firm doing all sorts of things including expunging arrest records.

Matt C
04-17-2007, 11:13 AM
Negative ghostrider.... he would never have to explain an arrest when buying a gun. Even if the arrest is not sealed, destroyed, or expunged. The only time an arrest would show up where no charges were filed would be in a background for government employment. Even regular employment background checks do not show arrests....


Really? Wow, I'm so glad you know everything. I just imagined stuff that actually happened to me. :rolleyes:

E Pluribus Unum
04-17-2007, 12:04 PM
Really? Wow, I'm so glad you know everything. I just imagined stuff that actually happened to me. :rolleyes:

Who questioned you when you bought a gun? The only people that do the background check is the DOJ... are you saying that the DOJ called you and asked you questions about the arrest?

mdhpper
04-17-2007, 1:10 PM
"Hello, Sac. PD? I'd like to report a suspicious vehicle outside my house. Yes, I live at 1234 Meadowview Rd."

"No, they haven't fired any shots or done anything illegal yet."

"Someone will be right out? Okay, I'll wait"

(A Long time goes by....)

"Hello, Sac. PD? Where are you?"

"A shooting, huh?"

"A domestic too?"

"Another shooting, huh?"

"I'm sorry, I have to go. My house is on fire and bullets are coming through the window."

Sometimes you have to go outside, to protect what's inside. I would rather have fire directed at me, than at the general direction of my house. There're kids in my house.

Also, we don't know all of the details but we do know that it would be counter-productive for a police dept. to apologize and call IA, (IA for cryin' out loud!), when they could simply arrest someone for an easy brandishing charge.

This guy is really lucky the charges against him are being dropped, I’m sure the D.A. could file charges against him if they really wanted to. Assuming this guy did not have a CCW, he could be in violation of the law if the weapon was concealed, or brandishing a weapon. He does not own the street and it is perfectly legal for someone to be parked on it.

Even if his legal troubles are over, he still has to deal with the fact that these gangbangers might want to retaliate against him. Hopefully he has enough sense to move otherwise he maybe a sitting duck.

I had a crazy neighbor a few years back that thought he owned the street and would become irate if anyone would park in front of his home. One night a neighbor’s teenage daughter was getting dropped off by her boyfriend and stopped for a few minutes in front of his home to their goodbyes. The crazy neighbor came out of his home to investigate and pulled out his weapon and threatened the kids if they were to ever stop there again. The cops were called, brandishing a weapon in public charges were filed and he lost his gun rights.

Matt C
04-17-2007, 5:34 PM
Who questioned you when you bought a gun? The only people that do the background check is the DOJ... are you saying that the DOJ called you and asked you questions about the arrest?

The FFL got a notice saying hold the gun, do not release. I was able to resolve it pretty quickly by calling DOJ and proving my LE status (faxed creds/contact info for my supervisor) but if I had not been LE I'm sure I would not have left with the gun that day. The problem was an "arrest" that happened several years earlier when I was off duty and was apprehended by some MPs (from another installation) after a drunken brawl. (I did nothing wrong of course;) ) They took every military member present to the PMO and processed us (including prints). I was released that same night, no charges ever filed, but the arrest still follows me. Every time I apply for anything with a gov background chack I get a delay and have to explain it (for ex. I have had higher security clearance delayed, a Private Investigators license delayed, the DROS, ect.) It a pain is the arse reminder not to be involved in that kind of crap, but it's never going away, even though I was never charged.

Surveyor
04-17-2007, 7:10 PM
This guy is really lucky the charges against him are being dropped, I’m sure the D.A. could file charges against him if they really wanted to.

True. It's been said that a D.A. could indict a ham sandwich. Gun owners are typically much easier to indict than a sandwich.


Assuming this guy did not have a CCW, he could be in violation of the law if the weapon was concealed, or brandishing a weapon.

False. It is perfectly legal to conceal a weapon on your property.
Brandishing is different. Nowhere in the article does it say that he presented the firearm before he was shot at.


He does not own the street and it is perfectly legal for someone to be parked on it.

True. It is also legal for me to walk up to your front door and knock on it. I can even peek in through an open window to see if you're home.

However I cannot lurk around ..."(I)n a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons on your property". That's prowling.
I would not consider their actions to be prowling at three o'clock in the afternoon. Three o'clock in the morning is a diferent story.

Even if his legal troubles are over, he still has to deal with the fact that these gangbangers might want to retaliate against him.


You bet your azz they're gonna retaliate. Of course, they had already come to his home with loaded firearms and hostile intent, so I don't think he's in any more danger than he was before he shot back.


Hopefully he has enough sense to move otherwise he maybe a sitting duck.

I also think that he should move. It might not be so easy, though. Many of the homes on Meadowview, or in the Meadowview area start at $250k. The brand new ones that they just built (infill development :rolleyes: ) start in the $400k range. A lot of folks in the $80k a year tax bracket (not lowlifes) bought in because it's what they could afford. The market just took a crap on us and no one is buying these houses anymore. If you only got into one of these homes a couple of years ago with the intention to flip it and buy a new one, you're stuck staying put for a while. Sucks :( .

I had a crazy neighbor a few years back that thought he owned the street and would become irate if anyone would park in front of his home. One night a neighbor’s teenage daughter was getting dropped off by her boyfriend and stopped for a few minutes in front of his home to their goodbyes. The crazy neighbor came out of his home to investigate and pulled out his weapon and threatened the kids if they were to ever stop there again. The cops were called, brandishing a weapon in public charges were filed and he lost his gun rights.


It sounds like your neighbor deserved to be arrested. Threatening your neighbors daughter with a gun is a lot different than shooting back at some gangsters. I'm glad he lost his gun rights, if that is how he exercised them.

I guess the bottom line is that we all have to protect ourselves the the best we can, with whatever knowledge and wisdom we have. It's up to all of us to weigh the risk of the situation that we're in, versus the consequences of an improper or inadequate response. Some of us may lose our property to a thief, others to a court decision in a wrongful death suit. You just don't know how things may turn out.

I do know that if my family were hurt because I pussed out and hid from the bad guys, I couldn't live with the regret.

I can, however, live with the regret of a BS conviction a lot easier.

E Pluribus Unum
04-17-2007, 7:48 PM
The FFL got a notice saying hold the gun, do not release. I was able to resolve it pretty quickly by calling DOJ and proving my LE status (faxed creds/contact info for my supervisor) but if I had not been LE I'm sure I would not have left with the gun that day. The problem was an "arrest" that happened several years earlier when I was off duty and was apprehended by some MPs (from another installation) after a drunken brawl. (I did nothing wrong of course;) ) They took every military member present to the PMO and processed us (including prints). I was released that same night, no charges ever filed, but the arrest still follows me. Every time I apply for anything with a gov background chack I get a delay and have to explain it (for ex. I have had higher security clearance delayed, a Private Investigators license delayed, the DROS, ect.) It a pain is the arse reminder not to be involved in that kind of crap, but it's never going away, even though I was never charged.

It does not suprise me that a military arrest would be different than a normal PD arrest. I have never heard of a private arrest stopping a firearm transfer. I have heard of prohibited persons being issued firearms because the DOJ did not finish the background within 15 days. They are required to finish within 15 days by law; if they are not done with the check usually the firearm is delivered to the person.