Man Arrested After Defending Himself Against Armed Teen

[sgtmac_46]

This is a case of the idiocy of the People's Republic of California. This wouldn't have happened in Missouri or Texas. We wouldn't have arrested the guy, we'd have taken his information, conducted an investigation, and turned it over to the Prosecutor, who would have concluded it was an obvious case of self-defense.

Then we would have simply mourned that the fact that he didn't KILL the punk, who we have probably dealt with many times, instead of just wounding him.

The excuse making for the kind of state that ARRESTS a guy who is put in this kind of situation boggles my mind and gives me a headache.....THIS IS WHY DOZENS OF STATES HAVE PASSED ENHANCED CASTLE DOCTRINE LAWS! To protect law abiding citizens from the EXCESSES of the STATE!

This guy would have been given an AWARD in TEXAS!

 

[sgtmac_46]

My guess is, this is a routine step that always kicks in whenever there's violence involving a weapon, until an official narrative is approved identifying who is the assailant and who the victim. They will almost certainly toss the arrest record out once it's established that the juvenile brought the gun to the original crime scene, that there was a close-quarters struggle, and that the gun went off in the course of it. What they probably want to do is ascertain that the guy didn't get the gun away from the perp and then fire a couple of rounds at his attacker out of anger, as at least some people might be strongly tempted to do under the circumstances.

At least, I'd hope it was just a routine step with no lifespan after the initial investigation...

Added in edit: just saw the link to the Kajukenbo site that Mike posted, and yes, Mr. Powell's explanation was exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. The facts really do need to be assessed. Even if we think the attacker was a disgusting piece of vermin, it's also true that the concept of self-defense we have has certain major legal constraints built into it.

In California it does.......most Americans, though, find that kind of hair-splitting when faced with lethal violence asinine......as we should.

Whether he was angry when he shot the guy is irrelevant.....the fact remains he was also in fear for his life from a guy who pointed a gun at HIM.....had he taken the gun away, and a split second shot him STONE COLD DEAD IN THE FACE.....he was still operating within a lethal force situation where a man had just tried to kill him, and was still in close proximity involved in a lethal force struggle with him.

Most of us really don't care about the details beyond those larger facts.....I certainly don't care enough about the 'disgusting piece of vermin' to care if his self-defense went a fraction of a centimeter beyond what was necessary......most folks don't CARE!

He pulled a loaded gun on an innocent by-stander, and as a result died. That's good enough for me.....and good enough in a great many states in this country.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It says he was arrested on suspicion of assault which while on the face of it seems harsh but I believe is a correct procedure. The law must be seen to be done and justice must be seen to prevail. If everything happened the way the guy says he will be released with no stain on his character, if he's lying them he'll be charged.
I don't know what your law on arrest is, here arresting someone means only that you suspect them of doing something even if you actually saw them doing it. It gives the police the right to take someone to the police station to be questioned. Depending on the evidence you will then be charged with an offence or 'de arrested'. The police here do not decide whether to charge people, that power lies with the Crown Prosecution Service (representing the Queen, cases are cited as Regina v ..........). In this case a man shot another which is a crime, whether it is justified or not has to be determined by evidence
The point of investigating someone who claims self defence is that not everyone, obviously, is going to be honest. If it's investigated everytime it will act as a deterrent to someone who plans a murder and then claim self defence. it's common sense.

'Suspicion' is not enough to arrest someone in ANY STATE! The US CONSTITUTION, 4th Amendment, requires that arrests be the result of Probable Cause!

What California is operating under is the notion that assault is NOT justified, unless their Prosecutor concludes it is. The bottom line is that the police in this case, possibly operating under department policy, or simply direction of command, chose to arrest the guy.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Oh I agree. Obviously any situation is tense, moreso if a weapon comes into play, so yes, the thought of taking it away and using it against the other person, Im sure comes to mind. Obviously as tempting as it is, its probably not the best option unless the listed things present themselves.

On the other hand, one has to wonder why important things like this are rarely, if ever, taught in a martial arts class. I mean think about it....when was the last time, in an average class, legal aspects mentioned? People teach students potentially deadly moves, yet they dont give them the full package.

WHAT?! Not only is taking the gun away and USING it on the attacker a GOOD idea, when confronted by an (obviously ARMED!) gang, it's probably the SMARTEST IDEA!

Most states wouldn't blink twice at this.....this is only an issue because it's California.

I guarantee you put the argument about using the gun you just took away from your attacker in front a jury to prosecute this guy in most of the country, and they'll laugh you out of the court room as the find the guy NOT GUILT by reason of self-defense.

I don't know where the notion came from that, when confronted by a VIOLENT ARMED STREET GAME, you need to play patty cake with them, even if you manage to disarm one of them....

 

[Guardian]

They might have done it for his protection also, you take out one gang member or (Associate) what a joke on that portion, you can guarantee the rest are coming for you.

I agree SgtMac, only in California is that a problem, the cops in most of Texas here would slap you on the back and say good job and have a nice day.

Ok, maybe that's going overboard alittle, but you get my point.

 

[sgtmac_46]

They might have done it for his protection also, you take out one gang member or (Associate) what a joke on that portion, you can guarantee the rest are coming for you.

I agree SgtMac, only in California is that a problem, the cops in most of Texas here would slap you on the back and say good job and have a nice day.

Ok, maybe that's going overboard alittle, but you get my point.

No, I don't think it's going overboard at all......shoot a known armed gang member in Texas, and most cops would ask you why you didn't just go ahead and KILL THE SOB!

 

[MJS]

WHAT?! Not only is taking the gun away and USING it on the attacker a GOOD idea, when confronted by an (obviously ARMED!) gang, it's probably the SMARTEST IDEA!

Most states wouldn't blink twice at this.....this is only an issue because it's California.

I guarantee you put the argument about using the gun you just took away from your attacker in front a jury to prosecute this guy in most of the country, and they'll laugh you out of the court room as the find the guy NOT GUILT by reason of self-defense.

I don't know where the notion came from that, when confronted by a VIOLENT ARMED STREET GAME, you need to play patty cake with them, even if you manage to disarm one of them....

Let me clarify. 1 on 1 situation. You take the gun away and then proceed to blow his head off. You're telling me that is ok? Again, I'm talking 1 on 1. Isn't that akin to empty hand SD, where you the threat is no longer and you proceed to kick the crap out of the guy...even when he's no longer a threat?

Now, yes, against multiples, especially if more than one is armed...well, that is different, and in that case, yes, I would use the weapon against them.

I know that I've mentioned in other posts, the use of an equalizer, especially if faced with odds that are against you. My apologies if I gave the wrong impression.

 

[matt.m]

Yes, and that is potentially a very explosive issue for the MA scene.

The problem is that if you teach real, effective combat techs to your students, you are teaching a range of things which could have disastrous effects for someone on the receiving end of them, even if justified. Most people, though, do not realize that defending themselves has legal impacts for them as well as the attacker. 'I was innocent—I was just trying to protect myself', is the basic premise, and yes, my own feeling is, the first law of life is to protect your own life—no plausible ethical philosophy denies us the right to do that—but there is still the problem of establishing to society (via the legal process, but that's basically what you're doing) that you were in the right in defending yourself as you did. A damaged windpipe, a neck twist, even a hard shot to the chest, can be permanently disabling, or even lethal. If you train people to do these things, and don't tell them the legal diciness of such actions, you're doing them a major disservice.

But then, how many MA instructors are really up on SD law, apart from instructors who are also LEOs (or attorneys themselves)? Ya can't teach what ya don't know...

Interesting statement my friend. However, what if the martial artist is disabled both physically and mentally such as I. Example: I walk with cane and 2 leg braces. I have a horrible back. I also have P.T.S.D. and Traumatic Brain Injury. This is all stemmed from being active duty marine corps. Oh and by the way I still teach judo as a 2nd dan.

That would make my 'self-defense' very plausible. Being handicapped upon entanglement. I hate altercations of any sort, so I do everything in my personal power to absolutely dissuade such things. However, case in point with the gentleman vs. gang member, unseemly things happen to good people and that is just bad luck....

The fact that the man waited for police adds a lot of credibility to his own character and testimony.

 

[Tez3]

'Suspicion' is not enough to arrest someone in ANY STATE! The US CONSTITUTION, 4th Amendment, requires that arrests be the result of Probable Cause!

What California is operating under is the notion that assault is NOT justified, unless their Prosecutor concludes it is. The bottom line is that the police in this case, possibly operating under department policy, or simply direction of command, chose to arrest the guy.

Do you have 'arresting' and 'charging' as separate things? We arrest for various reasons one of them being to allow a quicker investigation or to stop someone disappearing. It doesn't mean they are locked up, it means they are taken to a police station asap. They can easily be de-arrested.
Looking at Wikipedia I think being arrested is more serious in the States than it is here.

 

[Brian King]

MJS wrote

“Let me clarify. 1 on 1 situation. You take the gun away and then proceed to blow his head off. You're telling me that is ok? Again, I'm talking 1 on 1. Isn't that akin to empty hand SD, where you the threat is no longer and you proceed to kick the crap out of the guy...even when he's no longer a threat?”

I suppose it would depend on the situation. After getting the takeaway did the attacker keep attacking? Did they make a move like they are accessing an additional weapon? Were/are you in fear for your life? Are you injured/wounded or fatigued? Is there a size or age discrepancy? Do you have a means of escaping the situation? Or did the attacker raise their hands and obey all commands? Did the attacker turn and flee down the street while you pursued him? Did you empty the firearm into them as they lay in the gutter screaming NO? Did you fire deliberately to stop an attack or accidentally while grappling for the fire or did you fire while in a blind rage?

I imagine that it would also depend on your articulation and actions after the shooting. Did you call for an ambulance and police? Did you say that you were attacked or did you say that you just killed someone? Did you try to render aid or did you change the scene to make you look better (drag the body back inside)

Many different things can make a difference in the scenario and the justification or lack of justification for killing. Last of all do you already have the name of a good attorney?

Warmest Regards
Brian King

 

[jks9199]

Do you have 'arresting' and 'charging' as separate things? We arrest for various reasons one of them being to allow a quicker investigation or to stop someone disappearing. It doesn't mean they are locked up, it means they are taken to a police station asap. They can easily be de-arrested.
Looking at Wikipedia I think being arrested is more serious in the States than it is here.

Yes; they're two separate parts of the process. Each state has it's own process and names for some of the steps, and there are some differences, but the US criminal justice system includes several different points for an independent assessment of probable cause. Warning... lots of confusing legal stuff follows. (See HERE, as well.)

Once a crime has been commited, several things can happen. A police officer may make an on-view arrest; the cop sees you do it, and nabs you then and there. In misdemeanors, a citizen or police officer may go before a magistrate and give a sworn statement requesting a warrant of arrest; felonies generally must be requested by the police.

In a few cases, for misdemeanors, the police officer may release the accused on a summons, with their written promise to appear. If so, the summons is the charging document. Otherwise, the officer must take the accused before a magistrate without undue delay.

At the magistrate, the officer (or victim in some cases) describes what happened. The magistrate serves two functions: first, they are an independent person assessing whether or not probable cause for the warrant exists, and second, they make the initial bail decision. (If a person was arrested pursuant to an already issued warrant, the magistrate is only making initial bail decisions.)

The accused has the opportunity, generally, to make bail. After all, they're only accused, so we can't keep them in custody unless they're a threat to the public or there's reason to believe that they won't come to court. Issuance of the warrant is when the person is charged -- though you could argue that it doesn't matter until the warrant is served.

Arraignment is the initial appearance before a judge. Generally, this is pro forma; the judge informs the accused of the charges, and may alter or set bail, and may appoint counsel for the accused. Arraignment usually takes just a few minutes, though it may go longer if there's an argument about bail

The next step in the process is the preliminary hearing; the prosecution puts on enough of its case to establish, in the eyes of a judge, whether or not there is probable cause for the case to go to trial. For most misdemeanors, the prelim is often combined with or followed immediately by the trial. Felonies go to the grand jury, a panel of citizens who once again decide whether or not there is probable cause to bind the case over for trial. Only the police officer testifies, and the grand jurors may question the officer. In the courts in my area -- grand jury for most cases is a formality; the saying is that the grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.

After grand jury, a felony finally goes to trial, with the prosecution presenting their case in chief, followed by the defense, followed by any rebuttal case... until the case is handed over to the trier of fact (either a judge or jury).

There are also things like straight indictments at the grand jury... and I haven't bothered distinguishing between courts of record and courts not of record, or district and circuit courts. Or even touched the appellate process.

But that's kind of a nutshell of the Virginia criminal justice process. We only have 49 others... plus the federal system.

 

[Tez3]

A different procedure I think from ours, we seem to have more powers of arrest, all offences are arrestable.
The best description other than technical manuals I've found on our arrest procedures is from dear old Wikipedia!
http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Power_of_arrest

 

[MJS]

MJS wrote


I suppose it would depend on the situation. After getting the takeaway did the attacker keep attacking? Did they make a move like they are accessing an additional weapon? Were/are you in fear for your life? Are you injured/wounded or fatigued? Is there a size or age discrepancy? Do you have a means of escaping the situation? Or did the attacker raise their hands and obey all commands? Did the attacker turn and flee down the street while you pursued him? Did you empty the firearm into them as they lay in the gutter screaming NO? Did you fire deliberately to stop an attack or accidentally while grappling for the fire or did you fire while in a blind rage?

I imagine that it would also depend on your articulation and actions after the shooting. Did you call for an ambulance and police? Did you say that you were attacked or did you say that you just killed someone? Did you try to render aid or did you change the scene to make you look better (drag the body back inside)

Many different things can make a difference in the scenario and the justification or lack of justification for killing. Last of all do you already have the name of a good attorney?

Warmest Regards
Brian King

Hey Brian,

Yes, you're right, alot of it comes down to the situation. I've said the same thing many times on other threads of similar nature...assess the situation and respond to whats presented to you at the time. In todays lawsuit happy world, some people feel that they need to tread lightly. I tend to cite the "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" saying, although that may not be the popular thing amongst some.

If I'm faced with a weapon, IMO, the person just upped the ante and gets what he gets, and if thats a busted nose, a few teeth knocked out or an eye, then so be it. I'm far from a Superman, and who knows, I could end up getting seriously hurt or worse.

I would say though, that intentionally using the weapon on the bad guy after the disarm has happened, may be frowned upon. Guess it all depends on the state you're in as well as the people deciding your fate. If we look back at the post on the Kaju Cafe, that should explain more.

 

[jks9199]

A different procedure I think from ours, we seem to have more powers of arrest, all offences are arrestable.
The best description other than technical manuals I've found on our arrest procedures is from dear old Wikipedia!
http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Power_of_arrest

Again, speaking only for Virginia, a good cop should be able to articulate grounds to make a custodial arrest for almost any offense, if they really need to. It may require a bit of creativity... but a good cop should be able to put the pieces together in a way that supports taking someone into custody that needs to be hooked up.

At the same time -- a good cop is going to have the common sense not to hook someone who can and should be released on a summons without a reason.

We can detain someone briefly (see all the discussion on Terry stops) on reasonable articulable suspicion. We can even, in some cases and if it's tied directly to confirming or dispelling the suspicions, take a suspect somewhere else.

But an actual arrest requires probable cause, per the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Note that some states may allow holding someone longer than others before going before the magistrate or similar process, but custody is custody. If you don't have PC, you don't have the grounds for taking someone into custody.

"De-arrest" is a term of art here; generally it means that you had everything adding up to PC in the street, but subsequent information cleared or exonerated the person. The most common way I've seen it come up is with DUIs; a person fails field sobriety, and refuses (or it's not available) the preliminary breath test. When they get hooked and transported to an evidentiary test, they come in below even the no-presumption zone, and there's absolutely no evidence of drugs.

 

[Archangel M]

Or you finally figure out that they are diabetic.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Let me clarify. 1 on 1 situation. You take the gun away and then proceed to blow his head off. You're telling me that is ok? Again, I'm talking 1 on 1. Isn't that akin to empty hand SD, where you the threat is no longer and you proceed to kick the crap out of the guy...even when he's no longer a threat?

Now, yes, against multiples, especially if more than one is armed...well, that is different, and in that case, yes, I would use the weapon against them.

I know that I've mentioned in other posts, the use of an equalizer, especially if faced with odds that are against you. My apologies if I gave the wrong impression.

I will bet you a years salary that, if you are confronted by an robber and, immediately upon disarming him of his gun, while still in close quarters struggle with him, and you shot him in the face with his own gun at point blank range.....there isn't a jury in the State of Missouri, where I live, that would blink twice before finding you not guilty by reason of self-defense.....ASSUMING it ever even remotely got as far as a jury.

It's not the same as continuing to beat someone.....having just INSTANTLY disarmed AN ARMED ASSAILANT, while still in a violent struggle with him over the gun, a struggle that can INSTANTLY shift back in his favor at a moments notice.......i'll take my chances with the jury.

The bottom line is that, bringing a gun in to the equation, ups the ante to lethal force levels........and just, as an LEO, I can use lethal force on someone who is attempting to take my gun away, even before they have managed to do it, if I manage to take their gun away, and we're still in a close proximity struggle, the fight is FAR FROM OVER just because I have his gun.....and unless I do something decisive, I may lose the advantage i've just won through skill and/or luck.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Do you have 'arresting' and 'charging' as separate things? We arrest for various reasons one of them being to allow a quicker investigation or to stop someone disappearing. It doesn't mean they are locked up, it means they are taken to a police station asap. They can easily be de-arrested.
Looking at Wikipedia I think being arrested is more serious in the States than it is here.

An arrest in the US is, BY DEFINITION, is a SEIZURE under the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The US Constitution trumps all state laws.

Apparently that's one way where UK law is different.......ALL arrests in the US require probable cause of a crime.

 

[sgtmac_46]

A different procedure I think from ours, we seem to have more powers of arrest, all offences are arrestable.
The best description other than technical manuals I've found on our arrest procedures is from dear old Wikipedia!
http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Power_of_arrest

It would appear that you have much more arrest powers in the UK......LEO's in the US are bound by US Constitutional requirements, specifically as i've outlined the 4th Amendment.

 

[Tez3]

It would appear that you have much more arrest powers in the UK......LEO's in the US are bound by US Constitutional requirements, specifically as i've outlined the 4th Amendment.

An arrest here though has less significance that it does in the States, it doesn't create or go on a record if theres nothing to charge you with. Sometimes in a big brawl it's easier to arrest everyone and take them all down the station to be questioned.
In the case in the thread though I doubt the guy defending himself would have been arrested on the spot,it would depend on what the officers felt was going on, most likely he'd be asked to come and make a statement and that statement along with all or any others would go to the CPS who would decide what to do. However if they felt a crime may have been committed and on the scene it's hard to get all the facts as a precaution they'll arrest both and get it sorted properly at the station which is better than jumping to conclusions and getting it wrong.

 

[MJS]

I will bet you a years salary that, if you are confronted by an robber and, immediately upon disarming him of his gun, while still in close quarters struggle with him, and you shot him in the face with his own gun at point blank range.....there isn't a jury in the State of Missouri, where I live, that would blink twice before finding you not guilty by reason of self-defense.....ASSUMING it ever even remotely got as far as a jury.

It's not the same as continuing to beat someone.....having just INSTANTLY disarmed AN ARMED ASSAILANT, while still in a violent struggle with him over the gun, a struggle that can INSTANTLY shift back in his favor at a moments notice.......i'll take my chances with the jury.

The bottom line is that, bringing a gun in to the equation, ups the ante to lethal force levels........and just, as an LEO, I can use lethal force on someone who is attempting to take my gun away, even before they have managed to do it, if I manage to take their gun away, and we're still in a close proximity struggle, the fight is FAR FROM OVER just because I have his gun.....and unless I do something decisive, I may lose the advantage i've just won through skill and/or luck.

Mu subsequent posts should clarify my position a bit more. Likewise, I'll take my chances with the jury as well. Downside is that the majority of the time, you'll have a bunch of people who have no martial arts background, have a distorted view of the arts, in addition to a few bleed hearts...you know, the ones who always manage to work in the "Oh, the poor bad guy must've had a hard life growing up" comment.