[Drizzt]

Prosecutor investigating shooting of burglar

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) _ The Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office is investigating whether charges should be filed against a 56-year-old cancer patient who shot a suspected burglar in the back of the head during a car chase, authorities said.

The shooting victim, Quincy Jay Roberts, 35, was one of two people suspected of robbing an Oklahoma City home about 2 p.m. Thursday, said Sgt. Mike Klika, spokesman for the Oklahoma City Police Department.

Roberts was flown to the University of Oklahoma Medical Center for treatment. Klika said his injuries were not believed life-threatening.

Roberts and Yvonne Redfeather, 38, were arrested on complaints of burglary and receiving and concealing stolen property.

The shooter, Pete Beller, was not arrested.

Beller routinely carries a handgun and has a concealed-carry permit, said his wife, Sharon Beller. He was unarmed Thursday but shot the suspect with a gun borrowed from his son, 33-year-old James Beller, who also is licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

Sharon Beller said her husband is a Tinker Air Force Base employee who learned on Tuesday he has prostate cancer.

Father and son pulled up to James Beller's home and saw a man and a woman loading his property into their car, she said.

``My husband and son blocked them in with my son's pickup,'' Sharon Beller said. ``They were trying to keep them there, but they (the suspects) rammed my son's truck and got through.''

During the ensuing chase, she said, Pete Beller shouted at the suspects to stop. As his son drove, Pete Beller aimed out the window and shot out the tire on the rear passenger side of the car.

``Then he shot out the back window,'' she said, ``and when he did, it hit the driver in the back of the head.''

The vehicle slammed to a halt, she said, and the driver _ although wounded _ emerged and began ``fighting and kicking,'' saying he burglarized the house because he needed money ``to pay a guy.''

Sharon Beller said her husband and son were defending their property.

``They've been through a self-defense class,'' she said, ``and they know that firing a gun is the last resort.''

http://www.kotv.com/pages/viewpage.asp?id=49506

[jsalcedo]

Looks like the BG picked the wrong house.

[Iain]

I know what I think, but do you guys think that this is ok?

[MicroBalrog]

I know what I think

And what do you think, St. Johns? Inquiring minds want to know.

[agricola]

micro,

well i will be interested as exactly how and why this is going to be classified as "self-defence" - during the burglary - yes; as they are ramming the car - yes; but during a car chase?

[MicroBalrog]

I don't know, I just wondered what was it that St. Johns thought. I don't like it myself, either.

[Standing Wolf]

...saying he burglarized the house because he needed money ``to pay a guy.''

Oh. Well. I guess that makes it okay.

[jsalcedo]

I'm glad they got the guy.

Maybe that burgler won't be available to break into people houses and possibly murder some future person who catches him in the act

We need more folks with zero tolerance on crime.

The police primarily fill out reports if they show up at all.

The insurance company replaces your property (maybe) then drops you or raises your premium.

The burgler has invaded your residence and over the long run possibly stolen thousands of your labor hours, your sense of security and safety.

Why should we be concerned when a thief gets his hand caught in the cookie jar and summarily chased and shot if he refuses to surrender.

Some people claim vigilantism is an affront to civilized society.

I say letting criminals escape unmolested perpetuates an uncivilized society.

[jon]

do you guys think that this is ok?

The stealing of property and assault with a vehicle or shooting the thief?

[ojibweindian]

I will take the plunge and flat out say that I support Mr. Roberts.

Why? Here's one reason:
The burgler has invaded your residence and over the long run possibly stolen thousands of your labor hours, your sense of security and safety.

[alan]

Agricola:

How about CITIZENS ARREST? Action directed toward detaining a fleeing felon(s).

[jsalcedo]

I support Mr. Roberts

Roberts was the felon. Beller was the homeowner who gave chase.

[Iain]

How many lives were potentially endangered by this escapade is the crucial question. Shooting tires out on cars and car to car shootouts is very Hollywood, but should that in any way be condoned?

Roberts is a criminal, I have no love for him, but had his car with its blown out tires and injured driver killed a little girl on the sidewalk (as I believe it is called over there ;) ) how many people would be supporting the shooter?

As a CCW permit holder he should know not to endanger the lives of others in defence of his property, his life was not really in danger.

[jsalcedo]

but had his car with its blown out tires and injured driver killed a little girl on the sidewalk

Had there been children playing on the sidewalk it is unlikely Beller would have fired at the fleeing suspect.

Roberts, by ramming his car into another vehicle had already crossed the line and made him a danger to society.

Who or what else would he have rammed with his vehicle in his haste to avoid capture.

Quite possibly the same little girl several blocks away.

It would be great if more Americans had the stones to confront crime in this fashion.

[agricola]

Alan,

You cannot have CCW holders flying about like the Dukes of Hazzard if you cite the self-defence argument - being in a high speed chase is one of the most dangerous activities you can get involved in as an LEO and it should only be performed by appropriately trained people - to say nothing about the gunplay.

The time for a citizens arrest and self defence was back at the house; this was a stupid act that could easily have resulted in the deaths of either or both Bellers, or anyone else on the road for that matter.

edited to add the gunplay comment.

[alan]

Agricola:

Point taken, however in my view, it remains that the burglars instigated the entire business. Also, there might not, in point of fact, have been any sort of "high speed chase" involved.

I wasn't there, so I can only speculate, a situation that many share.

[Roper]

I would have chased and shot! Leave my stuff alone.

[Moparmike]

I would have blocked them in better, and promptly shot out a tire while in my driveway. With one person calling the police, I would have ordered the others to get down on the ground. Oh, the perp wants to move toward me in a threatening fashion does he? I dont guess he likes the ability to eat solid food and avoid prison gang rapes does he?

[Iain]

My stuff vs innocent life at risk (and mine)...
...My stuff vs innocent life at risk (and mine)...



Yep, that's a hard decision :rolleyes:

[TexasVet]

potentially

Ah, you mean you play "what if" with your real life? :what:
Sorry, I don't play games with my life, my family's or my property.

[only1asterisk]

I'm not ready to give these guess a medal, what they did was more than a little reckless. I'm really concerned at some of the "somebody could have been hurt" responses. It's that kind of "make it safe for the children" crap that causes trouble. Take some resonable precautions and be responsible when you mess up. Facts are, everything ended up ok, the good guys will face criminal charges, the bad guys will not see any jail time and will have all the money they need when they win their civil case. It's too bad too, I'd rather have the slighty reckless father and son cowboys for neighbors than the burgling dopehead thieves.


David

[Iain]

The words ''car chase'' and firing guns out of windows at other people should cause people to worry.

[only1asterisk]

Car chases and running gunfights don't bother me a bit!:neener: For all I know, these guys handled themselves better than most cops. At a minimum they shot about as well. So what if it wasn't quite legally self defense! Maybe we need to think on that a minute. Looks to me that they were trying to stop a felon, having witnessed his crime. Good enough!

Seriously though, this can be played for some good ANTI PR. I can hear it now "We told you concealed weapons would turn our streets to shooting galleries!"

I may not have played it the way they did, but I'm not going to second guess them; I wasn't there.


David

[only1asterisk]

To anyone that thinks being a LEO means you can drive (or shoot), think again! I know several city cops and a state trooper that I will not under any circumstances ride with. Being LEO doesn't make you more capable, just less culpable.

If he acts according to the best reason he hath, he is not culpable, though he be mistaken in his measures. --Sharp.

David

[saddlebum]

this happened ina semi rural part of the county with few bystanders to be injured. otoh okla. has a fleeing felon law that says once the felon flees you can't shot them unless they're shooting at you , trying to run over you etc. etc. saddlebum

[KP95DAO]

Shooter had permit for concealed gun
2003-08-09
By Ken Raymond
The Oklahoman


Police confirmed Friday the man who shot a suspected robber in the back of the head was licensed to carry a concealed firearm.
William Alstell "Pete" Beller, 56, shot Quincy Jerome Roberts, 30, during a car chase Thursday through southeast Oklahoma City, police said.

Roberts and Natasha Renee Waln, 38, were arrested on complaints of burglary and receiving and concealing stolen property. Waln, whom police previously identified by her alias, Yvonne Redfeather, also was booked on a felony warrant of engaging in an act of public lewdness.

About 2 p.m. Thursday, Beller and his son saw two people taking items from the son's home and putting them in their car, according to a police report. Beller's son, James Beller, 33, approached them with a gun concealed behind his back and fired at the tires of their car when they tried to flee, the report states.

The Bellers pursued the vehicle along an Interstate 240 access road, police said. Near I-240 and Post Road, Pete Beller took his son's .45-caliber handgun and fired two shots, one hitting Roberts in the back of the head, police said.

Pete Beller's wife, Sharon Beller, told The Oklahoman her husband and son had conceal- carry permits and knew that firing a weapon is "a last resort." Her husband declined comment Friday.

A police report states officers took concealed weapons permits from both men.

The Oklahoma County district attorney's office will decide whether to file charges against the Bellers for possible violations of the Self-Defense Act.

Police Sgt. Charles Phillips said residents should not risk hurting themselves or others over property that can be replaced.

"People feel compelled under certain circumstances to do that," he said. "There's nothing that says they can't. But from our perspective, especially for their own well-being ... we do not recommend any citizens put themselves in harm's way unless it is necessary to protect their lives or the lives of others

[Futo Inu]

Well, this is technically no bueno - not justified. But the guy so far is not arrested, and I heard on the radio the OKC police spokesman also said exactly that - "looks like he picked the wrong house." :) So the police here apparently don't have a big problem with it (nor do I personally). Wes Lane, the DA, might decide to charge him, though, since it's pretty bad on the facts. My brother is an assistant OK county DA, so I'll ask him about it - dunno whether Wes will personally decide, or delegate the decision to my brother or another assistant. The dude is lucky the .45 bullet had to puncture glass first before hitting his head, or he'd probably be dead.

[Futo Inu]

Ok, talked to Ken. Yes, they are going to charge him. It may or may be be assigned to Ken. If it is, he says he thinks the appropriate charge is for the FELONY (Grrrrr) of "Discharging a Firearm from a Vehicle" (which of course is a bull???? charge itself - kinda like a hate crime - the penalty is higher because of the reason you did it, or here, the penalty is higher because of WHERE you shot from, instead of the important facts of WHAT you did, or WHY you shot - grrrrrr). Anyway, he said the cops don't want them to charge the guy with anything, but he has to because of the high danger one presents to potential bystanders when shooting during a road chase such as this, even when you're intent is to simply stop the car, not hit the suspect. So he thinks that the appropriate course of action if it gets assigned to him is charge him with a felony as mentioned, but let the guy received a deferred sentence, pay a small fine and perhaps some community service, no jail time, and if he meets the conditions of his probation/deferred sentence, then to have no finding of guilt or conviction at all on his record, not even a misdemeanor (this is how deferred sentences work in OK). He says he can't really charge the guy with assault with a deadly/dangerous weapon because the guy didn't (apparently) intend to hit the suspect, and accordingly, this would be his defense. Further, the perp wasn't "assaulted" since he was shot at from behind (remember, "assuault" mean to place someone in fear of imminent battery, and if the guy is looking the other way - forward - while driving, he's not "assaulted" by the bullet/ sight of being shot at).

Of course my opinion differs, so I said to Ken well then, why not just charge him with "discharging a firearm in the city limits" or "reckless discharge of a firearm" instead of this bogus "Discharge of a firearm from a vehicle"?? He says well those two are both misdemeanors and the latter is a felony, and he needs to charge a felony to discourage people from shooting during car chases to protect property. I said "well, then the legislature has determined that reckless discharge should be a misdemeanor, not a felony, so take it up with the legislature". He said "well, the legislature has determined that 'shooting from a vechicle' should be a felony". Then I explained why "shooting from a vehicle" is a bogus charge like a hate crime, or like making a crime of charging someone with walking and chewing gun at the same time - the DA can charge it whenever they don't have a real, common-law felony to charge, but just don't like the defendant." I further asked what he would do if someone shot in justifiable self-defense from a car - would he charge this 'shooting from a car' felony?? He explains that "well, I'm gonna use the tools (crimes) I have available to me, and this action warrants a felony charge, even if at the same time I realize it doesn't warrant any jail time, so *I* should take it up with the legislature, and if someone shot justifiably from a car, then he would just use his discretion and not charge anything" - touche ,he has a point on the former. But then I explain well you *do* in fact "like" this guy - he's a decorated war hero (apparently) and otherwise a sympathetic defendant, so why not just charge him with reckless discharge? Well, he says, "when the next gangbanger fires into a house or car on a drive-by, we need to be able to be consistent by charging the same thing when someone shoots from a vehicle indiscriminately - needs to be a felony charge, regardless of the follow-up plea bargain accepted." But I say "well he wasn't indiscriminate, he was discriminate in trying to stop the vehicle from fleeing so he could get his property back." No, he says "he may have been discriminate when he tried to shoot out the tires, but he wasn't being discriminate when he shot out the glass, because of the high degree of hitting someone with that shot - after all, one's head when driving is necessarily at glass level" - touche - I guess he has a point. I still disagree, I'd only charge the misdemeanors if I was DA, but I'm not, Ken is, and I see his point. In any event, unless it gets assigned to one of the Nazis down there, he'll only get a slap on the wrist, from a criminal law point of view, in all likelihood. If they seek anything more, you can bet you here at THR and the DA's office will be hearing a lot more from me and other local gun owners/freedom-lovers - as we're going to get involved if any jail time is sought by the DA. In ANY event, the guy's concealed carry license is toast, on the civil side, which of course is no small thing to a gun owner/patriot as this guy is. :( Hopefully, he can appeal his CCW revocation upon completion of his suspended sentence, if thats how it turns out, based on the lack of any conviction. But he'll be hard-pressed to win such an appeal, I'd bet.

[Roper]

There is a difference, in a citizen trying the get his stuff back and a gangbanger shooting into someones home!

[Azrael256]

If OCPD is the group investigating this, you can rest assured that you're getting exactly 3% of the facts... what's sad is that you're getting all the facts OCPD has... That dept. couldn't catch a cold. They responded to me calling in a drive-by with "Well, if you see anything else, call us back." Forget discouraging gang-bangers, they won't respond to the call!

That said, I call it a good shoot. Yeah, somebody innocent could have been hurt, but nobody was, and this wasn't a gang-banger shooting in a drive by, which OCPD will not investigate anyway. Don't steal stuff, and you're MUCH less likely to get shot.

Oh, and Wes Lane... don't get me started on him... That whole county has gone down the proverbial toilet with the goose-stepping OCPD, sheriff who can't read the "protect and serve" bit off the side of his car, and their $20mil dome.