[alohachris]

Some of you may remember this case of Permit holder vs Permit holder** from earlier in the year. Permit Holder #2 was just found guilty of Attempted Murder for shooting & paralyzing Permit holder #1 after claiming self defence.

You can read it for yourself on www.ksl.com

I can't post a link from my phone. Moral of the story, IMO is stay in your house & call police instead of going outside. Both these fools were out playing Deputy Dawg.

[CoRoMo]

Here's a better link, right to the article.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11761887

Here's the original thread about the story.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=464113

Here's a video synopsis of this story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNtelXHRAe4&feature=related

[Sniper X]

Not enough facts to make a call here. But it sure is a bad thing when a legal gun permitted person gets stupid, gives us all a bad name from the liberal hater side.....bummer! And of course, the tragic thing is the other guy is never going to be the same....neither of them are really. Seems like both needed more training. In these cases I always wonder who is in the right, loks like from the little i read both were in the wrong....to an extent. One major question I have is why didn't the shooter knwo this guy or at least someone was on neiborhood watch?

[shockwave]

For educational purposes, listen to Campos making the 911 call here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7cRUgdWLiI). It covers a lot of the things we frequently discuss, including how to work with 911 and the police prior to their arrival.

The word "tragic" doesn't even begin to describe how awful this case is.

[DPris]

This case was not as open & shut as many people think it is.
I'm still surprised that the media seems to be incapable of comprehending the fact that there was no Neighborhood Watch. None was organized, none was sanctioned, none was publicized in the area, the neighborhood had no idea Serbeck was doing what he was doing.
Serbeck was not "part of a Neighborhood Watch" program. He was his own program.

Serbeck took it upon himself to do an armed patrol and persuaded the Home Owner's Association president to go with him at the last minute.
He alarmed teenage girls in the area when he approached them, and when he continued to follow them.

There were errors in judgment on both sides, but Campos doesn't carry the entire weight, and it should be noted that had not Serbeck conducted his own private hunting party to begin with, none of the resulting actions would have occurred.

It should also be noted that the jury took four hours to deliberate, it was not a simple matter to consider.

Denis

[Mudinyeri]

Attempted murder? Seriously? I would have loved to hear the judge's instructions that that jury. Sounds like a witch hunt to me.

[MinnMooney]

fron the O.P. :
this case of Permit holder vs Permit holder

Wrong. The father (Campos) did NOT have a permit whereas Serbeck did.

Question : Why are there no quotes/statements from the Pres. of the Homeowner's Assoc.? Supposedly, Serbeck "laid his gun on the ground and kicked it away" before Campos shot him twice. That sure puts the whole "self-defence" plea in another light.

[DPris]

And Serbeck was using it to carry a Llama pistol loaded with two mismatched rounds, if that tells you anything.
Denis

[ny32182]

The lesson here is that two men left their property going on an "armed patrol" looking for trouble. Both found it and now both lives are ruined, and many more are severely negatively impacted.

I think we can agree that cooler heads all around would have done everyone some good. This is actually classic case of the anti-carry "blood in the streets over nothing" argument.

[longdayjake]

No that doesn't really tell me anything.

Sounds to me like a couple of guys got into a fight and one of them thought he could get away with murder.

Jurys don't just convict people for fun. The prosecution must have proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[buck460XVR]

The lesson here is that two men left their property going on an "armed patrol" looking for trouble. Both found it and now both lives are ruined, and many more are severely negatively impacted.




I gotta agree. As tragic as it is, I also believe the correct verdict was reached. Again, both men took guns "looking" to use them. That both of them are still alive and innocent bystanders didn't get hurt are two positive outcomes of a situation that should was a disaster waiting to happen from the get-go.

[Girodin]

Some of you may remember this case of Permit holder vs Permit holder from earlier in the year. Permit Holder #2 was just found guilty of Attempted Murder for shooting & paralyzing Permit holder #1 after claiming self defence.

I haven't re read all the articles on this tragic and avoidable event but from what I read before I thought the gentleman charged was not a permit holder, the gentleman who got shot was. I'm also not sure what the most accepted set of facts for this event is now as there were naturally differences in the stories each side was telling.

The shooter in essence claimed that the guy shot pulled a gun racked the slide and so the shooter acting in defense shot him. The guy who was shot claims he had laid his gun on the ground and slid it away prior to the shooter firing. I don't know what witnesses testified to but if it was closer to the latter then no surprise a guilty verdict was returned.

Attempted murder? Seriously? I would have loved to hear the judge's instructions that that jury. Sounds like a witch hunt to me.


Read the code then consider that one sides alleged facts were that the guys teen daughter comes home and says there was a car with two men following them. He becomes enraged goes and gets a loaded gun. He then proceeds to search the neighborhood looking for the men. He finds them and uses his vehicle to block their path by pulling right in front of them and slamming on his brakes. He then exists his car gun in hand yelling (as an aside the guys in the car if possible should have hit reverse and gotten out of there also they might well have been justified in opening fire at this point) the victim exists his car with a gun in hand but holding it upside down by the barrel. He then placed the gun on the ground and kicked it away, disarming himself (also don't go showing a gun if you are not prepared to use it because it might well motivate the other person to use theirs particularly if they perceive you as a threat) and attempts to calm down the shooter. Instead of simply asking the men what they were doing or why they were following his daughter the guy takes aim and fires twice.

Read the code and then ask if a guy forming intent to kill (arguable at least, but could have happened latter ), searches for his victims, ambushes them and then shoots one of them twice when the victim is unarmed could support a charge of attempted murder.

The shooter had several things going against his self defense claims. A significant one was the fact that he was the aggressor was a huge one. You cannot cut someone off and order them from them to put their hands up at gun point (the victims account) and then shoot that person if you see a gun and claim self defense. Even if he didn't point his gun at them first he was still the aggressor.

The fact that the victim arguably never presented a threat justifying lethal force was a real difficulty to a claim of self defense.

Take away lessons:

1. Don't go looking for trouble (something both parties did)
2. Don't try to do the job of the police (something both parties did. Either sides should have called the police to report the suspicious behavior)

There are potentially many more but I think they depend on what version (or parts of the various versions) that one accepts as most true.

Sad story for everyone involved and made sadder still by the fact that it was avoidable by both sides.

[Mudinyeri]

The aritcle I read was light on a lot of the details you referenced, Girodin. Where did you find those?

longdayjake, I'll agree with you that juries don't convict for fun but to suggest that juries only convict when the burden of proof has been met is either an attempt at sarcasm or a major case of naivete.

[DPris]

The actual shooting events are disputed by both sides.
Serbeck stated he'd put his gun down and kicked it away, at which point Campos shot him.
Campos stated he heard Serbeck cock or cycle his pistol, thought he was in imminent danger of being shot, and was able to get the first shot off himself.

Serbeck has made statements about conversations he had with the teenage girls and later with Campos that the HOA president does not confirm. He was still sitting in Serbeck's vehicle when the shots were fired & was unable to confirm what Serbeck was doing at the point where he was shot.

There was blood on Serbeck's pistol, not particularly consistent with his statement that he'd already kicked it away by the time he was shot.

Three shots were heard by witnesses, apparently only two can be accounted for from the Campos pistol.

There was contradictory testimony given by both parties, and what little confirmation the HOA president was able to give did not favor Serbeck much.

I'd differ with the statement above that both parties were looking to use their guns, and the statement by Serbeck that Campos was in a rage is not directly supported by either the HOS president or Campos' daughter who was in his car when the two engaged.

I've heard nothing to indicate Campos pointed his gun anywhere near Serbeck until he brought it up after hearing what he thought was Serbeck preparing to use his.
There was some verbal exchange on getting out of the vehicles, apparently not as much as Serbeck stated, but Campos did not just jump out & start shooting.

Denis

[Deltaboy]

Sad Story for all involved.

Lessons to be learned from all I have read on this story.

1. Don't play Neighborhood Watch without going through the proper channels.
2. Don't mess with Teenage Girls unless your an LEO.
3. If your a parent call the police!!!!! Don't Go Hunting!

[coloradokevin]

Clearly there are two different stories here, and we are only hearing second-hand accounts of these events as they have been filtered through the media. We'd have a lot more to talk about if we were reading court transcripts here, but obviously we are not.

My point is this:

1) If the story that Serbeck apparently told is accurate, then Campos is guilty of attempted murder.

2) If the story that Campos apparently told is accurate, then he was simply defending himself.

Obviously the jury believed the story told by Serbeck, rather than the one told by Campos, or we wouldn't have seen a conviction. I believe that the real moral of the story for the rest of us is:

1) Don't go looking for trouble.
2) Don't go looking for a gunfight.
3) Don't try to do the job of the police when you don't have to.
4) Realize the possible ramifications of your actions before you pull the trigger.

[Mike P.]

Billy Bad * (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=535574) shot Walter Mitty (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=535574). From reading gun forums, I'm surprised that it doesn't happen more often.

[Girodin]

The aritcle I read was light on a lot of the details you referenced, Girodin. Where did you find those?

I read the various articles linked to on KSL's website.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=11721433 There are also various links from there.

There was blood on Serbeck's pistol, not particularly consistent with his statement that he'd already kicked it away by the time he was shot.


Umm I wouldn't say that without a lot more detail. How far did he kick the gun away. Did he just fall down and lay in one place after being shot? Where else was blood found? Where was the gun (supposedly) in relation to him when he was shot? Where was the gun found? Where was the victim found? Where else was there blood? I have had some injuries that resulted in impressive spray of blood. How much blood was on the gun? What patterns? Where? etc. I don't know these details. If you do I would be interested to hear them. Blood on the gun without much more detail does nothing to convince me one way or another that he had put his gun down.

I'd differ with the statement above that both parties were looking to use their guns

IDK that they were looking to use their guns but they were undeniably looking for "trouble".

I've heard nothing to indicate Campos pointed his gun anywhere near Serbeck until he brought it up after hearing what he thought was Serbeck preparing to use his.

According to the probable cause statement, Campos pulled his SUV in front of Serbeck's vehicle and "slammed on [his] breaks." Campos then pointed a gun at Serbeck and told him to "put his hands up."

the statement by Serbeck that Campos was in a rage is not directly supported by either the HOS president or Campos' daughter who was in his car when the two engaged.

It would seem supported by the fact he got a gun, left his house, chased them down, cut them off and slammed on his brakes and instigated an armed confrontation.

I'm not saying he was or wasn't but that someone might come to the conclusion that he was seems reasonable. Juries are in a position to weigh the credibility of the various witness that we are not.

I'm not going to get anywhere near reaching a conclusion based on media reports. The media typically doesn't get things exactly right and more likely than not the writer doesn't have a firm grasp of the crucial legal issues. Further a half a dozen articles even if they are 100% accurate simply cannot cover all the important facts and arguments. Without much greater access to the evidence it would be folly to draw any conclusions. I think it can be said that there was an arguable basis for the conviction.

[Girodin]

2) If the story that Campos apparently told is accurate, then he was simply defending himself.

Not necessarily. You typically cannot instigate a confrontation (particularly an armed one) and then claim self defense. For example I typically cannot cut you off in traffic, give you the finger, pull over, curse you out and tell you to get out of your car and then if you get out and become a threat to me take action and make a claim for self defense.

Even if things were closer to Campos' story that does not support self defense. It might place attempted murder more in question but does not forcedly lead us to a case where the affirmative defense of self defense will hold up.

[DPris]

My info doesn't come from media reports, it comes from people who were at the trial & people who know both parties.

There was some confusion over the physical evidence that the Serbeck pistol provided, with neither prosecution or defense apparently being especially knowledgeable about the gun in question.
The Llama was moved more than once by people at the scene before it was recovered by the SO.
Distances I can't give you, I don't have the transcripts.

Re the PC statement, if you're in law enforcement you know the PCS is very brief & leaves a lot out. It's not intended to convey a second-by-second account of everybody's movements.
If you're not in law enforcement, I was, see preceeding. :)

Re the self defense contentions of Campos, you have to break the incident down into fairly minute segments.
The SD was not in pulling Serbeck's car over. Any legitimate element of self defense rests entirely on the very short period of time where Serbeck & Campos got out of their cars, what was said by each, and what the perceptions of Campos was. That interaction can't be completely confirmed by the HOA president, and it's the discrepancy between the two accounts by Campos & Serbeck that was very difficult to clear up.

There was no testimony, as far as I know, that substantiated any assertion that Campos took his pistol along as anything more than "in case". No testimony that he left the house in a rage. He was upset, because of prior incidents of theft in his neighborhood & the girls being followed earlier, but it's quite possible to be upset without being in a "rage".

I'm not saying Campos exhibited exemplary judgment in going out to look for the offending vehicle, but I do take exception to the "Murderer In A Blind Rage" characterization that the prosecution & others are painting.

Irrelevant to the case at hand, perhaps, but I've been forwarded a copy of a civil lawsuit against Serbeck by a young lady arising out of an alleged sexual encounter in a nearby county (and who was one of the character witnesses against Serbeck at the trial), with info that the appropriate agency is investigating it as a criminal matter.
A local news organization confirmed in an email this morning that it's aware of this & holding back on reporting it until it progresses farther.

I'm not making any allegations against Serbeck here, I'm stating information that's a matter of public record, and I won't comment further on it.
There's more behind Serbeck than you see in the media.
Denis

[Girodin]

My info doesn't come from media reports, it comes from people who were at the trial & people who know both parties.

So second hand reports and people who likely have bias. I'm not sure I'd place that much more stock in it and I certainly wouldn't draw conclusions based on it.

Re the PC statement, if you're in law enforcement you know the PCS is very brief & leaves a lot out. It's not intended to convey a second-by-second account of everybody's movements.
If you're not in law enforcement, I was, see preceeding.

No I have a legal education and understand it well. I referenced the PCS because that is where I read the info and so one doesn't think I made it up. You said you had never seen where that assertion was made. That is at least one place it was made. Whether it was an assertion made latter in the case I do not know. It cuts strongly against Campos' self defense claim but is far from dispositive, in other words even if it is not the case it doesn't mean that it was then self defense.

Re the self defense contentions of Campos, you have to break the incident down into fairly minute segments.

I disagree, particularly with respect to how a jury is going to weigh things. Further I maintain that self defense as an affirmative defense goes out the window in most jurisdictions when you are the aggressor. You can not get the ball rolling and then claim defense as legitimate at the very moment you pulled the trigger. I would have to do study of Utah law specifically to know what statutes and case law is there but I'd imagine it is at least roughly similar to what I have described.

There is also the concept of imperfect self defense which didn't seem to be a factor here. The prosecution and jury apparently didn't buy much into the self defense at all since it doesn't seem to have mitigated the charges whith which Mr. Campos was convicted.

but it's quite possible to be upset without being in a "rage".

It is an argument over semantics. So you weren't in a rage but you were very upset? It doesn't change the core legal issues one iota. I never said he was in a rage btw, merely that it is what one side could say about the incident. His alleged actions actions don't strike me as calm and collected. If they were that might hurts him in a murder/attempted murder charge. Is calming shooting an unarmed (allegedly) guy better than being in a rage and doing it? What does it say about his intent when he left his house?

I don't know what happened. A jury heard the case and reached a conclusion neither of us have enough facts to second guess them.

This case is also a good example of people needing to seek greater legal training concerning when force can be used. If Campos understood the concept of self defense he might not have taken a gun and instigated (the fact he did so is beyond question) a confrontation that forever changed the lives of two families.

Irrelevant to the case at hand, perhaps, but I've been forwarded a copy of a civil lawsuit against Serbeck by a young lady arising out of an alleged sexual encounter in a nearby county (and who was one of the character witnesses against Serbeck at the trial), with info that the appropriate agency is investigating it as a criminal matter.

Almost completely irrelevant and a red herring to the issues at hand. Further it is at this point merely an allegation which is why the media is being responsible and not running a story. You can file a suit with very little to support it. Obviously this persons testimony of his character did not help Mr. Campos much anyways.

There's more behind Serbeck than you see in the media.

Quite possibly but that doesn't change the fact Campos initiated an armed confrontation with him or the other major legal issues of the case. Perhaps it speaks to Serbeck's credibility, but it is hard to say how influential such things were/could/should be without knowing much more about the case anyways.

[DPris]

No question Campos initiated contact, and no question about the law generally holding that one cannot instigate an altercation and then claim self-defense on meeting resistance by the other side.
But, there still remains the question of intent, and the overriding gist of statements I see by those (not refering to you) who know nothing whatever about what happened that night that "Campos got what he deserved" is certainly not based on any extensive knowledge of the facts, the circumstances, or the people.

Serbeck's credibility about his testimony & other claims of military experience & training remain questionable, and that certainly does speak to his intent & character.

I read the PCS when it was new, but I don't now recall specifics.
I would point out, however, that the PCS is a document that meets the requirements of a certain step in the legal process on arrest & arraignment, and it has zero evidentiary value.

We could argue minutiae into next Tuesday, but I'm merely saying it was not a cut & dried case, it was not what the media presents it as, and it was not a simple matter of Homicidal Maniac Shoots Innocent Neighborhood Watch Hero In Rage. :)

Denis

[buck460XVR]

No question Campos initiated contact, and no question about the law generally holding that one cannot instigate an altercation and then claim self-defense on meeting resistance by the other side.

Gotta agree with you there. So by your own admission, Campos claims of SD are not valid or reasonable.


But, there still remains the question of intent, and the overriding gist of statements I see by those (not refering to you) who know nothing whatever about what happened that night that "Campos got what he deserved" is certainly not based on any extensive knowledge of the facts, the circumstances, or the people.

I never claimed he got what he deserved, only that the verdict was correct. Sentencing will determine what he gets, and the judge will decide what he deserves. Sorry, but to confront, shoot and paralyze an individual, even if by accident, deserves some kind of punishment. No body here has access to the facts that the jury of Campos' peers had.....including you. For you to doubt the integrity of the jury and to question their judgment with the little amount of knowledge you have is as silly as the actions of both Campos and Serbeck on that tragic night. For the jury to deliberate for only 4 hours in a case of attempted murder this complicated, tells me the facts that were presented to them were pretty clear.


We could argue minutiae into next Tuesday, but I'm merely saying it was not a cut & dried case, it was not what the media presents it as, and it was not a simple matter of Homicidal Maniac Shoots Innocent Neighborhood Watch Hero In Rage. :)

Denis

IMHO, it was a case of two people with good intentions that took the wrong approach to solve two different problems. Both did things they had no business doing and both endangered folks other than themselves. Anybody that takes a loaded gun to a confrontation and believes his life will forever be the same is a fool......regardless of the circumstances.


Again you are correct, this was no simple matter.Truth is, Campos erroneously suspected Serbeck was stalking his daughter, because the daughter told him so. The daughter knew Serbeck wasn't stalking her, only that he suspected her and her friends of being a part of the recent crime spree. Serbeck suspected them because the 4 teenage girls were walking down a street away from their parked car(which matched the description of the car involved in the previous crimes) @ 11:00 at night, in an area where crimes had previously been committed. Now, why would Campos daughter lie to him about Serbecks intent?

[NMGonzo]

Know thy neighbor.

[shockwave]

The daughter knew Serbeck wasn't stalking her, only that he suspected her and her friends of being a part of the recent crime spree.

Is that confirmed? The articles I read indicated that Serbeck was asking the girls questions about where they were going, what they were doing, etc. Did he identify himself as a neighborhood watch and tell them that they were suspected of criminal wrongdoing? Campos's daughter came home and told her farther that some weird dudes in a car were following her and her friends and creeping them out.

Actually, if Serbeck had just clearly explained who he was and what he was doing, things could have turned out better. Instead, he tried to play amateur LEO or something. I understand that he was concerned about crime in his neighborhood, but that concern gave him zero right to challenge and interrogate other citizens.

[DPris]

Buck,
Don't put words in my mouth, I "admit" nothing.

I do happen to have access to some of the info the jury had, and much more of it than you do, unless you were there. Certainly much more than 99% of the Internet posters who jumped to snap conclusions.

I'm not questioning the integrity of the jury, no idea where you got that from. They were actually asking intelligent questions during the proceedings.
The information that any jury receives is totally dependent on three things:
What the judge allows.
What the prosecution presents.
What the defense presents.

This jury did the best it could with what it was allowed to see, I have no problem with the decision they made BASED ON WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THEM.
As I said, the fact that they deliberated for four hours meant they were putting a genuine effort into making a difficult decision. They put far more into it than most of the Internet people who took about 30 seconds to make up their minds based on spotty & inaccurate media reports.

Campos' daughter did not know Serbeck was not stalking her. She didn't know him, he did not at any time identify himself as being "Neighborhood Watch", he did not state his purpose as such.
The girls had no idea who he was or why he was following them.
Serbeck's later statements about the nature of the initial encounter with the girls and what he said to them are not corroborated by the HOA president or the girls.

There were several incidents of thefts from mailboxes and vacant homes in that new neighborhood that led up to what happened that night.
Campos had been working with the sheriff's office in trying to resolve the problem.
Serbeck's solution was to go on an armed patrol unsanctioned & unknown by the police or the neighborhood inhabitants.
Campos excercised questionable judgement in going out to look for the vehicle that had been following his daughter, but that in & of itself doesn't show intent to kill, nor does the presence of his gun.
Both parties share responsibility for the results.

Denis

[buck460XVR]

Both parties share responsibility for the results.



Exactly what I said from the start. Don't put words in my mouth either. I never said Serbeck was an innocent victim. Altho his actions were not sanctioned or known by the police, nothing he did was shown to be illegal......stupid maybe, but not illegal. Even tho reports are conflicting on what happened, there was no evidence to show he harassed the girls or impeded them from leaving. Even if he harassed the girls and or stalked them from his car as you want us to believe, it does not justify Campos shooting him. Campos did not just exercise questionable judgment and went out to look for the vehicle, he forced Serbeck to stop by blocking his car and impeding his progress. He then confronted Serbeck with a loaded weapon and pulled the trigger unnecessarily(according to the jury). He needs to be held accountable for his actions. Serbeck acted unwisely, but he did not deserve to be paralyzed for life because of his stupidity.....and Campos is not a neighborhood hero wrongly convicted of a crime he did not commit. To aim a weapon at COM and pull the trigger twice in a non-SD situation is attempted murder. That's a no-brainer.

[the foot]

I made a comment about five minutes ago on this thread, and it has been deleted/removed. Why?

[DPris]

Pointless.
Done.
Denis

[luigi]

I made a comment about five minutes ago on this thread, and it has been deleted/removed. Why?

Because one of the Mods decided it was off topic or violated the rules. I expect you'll have another before too long

[mljdeckard]

Nope, I'm completely with Girodin and the OP here.

Both were looking for trouble. Both found it. But one dropped his gun and the other one fired. Campos WAS TRYING to kill without legal justification. Maybe the law is brutally simple here, but that's it.

He hasn't been sentenced yet, but I'm anticipating a bit of mercy under the circumstances.

Campos made all the mistakes we advise against in here. He didn't seek training, he didn't consider and envision BEFOREHAND under what circumstances he would shoot someone, he left the DA with little choice.

I started the original thread that got locked. Remember, the only ones that really know what happened are the ones who were there. It doesn't matter what you know, it matters what you can prove. If the bulk of the testimony favors the prosecution, it doesn't matter whether Campos thought the sound of a dropping gun was the sound of a racked gun. He shot when he didn't KNOW what that sound was.

[Purgatory]

Mudinyeri:

longdayjake, I'll agree with you that juries don't convict for fun but to suggest that juries only convict when the burden of proof has been met is either an attempt at sarcasm or a major case of naivete.



+1

[rbernie]

I made a comment about five minutes ago on this thread, and it has been deleted/removed. Why? Nothing of yours has been deleted from this thread; I have checked on your behalf and the forum logs are quite clear on this point.

[cassandrasdaddy]

what ever became of the allegations the shot guy was in fact an abuser? he was under investigation of molesting at least one girl who came forward after the shooting . she claimed she was scared of him before he was paralyzed

[cassandrasdaddy]

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=8904395

[rbernie]

And on that note, we have strayed so far off topic that it's best to just let this one go.

There is likely little profit to be had in trying to second-guess the jury, and whatever profit can be gained by reminding folk of the consequences stemming from decisions 'made in the moment' has already been realized.