Another Sacramento Self-Defense Shooting (second in a week)


PDA






esheato
January 14, 2004, 10:00 PM
Confronting suspected burglar, man pulls gun -- then is shot
But the person who pulled up at a neighbor's house was a visiting relative.

Sacramento Bee
14Jan04

Link (http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/8092097p-9024493c.html)

Sacramento man suffered two gunshot wounds to his chest after he pulled a gun on a man he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's home, authorities said.
It turns out the alleged burglar was the neighbor's nephew, William Knauer, 35, who had just arrived from Klamath Falls, Ore., Sacramento police spokesman Sgt. Justin Risley said.

Knauer later told police that about 2:30 a.m. Monday he pulled up to his aunt and uncle's home in the 1100 block of Fairweather Drive in South Natomas and got out of his pickup truck to unlock the gate.
George Azar, who lives next door, told police that he saw Knauer pull up and thought he was a burglar. As Knauer climbed back into the truck Azar approached and pointed a gun at him, ordering Knauer to get out.

Knauer told police he could not understand what Azar was saying to him over the hum of the running truck. Thinking that Azar was threatening him, Knauer pulled out his 9 mm handgun that was lying on the truck's seat and fired two shots in rapid succession, hitting Azar twice in the chest.

Azar was transported to UC Davis Medical Center with non-life-threatening injuries, Risley said.

It's the second time in less than a week that Sacramento police have responded to a shooting involving someone using a weapon in selfdefense.

On Wednesday, a 65-year-old man shot at two intruders who had knocked on his door asking for his grandson. When they pulled a gun and forced their way into his home, Ivory Grayson shot and killed 18-year-old Rojelio Allen Hurtado.

In both cases, Sacramento police decided not to press charges against the shooters based on California Penal Code 198.5, which legalizes the use of deadly force when there is a "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury."

"In the first one, clearly the guy was rightly protecting his own and his wife's lives. That's why people have weapons in their homes," Risley said.

"In the second case, they were both thinking different things were going on and it turned out to be a real tragedy."

Risley said the public should call police if they believe they are witnessing a crime before putting themselves at risk.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see where both parties are coming from, but what a horrible thing to go through.

Risley said the public should call police if they believe they are witnessing a crime before putting themselves at risk.

I tend to agree with this unless you're forced into a situation where you have no other recourse. Call the cops and be a good witness.

esheato...

If you don't agree, what is your solution?

If you enjoyed reading about "Another Sacramento Self-Defense Shooting (second in a week)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim March
January 14, 2004, 10:22 PM
Verbal challenge!

"Hi there, what's up?" while your weapon is NOT visible and in a FRIENDLY tone. While staying calm.

If it's the neigbor's kin, they'll calmly explain. At that point, the neigbor says something like "oh thank God, I thought you were a burgler or something" and explain that all you'll do is look at the guy's plates "just in case", then walk away. If he IS a crook, now he won't do squat, he'll just leave.

If he reacts violently, fine, you've got a gun.

This is ALWAYS legal to do! You see anything screwy, a basic "hey, what's going on here?" won't cause violence unless the person challenged IS violent.

It won't *cause* violence.

Now, if you can't keep your cool, if you can't avoid adding fuel to the fire, then don't get involved. That's your choice. Personally, if I have a chance to stop violence before it goes further or best of all before it starts, or prevent a serious crime, sure...so long as I don't make things WORSE.

So far I've done pretty well. Stopped a severe beating halfway through once, another time calmly informed two shoplifters that I was NOT going to let them gang up on the shop owner they were surrounding and they ended up giving the goods back. No fight at all, manager thanked me :).

Verbal challenges, when done right, sort out who's who and what's up.

Pulling a gun is a violent act, an act of "war", and may start something that should never have started otherwise.

It's a last resort.

In the case in question, Azar should have had a small gun (snub 38, small auto, whatever) in a front pocket (pants or jacket), and come strolling out hands in pockets while issuing a friendly challenge. The guy who ended up shooting him should never have seen a gun the whole time.

Pendragon
January 15, 2004, 12:06 AM
For all the CCW problems in Sac, over the years, they have generally been pretty fair about not charging people in legit shootings - that they did not charge in this situation is of particular note because if they wanted to, they could - the guy was from OR and had a loaded gun in his truck - there is simply no legal way to do that.

Jim March
January 15, 2004, 12:58 AM
What's really going on: they don't want to deal with a clearly legit "illegal" CCW case because somebody's liable to challenge Blanas' issuance policies. What Blanas (and Craig before him) have been up to is SO ugly, they don't want to "go there" if they can help it.

Pendragon
January 15, 2004, 01:41 AM
So you are saying that a "good shoot" with a "bad carry" may get a pass just because it aint worth wrasselin' the skeletons back into the closet?

Jim March
January 15, 2004, 03:02 AM
Yup. 'Cuz the skeletons includes THIS

http://www.equalccw.com/colafrancescopapers.pdf

You think the SacCounty DA is going to be eager to see what THAT does to a jury?

:scrutiny:

Now, if the guy has a criminal record, that's a whole 'nuther thing. A judge could exclude the Colafrancesco Papers as irrelevent 'cuz the guy can't get a permit regardless.

But in an "honest Joe" case?

Heh.

esheato
January 15, 2004, 03:38 AM
I'm drifting my own thread here, but my curiousity has certainly got the better of me.

Last paragraph, page four; the officer states that "it would certainly be an option" to sweep the whole mess under the rug.

Did I read that correctly? Shouldn't that be a violation of some sort? I mean, you assume that some cops are corrupt, but to put it into written format and sign your name to it sounds ludicrous to me.

esheato....

Jim March
January 15, 2004, 11:54 AM
That whole document was ludicrous.

The main officer involved in taking the statements was horrendously persecuted and his advancement possibilities destroyed. He couldn't leave for fear of being blacklisted out of law enforcement.

:cuss:

BB93YJ
January 15, 2004, 12:53 PM
:what: :what: :what:

Boy oh boy, that ever gets into court as evidence, WOW!

The term, "You got 'em by the short hairs" comes to mind.

If you enjoyed reading about "Another Sacramento Self-Defense Shooting (second in a week)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!