2 men freed in L.A. girl's killing

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
2 men freed in L.A. girl's killing
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-selfdefense17jan17,0,7648311.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Police say the gunmen were firing in self-defense at a rival gang member when the girl, 9, was hit by a stray bullet that entered her Angelino Heights home.
By Richard Winton and Tami Abdollah, Times Staff Writers
January 17, 2007

A few days after a bullet from a gang shooting tore into an Angelino Heights home last month, killing a 9-year-old girl, police announced with much fanfare that they had arrested the two gunmen.

But the suspects — Cesar Zamora, 23, and Steven Castanon, 20 — are now out of jail and back in their old neighborhood, to the dismay of residents who held candlelight vigils to memorialize Charupha Wongwisetsiri.

Police released the men without filing charges after determining that Zamora or Castanon fired the shot that killed Charupha in self-defense when a rival gang member pulled up in a car and tried to shoot them in front of their apartment complex next to Charupha's home.

The situation has shaken and angered residents of Angelino Heights, a diverse neighborhood with commanding views of downtown Los Angeles. The area includes rows of grand Victorian houses restored by television writers and downtown office workers side-by-side with apartments housing working-class families.

"They made it big news when they arrested them and then they quietly let them go," community activist James McHargue said. "I think it is outrageous if the prosecutors don't charge the people who fired these guns."

Bob and Patti Good, who helped organize a candlelight vigil for the girl, can't understand why the two shooters are back on the street.

All of a sudden, the men "who gunned down that little girl" are back, said Bob Good, 62, a title insurance officer. "They are looking for him and he's looking for them. Is there going to be more violence now?

"Usually if someone gets killed it's a bad guy, but now it's an innocent party. You cannot get more innocent than a little girl, and people identify with that."

Authorities insist that they are simply following the law.

"Evidence was presented that it was self-defense, and we did not feel we could charge the two people at this time," said Jane Robison of the Los Angeles County district attorney's office.

Instead, police detectives say they now are trying to build a murder case against the man who tried to shoot at Zamora and Castanon — even though his gun jammed and he didn't get off a shot.

He caused "this horrible event, and we hope to make a strong case against him in this murder," LAPD Lt. Paul Vernon said.

Legal experts said the circumstances of the shooting would make it difficult to build a murder case against Zamora and Castanon.

According to police, the men were sitting outside an apartment on East Kensington Road when a car pulled up. One man got out, walked onto the apartment property and pulled out a gun. Witnesses said he tried to shoot but his gun apparently jammed, according to law enforcement sources.

Zamora and Castanon pulled guns of their own and fired several times. None of the shots hit the gunman, who fled in the car. But one bullet traveled down the street and into Charupha's home.

Police believe the shooting was gang-related. But detectives concluded that the pair had the right to shoot because the gunman had pulled out a weapon and seemed ready to fire at them.

Robert Pugsley, a criminal law professor at Southwestern Law School, said the circumstances of the shooting would give Zamora and Castanon a strong self-defense case in court.

"A person has a right of self-defense, and third-party damage, as sad as it may be, is considered an unintended consequence," Pugsley said.

Prosecutors could bring charges if the shooting suggested an act of recklessness, but the sudden nature of the Angelino Heights attack — a gunman leaping out of a car and aiming a weapon — would make that a hard point to prove, he said.

Peter Keane, a professor of law and former dean of Golden Gate Law School, agreed. But prosecutors can pursue an "unreasonable self-defense" manslaughter charge if they believe the gunman's actions were based on an unreasonable belief compared to the threat, Keane said. In that case the killing is not a murder but a manslaughter because they did not act with malice, he added.

The issue of self-defense in gang shootings in which bystanders are killed or wounded has been a matter of debate for years in Los Angeles.

In 2003, a mother decorating her Christmas tree in South Los Angeles was killed by a stray bullet fired during a gun battle between two gangs.

The LAPD eventually arrested the two suspects who fired the shots after someone in a passing car sprayed bullets in their direction.

But prosecutors decided not to pursue the case, agreeing with investigators that the men apparently acted in self-defense.

The reasoning doesn't sit well with some residents of Angelino Heights.

Jim Prager, 60, an attorney, said Zamora and Castanon need to be held accountable.

"They ran away to another known gang house … they are not innocent people. This represents a lazy" prosecution, he said.

Neither Zamora nor Castanon could be reached for comment. (Castanon was arrested Monday night in Hollywood on suspicion of weapons possession.)

Prosecutors and police say they are doing all they can. They said they could still charge Zamora and Castanon with a lesser crime — such as a weapons or probation violation — but it remains unclear whether they will.

Before the shooting, LAPD officials had identified the apartment where the shooting took place as a gathering point for gang associates.

The city attorney's office has taken initial steps to have the residence declared a nuisance property because of gang activity.

On the streets of Angelino Heights, Charupha's killing has sparked a new push by residents to work with police to reduce crime and take other steps to improve the neighborhood.

But Charupha's stepfather, Allan Maxwell, said he'll now sell their home and move to his wife's native Thailand, where they have already bought a home.

"With a self-defense plea there's nothing the guy can do," he said. "I talked to the detectives, and from their point of view it sounded like nothing is going to come of this.

"I'd like to see them suffer some consequence. But short of becoming a vigilante, I don't know what to do."

Maxwell, who has Parkinson's disease, said that when he heard the first shot that night he screamed for his wife and daughter to get on the floor in the kitchen, where his daughter was playing and his wife was doing dishes.

He said if politicians continue to do no more than pay lip service to combating gangs, others also will leave the neighborhood.

"Politicos make their statements about how they're going to end gang violence and get these creeps out of the area.

"People just sold the house next door to [the gang house] and moved to Arcadia because they had two younger children," he said.

[email protected] [email protected]
 
Texas law says that you can act in self-defense and use deadly force to do so, but if you hit a bystander, shame on your happy soul. You'll have charges filed against you; could be murder, could be voluntary manslaughter. IOW, be able to hit only what's legal to be hit. Accidents are not allowed, and it says sok, "In the book."

Art
 
Texas law says that you can act in self-defense and use deadly force to do so, but if you hit a bystander, shame on your happy soul. You'll have charges filed against you; could be murder, could be voluntary manslaughter. IOW, be able to hit only what's legal to be hit. Accidents are not allowed,

It was my (obviously wrong) understanding that the above was the law in all states.

This is so strange. Any Cali laywers that can enlighten us ?

Nukemjim
 
afaik ianal

In CA if you accidentally shoot an innocent in an otherwise legal shoot
that you're OK ....I seem to remember that from my old CA armed guard school.
I could be wrong though, it's been a few years.
If they cant charge the shooters who were dfending themselves they can charge the instigators.
 
Yea.. IIRC, if you commit a felony and someone ends up dead, you can be prosecuted for murder. I recall a case where two burglars broke into a house and one of them was killed by the homeowner.. the surviving guy was charged with the murder of his buddy.. something crazy like that.
 
Not a lawyer. But,....

California seems to have a odd mix of laws. I remember reading about a similar case before in the newspaper. Seems if you are acting in self defense, what happens is the fault of the attacker (I believe criminally). However, I suspect you could be held civilly liable.


A couple other odd ones - again, I'm not a lawyer - this is just MY understanding.

Concealed carry without a permit is a misdemeanor violation of two different laws: 1. Concealed weapon. 2. Loaded weapon - IF you are in otherwise legal possession and the gun is registered to you. Otherwise, it's a felony.

However, if you actually have to use the gun in legal self defense - the law allows, you must have needed it so you can be excused for carrying it.


Really a wacky mix of laws and I am sure they leave law enforcement with a lot of discretion in how they are applied.


And, (this one is a secret - don't tell, okay?) a CCW exempts you from the "no guns on school grounds" law.


.
 
a CCW exempts you from the "no guns on school grounds" law.
AFAIK it also lets you carry in state parks. Now if only issuance wasn't at the discretion of your local CLEO.
 
Last edited:
Um, anyone here ever herd of the term Civil suit? Plus, just an observation, but where did the cops run the guns the "victems" were shooting and why didn;t they? I'll bet my next two paychecks the guns are stolen the therefore Mr' bangers are guilty of a felony.
 
Instead, police detectives say they now are trying to build a murder case against the man who tried to shoot at Zamora and Castanon — even though his gun jammed and he didn't get off a shot.
In some ways I agree with this.
the guy that started it should be charged with murder

If I am not mistaken (and I may well be)the new Florida law has the same stipulation and it exempts you from civil suit.
A civil suit is pretty much worthless in many instances anyway when the best you can hope to get is a judgment and can't find a lawyer that will work for an IOU.

That these guys may or may not have been involved with criminal activities in the very recent past and very well may be in the near future has no bearing on the incident itself.
they could have been on their way over to kill the guy's mother for all we know. The fact remains that they were not committing any recognized crime at the time.
And I will bet four paychecks that the police czars did everything legal to find something to charge these guys with.
 
No specifics here. Was the kid shot through a wall? Hit by a richocette? Circumstances matter. If I am shooting and you jump in front of me should I go to prison because you wanted to win this year's Darwin Award?

Could be a "Good Samaratin" thing? You aren't responsible for someone dying while you are trying to help them. Especially if they would have died anyway.

None of these are desirable but without malicious intent they should be understandable and excusable. I'm all for charging the badguys that created the situation.
 
Another reason California is out of controll, were they charged with possesion as felons, or has Ca figured gangs fall under well regulated militia? Or maybe it was the lesser evil to prevent greater, who knows.

as far as who started it, isn't simply being member of a gang considered provocative?

This is a great example of the increasing rise of criminals beating the system while non violent legal gun owners are experiencing a statewide witch hunt.
 
or has Ca figured gangs fall under well regulated militia?

Heh, well, I certainly don't think that "well regulated" applies. But aside from that, they are militia in two senses of the term:

1. Able-bodied males between the age of 17 and 45 (anachronistic law that should be updated to "any able-bodied person")
2. Gangs are an armed civilian group... which is an organized (but poorly-regulated) militia
 
Another reason California is out of controll, were they charged with possesion as felons, or has Ca figured gangs fall under well regulated militia? Or maybe it was the lesser evil to prevent greater, who knows.

as far as who started it, isn't simply being member of a gang considered provocative?

This is a great example of the increasing rise of criminals beating the system while non violent legal gun owners are experiencing a statewide witch hunt.

Wow so many wrong statements here.

1. Accused gang member does not equate felon.
2. No being a member of a gang isn't considered provocative, nor do you relinquish the right to self-defense.
3. Criminals beating the system??? Being a gang member does not equate being a criminal.
4. Jesus could have done it and he wouldn't be charged, you are implying that criminals have the right to self-defense in California but non-criminals don't?

Seriously, stop exaggerating, and making California to be hell. The gun laws may be hellish, but this self defense law isn't.
 
And how many "militias" do you know of that sell illegal drugs,terrorize the neighborhood,do drive by murders for laughs and give hard working minorities a bad name Oh and I forgot treat women like they're trash and I seem to remember one gang whose members were infected with AIDS doing a good job of spreading that horrific disease through the community.
Yeah we got us some real civic minded members of society walking the streets.
 
And how many "militias" do you know of that sell illegal drugs,terrorize the neighborhood [...]

Apparently it's quite common these days. Look at any of our inner-city regions, or Iraq for that matter. :rolleyes:

Seriously... gangs do fit the definition. They may be criminal, but they are armed and presumably have some sort of organizational hierarchy.
 
As much as it pains me to say anything good about California, this one I like.

As for the comments about criminals beating the system, nope, no where do we know if these two have a criminal history. They could be legal owners for all we know. They way I see it, they are innocent, until facts come out that shows otherwise.
 
My above comments are largely based in irony with a dash of hyperbole, although can anyone deny that the California government is harsh on legal (or once legal prior to arbitrary unanounced changes in law) gun owners while largely ignoring gang violence. I was also under the understanding that the majority of gangs require a criminal act to even be considered for recruitment, now often violent while it seemed in the good ol' days it was simply a matter of defacing someones property or petty theft.

Also I don't take into acount acuracy of reporting since otherwise there would be no point at all in discussing the event. The media gets things wrong more often than not and often spectacularly. I take the article at face value since none of us were there and read between the lines for everything else. Also the article doesn't seem too biased or anti gun at all rather surprisingly but it is a bad read and omits many things that would make things much clearer. For all I know these guys could have never been in a gang and are great people. Go ask the guy who did the right thing at the 96 summer olympics.

They were shooting at a rival gang member that was running away after his tec-9/jennings/whatever... jammed, likely a retaliation for an earlier even that occured. Established gangs are protected under law about as much as Organized crime, the only reason this is being discussed is because of either selective enforcement/prosectution, or as in the article "lazy prosecution" I once new a pretty good cop that was highly decorated, as his career wore on and he became detective he stopped being as thorough, his reasoning? "Job security" he said.

it's getting better and better to be a criminal these days. Maybe sometime soon the Crips and Bloods will enjoy tax exempt status and professional lobbyists to work towards "gang rights" so that once again gangs members can actively wear colors and recruit in public schools as well as have graffiti laws declared against freedom of speech so that neighborhoods owned by gangs can be adequately "tagged" to prevent tragedies like this from occuring because as we all know when one gang member enters anothers territory he's only looking for trouble and when he gets shot at it's self defense.

I also feel the same people defending these gangbangers 2nd amendment rights would feel differently if this shooting had sparked a media storm along with public outrage calling to ban evil guns and take them off the street.

Oh and this question is far too easy...while OT

And how many "militias" do you know of that sell illegal drugs,terrorize the neighborhood,do drive by murders for laughs and give hard working minorities a bad name

How about any armed component of the mexican government
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top