Chandler, AZ Police Detective says, "call 911 and leave home"

[.45&TKD]

Police are not pursuing charges against Dennis, Mendoza said.

Of course, that is the good news, and would not be the case in a lot of states.

 

[Strings]

>My biggest concern about an intruder in my home when I am not there. or after I have left, is that he will arm himself better with the weapons I did not bring with me.

Sure, they're locked up, but given enough time these gun safes can be broken into. Especially with the tools I left behind also.<

That's easy to take care of: carry all your guns with you, or lock up your tools!

Sorry... couldn't resist. i know carrying all mine guns out of the house would be a fairly huge undertaking...

 

[musher]

After startling Henry, Dennis chased him outside and ordered him to stop. When Henry brandished a pickax handle, Dennis shot him once in the chest.

So you see, members of the jury, my poor client became confused and believed he was trying to open the window to his own house after being locked out. He attempted to leave of his own accord after becoming aware of his mistake. This madman, Dennis, then chased my client through the yard, threatening him with a gun. My terrified client then felt that he had no choice but to attempt to defend himself from this crazed homeowner. Unfortunately, Henry was callously shot before he could get away and was left to make his own way to the hospital.. Now I ask you to make this terrible situation right by correcting the initial error and awarding the madman Dennis' house to poor Henry in compensation for his terrible injuries and suffering.

 

[ARperson]

One lawman's response to a break in.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051219/NEWS01/512190437

This answers the question to how this is handled in Indiana. Wonder if the Chandler detective would have just called 911 and jumped out the back window?

 

[whm1974]

So you see, members of the jury...

Yep you can win the criminal trial and turn around and lose in civil court...

-Bill

 

[.45&TKD]

Yep you can win the criminal trial and turn around and lose in civil court...

I believe that there is something about Arizona law that prevents someone from winning a civil suit if that person is cleared in the criminal investigation, ie. a "good shoot".

It came up when I first took my CCW course.

Can anyone else confirm this? I would like to know for sure.

 

[CentralTexas]

Wow-

I just called and spoke to said detective, I said I was calling from Austin Texas and was calling in regard to a post on the "HighRoad" website and was curious if he would mind discussing his statement in regard to the shooting?
He said I have to go now but would I mind emailing my request to this supervisor at mark.franzen.chandleraz.gov. I said no problem at all. I will whip up a polite email asking some of the questions posed here. Let you all know if they reply.
CT

 

[1911_sfca]

I don't exactly agree with the police advise, but I don't exactly disagree either.

If someone is trying to break into my house, or has already done so, here is what I would do: get a gun; call 911; and yell to the BG that I had called the police. If the BG wants to leave, that's good - I avoid official hassle and post-shooting home clean-up. If the BG wants to visit with me personally, my wife will get her wish for new carpets in part of the house.

In short, I will not go out of my way to shoot or kill someone, but I will oblige anyone who presses the issue.

+1

 

[AZRickD]

I've gotten zero responses to my e-mail (haven't contacted his boss yet).

Time to dial the phone tomorrow.

BTW, the address above is typoed.

It needs an @ sign, a la

[email protected]

Rick

 

[rhubarb]

My email to the mayor and cc'd to all city council members:

Dear Mr. Mayor,

I am writing about a quote attributed to Chandler Police Detective Frank Mendoza in The Arizona Republic. According to the story, a homeowner was home when a robber tried to enter his home. The homeowner left his home to capture the robber and was forced to defend himself against the robber's threat of physical harm by shooting the robber. Detective Mendoza was quoted as saying, "Given the situation, he had plenty of time to call 911 and leave the home."

No person should be asked to leave his own home for the convenience of an invading criminal. What if the homeowner's family were there? Would Detective Mendoza expect them to evacuate to avoid confronting a dangerous thug? They aren't safe inside the home since the robber is trying to enter, but they must endanger themselves further by leaving the relative safety of their home? Would Detective Mendoza be so accommodating in a similar situation? Would you, Mr. Mayor?

What's more, there is no guarantee that dialing 911 would protect the victim and his family. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the police have no duty to protect individuals from criminals bound to do them harm. This was the ruling in Warren v. District of Columbia in 1981 and has been re-affirmed as recently as this year in Gonzalez v. City of Castle Rock. While I respect police officers in their willingness to protect society and don't doubt that any officer would put himself in harm's way to protect us, the system doesn't always work that way. Even with a response time of only a few minutes, the police could not be expected to stop a threat to someone's life when precious seconds could mean life or death.

I hope that the rest of the police force in Chandler hold in higher regard the right and duty of citizens to protect themselves when confronted with violence. To have as the mouthpiece of the department an officer who belittles a citizen's protection of himself and his home is disheartening.

Thank you for your attention in this matter. I am not a citizen of Chandler, but I remain,

Truly yours,
Rube Barb

 

[musher]

I believe that there is something about Arizona law that prevents someone from winning a civil suit if that person is cleared in the criminal investigation, ie. a "good shoot".

That would be nice protection to have. Seems that if you acted within the law in the use of lethal force, that you shouldn't be liable on the civil level.

 

[AZRickD]

However, just a few years ago, the anti-gun county attorney (Rick Romley) was able to sneak through an amendment to a bill which now places the burden of proof upon the person shooting the bad guy rather than on the county attorney's office which would prosecute the good guy.

Rick (not Romley)

 

[.45&TKD]

However, just a few years ago, the anti-gun county attorney (Rick Romley) was able to sneak through an amendment to a bill which now places the burden of proof upon the person shooting the bad guy rather than on the county attorney's office which would prosecute the good guy.

Rick (not Romley)

Which bill?

 

[goalie]

Yep you can win the criminal trial and turn around and lose in civil court...

-Bill

Not in Minnesota

 

[AZRickD]

About the "Prove Your Innocence" law I mentioned above...

The burden of proof change happened in 1997 as part of an omnibus criminal code bill. It was added at the last minute as a floor amendment. I bet a lot of legislators didn't fully understand what they were voting on.

The bill as passed into law:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=legtext/43leg/1R/laws/0136.htm

It amended ARS 13-103 and added ARS 13-205.

 

[AZRickD]

Still no e-mail response, so I decided to call Ofc. Mendoza. I got his voicemail and so requested that he call me. He did within about 15 minutes and we had a nice little chat. He said that the reporter had misquoted him *and* taken him out of context. I was non-plussed so I pressed him on the specific portions of the article...

One which was written as a quote but was not actually a quote:

Police discourage self-defense home invasion shootings, Chandler police Detective Frank Mendoza said.

And the other which was a presented as a direct quote:

"We don't recommend handling things this way," Mendoza said. "Given the situation, he had plenty of time to call 911 and leave the home."

Ofc. Mendoza said he didn't say the first and the second was taken out of context since he covered several scenarios in the interview with the young J-school grad who wrote the article.

In the end, he said that as soon as he read the copy on the web, he knew he was in for it. He called the reporter to voice his displeasure.

Ofc. Mendoza stressed that he, nor Chandler PD are "anti-self defense."

Rick

 

[Turkey Creek]

Everyone has to draw their own line in the sand- mine is at my door- historically, the run and hide method of avoiding conflicts from personal to national, has never worked- human beings as a group will never ever learn from the past because we keep making the same mistakes over and over again- individually we can learn from history or our personal past, but collectively we seem to be doomed to repeating the same errors perpetually- what's worse is that we then are truely surprised- Is stupidity hard wired into the human species? :banghead:

 

[dpesec]

Gee a reporter taking something out of context to support a political position. I'm surprised.

 

[AZRickD]

I'm not willing to give Ofc. Mendoza a pass just yet. Two many examples of such statements from other PD PIOs in Arizona.

At least we had a chance to let him know of our opinions on the matter.

Now, for an e-mail address for that splendiferous J-school grad, Ty Young... and Senta Scarborough.

Rick

 

[AZRickD]

Burden of Proof Change

Here's the text of the law change...

The bill as passed into law:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/43leg/1R/laws/0136.htm

It amended ARS 13-103 and added ARS 13-205.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00103.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

13-103. Abolition of common law offenses and affirmative defenses; definition
A. All common law offenses and affirmative defenses are abolished. No conduct or omission constitutes an offense or an affirmative defense unless it is an offense or an affirmative defense under this title or under another statute or ordinance.
B. For the purposes of this section, "affirmative defense" means a defense that is offered and that attempts to justify the criminal actions of the accused or another person for whose actions the accused may be deemed to be accountable. Affirmative defense does not include any defense that either denies an element of the offense charged or denies responsibility, including alibi, misidentification or lack of intent.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00205.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

3-205. Affirmative defenses; burden of proof
A. Except as otherwise provided by law, a defendant shall prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the evidence, including any justification defense under chapter 4 of this title.
B. This section does not affect the presumption contained in section 13-411, subsection C and section 13-503.

Scary sh|t, ain't it?

However...

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00411.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention
A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904, or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if he is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

13-503 just says that being a druggie isn't a defense...

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00503.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

13-503. Effect of alcohol or drug use
Temporary intoxication resulting from the voluntary ingestion, consumption, inhalation or injection of alcohol, an illegal substance under chapter 34 of this title or other psychoactive substances or the abuse of prescribed medications does not constitute insanity and is not a defense for any criminal act or requisite state of mind.

Rick

 

[Janitor]

Keeps cops in pay checks, I guess.

Maybe.

I think more to the point - it keeps the cops in control.
-

 

[Pilgrim]

Ofc. Mendoza said he didn't say the first and the second was taken out of context since he covered several scenarios in the interview with the young J-school grad who wrote the article.

In the end, he said that as soon as he read the copy on the web, he knew he was in for it. He called the reporter to voice his displeasure.

It would be best for all concerned if Officer Mendoza also complain to the editor. If the reporter is making up quotes, the reporter needs to be disciplined by the employing news agency or fired.

If Officer Mendoza doesn't think the editor is interested in correcting the false quotation attributed to him, then the police department should make it clear to the editor that the reporter is persona non grata and will not receive any more interviews from officers in the department.

 

[kahr40]

If someone is trying to break into my house, or has already done so, here is what I would do: get a gun; call 911; and yell to the BG that I had called the police. If the BG wants to leave, that's good - I avoid official hassle and post-shooting home clean-up. If the BG wants to visit with me personally, my wife will get her wish for new carpets in part of the house.

In short, I will not go out of my way to shoot or kill someone, but I will oblige anyone who presses the issue.

Ditto. The BG gets a chance to get the %3&@ out of my house then I defend it. I don't have any desire to take a life and really don't want the hassle that results but if he won't see reason then I'll protect my family and if I don't do it my wife will.

 

[AZRickD]

I got an e-mail from Senta Scarborough who "contributed" to Ty Young's story.

She wasn't aware which story I was talkin' about so I sent her the text. Looks like contributing doesn't give one much of a frame of reference.

No response yet from Ty Young. [edit] just got an e-mail asking me to call him.

email addys at the AzRep are [email protected]

Pilgrim, how 'bout you give Ofc Mendoza a call and present those solutions to him?

Rick

 

[Ty Young]

Thanks y'all

Hello, this is Ty Young, reporter from The Arizona Republic. I would be happy to answer any questions you have about my article. I don't necessarily like the way I've been portrayed, recent J-school grad and all that. I'd love to give you my side of the story. In my 6-year career in both Phoenix and Tucson, I've made my mistakes. But I have never miss-quoted a source. If Mendoza is saying this about me behind my back -- yes, I've called him, still waiting for a response -- I would really like to know. I have no agenda here, just reporting the facts that were given to me, erroneously at first.

Please call or email me: (602) 790-4795, [email protected].