Example of how NOT to protect your neighborhood

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the 'call the police' responses are wishful thinking. Where do you live, that a telephone call of 'guys in a car were following my girl and her girlfriends, also in a car' will get a cruiser out? At the very most, the operator will verify that the girls were hot, and are safe now.

I don't know where you live, but you shouldn't tolerate that kind of response. I could afford 5.56x45 to train with if I had a nickle for every suspicious vehicle, suspicious person complaint I responded to. If fact I made my first warrant arrest on a suspicious vehicle call.

Wannbes are always a problem, wannabes with guns is very bad problem.
 
I think the 'call the police' responses are wishful thinking. Where do you live, that a telephone call of 'guys in a car were following my girl and her girlfriends, also in a car' will get a cruiser out? At the very most, the operator will verify that the girls were hot, and are safe now.

Great delivery there, kiddo.

How about something a little more adult, along the lines of "Two older <race> males in a <car>, <license plate> were harrassing my underage daughter and her friends on the street, and when they tried to get away the two men followed them. They're currently parked down the street right now. We've had a lot of vehicle burglaries in the neighborhood recently, and these might be the guys."

While it may not illicit an immediate response, since the men aren't actually a threat at the moment it doesn't really matter. The SO will eventually send a car or make an inquiry and things will be cleared up without anyone getting shot.

Besides, if the police will respond to a burger king because someone's order wasn't right, they'll darned sure show up for a suspicious vehicle w/ suspicious passengers parked down the block from the complainant.
 
You think so?

Neighbors say Campos was just protecting his daughter.

He leaves his home armed (with his daughter in tow, putting her in God knows what additional danger) and goes out looking for these guys? That's a really good way to insure that you'll end up in jail.

If he had confronted these guys in his own drive threatening his daughter with deadly force, he would certainly be justified in responding the way he did.

Another LEO wannabe.

Shoots another LEO wannabe.

There's plenty of blame to go around here.
 
He leaves his home armed (with his daughter in tow, putting her in God knows what additional danger) and goes out looking for these guys? That's a really good way to insure that you'll end up in jail.

If he had confronted these guys in his own drive threatening his daughter with deadly force, he would certainly be justified in responding the way he did.

Another LEO wannabe.

Shoots another LEO wannabe.

There's plenty of blame to go around here.
By leaving his hime with a firearm (his right to do so as an american) he makes himself an LEO wannabe? This would most likely be a story about a Father of a harassed teenager that was murdered by an overzealous neighborhood watch if he had been unarmed.

There is no way to know what was in his heart of mind when he left his home so no one can make the judgement call of wether he had intentions of harming these individuals or just wanted to protect himself. I know If i went out of my home to confront a suspicious vehicle that matched the description of one involved in robberies I would damn sure be armed, with more than just a single sidearm.
 
My point was.....

By leaving his hime with a firearm (his right to do so as an american) he makes himself an LEO wannabe? This would most likely be a story about a Father of a harassed teenager that was murdered by an overzealous neighborhood watch if he had been unarmed.

that however threatened he felt (or felt his daughter threatened), if he leaves his home looking for what? Justice? Revenge? To teach these criminals (who just happen to be misguided neighborhood watch guys) a lesson?

And shoots one of them, he will probably go to jail. Of course, you have the right to have a gun. Of course you have the right to defend yourself.

But I don't think you have the right to go hunt down wrongdoers.....especially when you don't know what they've done or who they are.
 
I diddnt mean for my remarks to be inflamitory, im just saying that why he did arm himself, he diddnt make a statement that he was going to shoot whomever harassed his daughter, or that he was out to solve the mystery of the stolen car stereo's.

Until he drawed his weapon and shot first he wasnt in the wrong in my book. When I heard the suspicious individual cycle a round in his weapon I would have drawn my weapon, but kept it at my side and retreated. He said he heard the sound, he diddnt see it, so that sounds to me that he was close but not in immediate proximity to the victim. I think the defendant overreacted by firing first, the opinions on this site are all based on a hypothetical situation, not one of us seen this actual event happen. I regret the actions of both parties.

I do agree that legally vigilante justice is wrong in any situatuion.
 
I think the 'call the police' responses are wishful thinking. Where do you live, that a telephone call of 'guys in a car were following my girl and her girlfriends, also in a car' will get a cruiser out? At the very most, the operator will verify that the girls were hot, and are safe now.

"Oh, but operator, they were older guys!"

"But operator, the girls didn't want to be followed by those particular guys."

"But operator, the guys stopped and asked questions, and the girls stopped to listen, and the girls thought the guys' questions were lame and psycho stalker, and the girls were like whatever, and the guys were like yes way. Then the guys did this totally l33t move with their car that freaked the girls out, and the guys were all that's how we roll." Yes, the 911 operator will make sure the police get right on that.

Ah yes, because taking your daughter and LOOKING for trouble is such a smarter idea. :rolleyes:

Like I said, you don't have to call 911, call their regular number. But hey, if you want to take your daughter around looking for trouble, and have her witness such an event, be my guest.
 
Campos, by all I'm hearing from his next door neighbor, is no LEO wannabe.
He made the mistake of going hunting, but he was not looking for revenge or justice, or to teach somebody a lesson. He was quite simply looking for the men who tried to question his daughter and followed her & her friends around the neighborhood for quite a while late at night in a relatively sparsely settled area of a newer rural community plagued by multiple late night burglaries and thefts.

He had no intention of harming anyone, he just wanted to find out what was going on with an eye toward the future safety of his daughter and her friends, and let the men know it wasn't acceptable.

None of that means he intended harm to anybody, and the fact that he had a gun along doesn't either.
I carry a gun every time I leave my property, but its mere presence doesn't mean I'm looking for a chance to use it on somebody.
It goes along with me, as it did for Campos, just in case.

As far as shooting first goes, Campos was under no obligation to wait for the other side to shoot first before protecting himself AT THAT POINT. Once he determined the unknown man identified by his daughter as an apparent stalker was armed, and heard that man cock his gun, Campos AT THAT POINT most likely would have been a fool not to fire first.

When the other side shows indicators of imminent attack, there may be no time to retreat.

And, having worked LE in the same valley where this occured, I can fairly confidently say that, depending on the call load at the time (probably not high on a weeknight around midnight), a call to the SO would almost certainly have generated a deputy response on a "Suspicious vehicle trying to pick up my teenage daughter in the neighborhood" complaint.

Again, I'm not defending Campos' judgement in going hunting, but too many people here in the local area & elsewhere are attributing motives and character traits to Campos that are flat wrong.
He wasn't trying to solve any burglaries or mailbox thefts, he was concerned about his daughter and her friends.

Campos has been a victim of mail theft & identity fraud in that new neighborhood, and he worked with the SO and other neighbors in dealing with those, in broad daylight and with full cooperation and knowledge of the existing authorities. The area has several new houses sitting vacant because they couldn't sell in this market, and a new vacant house tends to draw its share of midnight appliance thefts and so on.
Campos did not take it upon himself to form his own armed night patrol to catch burglars, with or without telling any of his neighbors. He left such things to the sheriff's office.

What did bring him out of his home in the middle of the night was what he felt was a threat to his daughter that may return on some other night (since the men he thought were trying to pick up the girls followed them so doggedly through the streets for so long), and there was, in his mind, a matter of urgency in finding out who they were and what they were doing, while they were most likely still in the area.
It was a matter of taking a gun "just in case", not a matter of intent to use it from the git-go.

Again- I'm not defending his judgement in going hunting, but once involved in the confrontation it was largely a matter of Campos feeling he was about to be shot, and therefor firing first.


Incidentally, the DA has not filed charges yet, and the SO was out re-staging the scene last night.
It ain't cut & dried, and it ain't over yet.
If not formally charged on Monday, the jail will kick Campos loose.

Denis
 
I have no doubt of that.

He had no intention of harming anyone.

What I'm saying is, regardless how you feel about what the gentleman did, he is now arrested and charged with a serious crime. His life is going to be seriously affected by his decisions. He's allegedly killed someone he probably had no desire to kill. His legal bills are going to be astronomical.

I fully support anyone's right to defend themselves or their loved ones from a threat of deadly force.

All I'm trying to point out is that when we arm ourselves to defend ourselves and our families, we should engage our brains if possible. When he began looking for the alleged bad guys, neither his or his daughter's life were being threatened.
Unless you're a peace officer you don't have the right to arm yourself and go looking for someone.

If you do this you're going to have to answer to the law.
 
Serbeck's still alive, so no killing.
The subject of a lawsuit against the HOA has been mentioned.

And, I've agreed all along that going hunting was poor judgement, no real question there. When I use the word "hunting", though, I don't mean it in its traditional meaning.

One of the basic terms in culpability at law is something called the sine qua non, which translates roughly to the "thing without which".
In this situation, the sine qua non could be described as the decision by two men to mount an armed patrol without notifying anybody. That was the thing without which none of what followed would have occurred.
They would not have approached the girls, the girls would not have been scared, the men would not have followed the girls & further scared them, and Campos would not have had anything to go look for.

Unfortunate choices were made on both sides, both men (and their families) are victims, and total blame cannot be placed on just one side or the other.
Serbeck was very highly regarded in his neighborhood, Campos was in his neighborhood. This is not a clearcut case of Bad Guy vs Good Guy. It's a case of Good Guy vs Good Guy, with Questionable Decision vs Questionable Decision.

I would differ with your statement that you don't have a right to "arm yourself and go looking for someone".
To arm yourself with intent to use a gun from the beginning, you're right.
To look for someone and take a firearm along "just in case", you're wrong.
It's a matter of intent and degree, which is a large part of what the DA's office is trying to sift through now.

If you make that broad statement about Campos, you surely have to apply it to Serbeck as well. Serbeck was "looking for someone", and had armed himself prior to doing so.
In far too many places I'm seeing Campos condemned simply because of his gun being along, with virtually no attention paid to Serbeck's, beyond the media pointing out that he had a "permit", implying legitimacy, whereas Campos did not, implying he had no right to have one.
Both men were out "hunting" in a sense, both men were armed. The term "hunting" does not mean either had any intentions of killing. They were simply looking for people. Serbeck was looking for a general quarry with no known intent to use his gun. Campos was looking for a more specific quarry, with no known intent to use his gun.
The result was tragedy.

My only purpose in coming on here is to present both sides, and to contradict those who may be making snap judgements about either the situation or the people without knowing the facts.

I'm not defending decisions on either side, just including a bit more background than the media did. It is not as cut & dried as some are making it.
Denis
 
I like the one where its legal to carry in your vehicle but they don't know if its legal to protect your self out side the vehicle. What's a guy have to do get in a gun fight inside his vehicle. Pretty close quarters if you ask me. And we all know they could have called the cops and spent a hour explaining to them the situation and then and another hour for them to show up. It's stupid that they charge the guy for shooting somebody after his daughter and stupid that they menton this one guy had a permit period. Once he did what he did he was in the wrong.
 
Sounds like the patrol was too much John Wayne and not enough Paul Blart. Sad on both sides, but I wonder why they were questioning the girls in the first place, that on its own looks pretty suspicious if you ask me. If I see two grown men in an SUV driving slowly alongside teenage girls, the first thing I think of is that they're up to no good.
 
Which is exactly what the girls thought.
Didn't help any when the men never identified themselves as HOA or neighborhood watch.

Denis
 
For those that want to be cops, join a police force or the military.

For those that want to be helpful, and "patrol", get a video camera that works in the dark or near dark, and be a GREAT witness. Or stay home and protect your own property.

Once more with feeling:

Anyone with a CCW that wants to protect and serve, either join a Law Enforcement agency, the military, or get in line for a ticket to join the Darwin list.

Go figure.

Fred

Stupid should hurt
 
Dad and daughter should have stayed at home. HOA boy should have kept his pistol put up and addressed the POED daddy in a very respectful tone. All parties would have been well served to have called the REAL LEO's when the situation started.

Result of this mess is sad all the way around.
 
Escalation is the key word.

The HOA guys started the mess. That is true. Campos escalated a situation that should have been referred to law enforcement. Neither he or his daughter was in danger when he made the decision to leave his home and investigate these guys.

One of the first things they teach in CHL classes here are conflict avoidance and awarenes that you, as a CHL holder have a legal resonsibility to avoid escalation of any conflict. In other words, if you decide to take on the responsibility to arm yourself, you automatically go by different rules than an unarmed individual.
 
The Rest of the Story...

This is why Campos was charged with attempted murder:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7313785

Man charged with attempted murder in Bluffdale shooting
July 27th, 2009 @ 10:00pm

By Whit Johnson

SALT LAKE CITY -- A Bluffdale man accused of shooting a member of a local neighborhood watch group was formally charged Monday with attempted murder.

The Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office has charged 43-year-old Reginald Campos with one count of attempted murder and two counts of aggravated assault for shooting 36-year-old David Serbeck on July 22.

"We determined that there was not a reason to use deadly force in this situation. There is just simply not a justification for that shooting," said Salt Lake County Deputy District Attorney Alicia Cook.

Sometime before 11:00 that night, Serbeck and another man were patrolling their neighborhood and began questioning a group of girls walking down the street near 1570 West and 15500 South (Iron Horse Boulevard) about a recent rash of vehicle burglaries and vandalism.

The girls drove home, and Campos' daughter told him they felt the men were stalking them. Campos sent three of the girls inside and he and his daughter went looking for the two men.

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." But Serbeck was also armed.

"The fact that both parties had guns was not a particularly difficult aspect of the case," Cook said.

That's because the statement says Serbeck "exited his vehicle with his own firearm, holding it upside down by the barrel. He then placed the gun on the ground and kicked it away, disarming himself."

That's when prosecutors claim Campos fired two shots; one going through Serbeck's shoulder and exiting through his back, leaving him paralyzed.

The district attorney's office filed charges despite Campos' claim of self-defense.


Those who know Campos are reacting to the news.

"I still firmly believe that Reggie is a good guy. He's a good neighbor, a loving father, a loving husband, as I stated before. ... He is still very much supported and loved by a lot of people," said friend KanaMarie Poulson.

If convicted, Campos could spend the rest of his life in prison. Attempted murder is a first-degree felony carrying a three-years-to-life prison sentence; aggravated assault is a third-degree felony with a possible prison sentence of zero to five years.

E-mail: [email protected]
 
By this account, Campos seems to be a good guy that got out of control of his emotions, and this lack of control led to the unnecessary injury of another man who also seems to be a pretty good guy.

If we don't train our minds to think clearly before "the moment of truth" arrives, we're susceptible to making the same kinds of mistakes that Campos apparently made.
 
In the interests of "Strategies and Tactics", my takeaways from this incident include:

1) Keep your sidearm concealed until you decide to use it to protect yourself from a deadly threat.

In this case, Campos could not legally carry concealed. For purposes of this discussion, I'll assume that he did not conceal his firearm during this incident. Campos' actions with his car and his instructions to the neighborhood watch patrol seem to have been pretty aggressive. If there is no drawn gun, I would get pretty mad if somebody did that to me. However, if I was in Serbeck's shoes and somebody I don't know and who doesn't identify themselves as police blocks my vehicle's progress, points a gun in my direction, and tells me to get out of my car with my hands up, then I'm likely going to be afraid for my life. The mere presence of the unconcealed, drawn gun may have escalated the situation. Better to keep it concealed until it needs to be drawn and fired.

2) Do not shoot someone who does not pose an immediate, deadly threat to you.

Sounds too simple, doesn't it? While in their vehicles, Campos could not reasonably have considered Serbeck to be an immediate threat to Campos' daughter. Campos could not have considered Serbeck to be a deadly threat when he apparently forced Serbeck's vehicle to stop (otherwise why do what he apparently did?). When Serbeck (apparently) put his gun on the ground and kicked it aside, he was no longer a deadly threat to Campos. Assuming that the news reports are accurate, then Campos never was in a situation in which he can say that he was threatened with deadly force, and when he would, therefore, be justified in defending himself with deadly force.

3) As ezypikns points out, de-escalate the situation if at all possible.

One of the first things they teach in CHL classes here are conflict avoidance and awarenes that you, as a CHL holder have a legal resonsibility to avoid escalation of any conflict. In other words, if you decide to take on the responsibility to arm yourself, you automatically go by different rules than an unarmed individual.

Campos had lots of opportunities to de-escalate. So did Serbeck. Campos could have called the SO. Serbeck could have called, too. Serbeck could have called off the pursuit after taking the vehicle description and plate. Campos could have done the same. Up until the time that the fateful shots were fired, both could have walked away with "no harm no foul".

4) Be polite first. Be aggressive only when you have no other choice.

We can't forget that an armed society has to be a polite society. I was once walking the boundary of a piece of land I own when the person who owns the parcel on the other side of the boundary (who I had never met) drove up and threatened me with great bodily harm, including threatening me with a handgun that he kept in the console of his truck. He never drew the gun, however. We talked for 20 minutes. At the end of that time, he and his wife had invited my family to Thanksgiving dinner at their place. Politeness had de-escalated the situation, nobody was threatened with immediate use of deadly force, my sidearm never came out, and nobody got shot.


Sorry for the long post. Just some things that I thought were worth saying.
 
ezpikns said:
Another LEO wannabe.

Shoots another LEO wannabe.

^^ Yep.


These HOA types often seem to get a bit overzealous these days, and in many cases like to pretend that they are the neighborhood police!

A coworker of mine (a fellow police officer) told me of an incident that happened to him a few years ago within our jurisdiction, where he lives. Apparently my friend was taking his trash out in the evening before collection day, at which point he was confronted by a lady who identified herself as an HOA representative. She told him that his trash wasn't allowed to be placed at the curb until a couple of hours later, or something along those lines. He disagreed with her understanding of the issue, and told her that he would be leaving his trash by the curb. At this point the lady apparently produced a badge, and stated that she was a "sheriff", and demanded that he comply with her request.

The funny part about this incident is that the lady who produced that badge is not a POST certified Level I peace officer. Rather, she is simply a sheriff's department jailer at the county lock-up, and has no authority outside of that facility. My partner apparently produced his badge at this time, and suggested that perhaps this HOA rep should not try to overstep her authority. But, imagine how that might have gone if this same lady had pulled this stunt with someone who wasn't an actual cop?

As to the OP's story, I can't see how either of these people behaved as they should have! The HOA folks who played neighborhood watch were way out of line, as was the guy who decided to go confront these parties, rather than calling the police!
 
high bozon count (the sub atomic particle of stupidity often found around seats of government) all round
armed plain clothes unofficial patrols stupid.

trying to question people you have no authority to do that.

going out to confront said people stupid
going armed bad very bad idea.
what are you going to do get into a gunfight :banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top