(OK) Prosecutor investigating shooting of burglar

[KP95DAO]

A bit more about this incident.

Shooter had permit for concealed gun
2003-08-09
By Ken Raymond
The Oklahoman


Police confirmed Friday the man who shot a suspected robber in the back of the head was licensed to carry a concealed firearm.
William Alstell "Pete" Beller, 56, shot Quincy Jerome Roberts, 30, during a car chase Thursday through southeast Oklahoma City, police said.

Roberts and Natasha Renee Waln, 38, were arrested on complaints of burglary and receiving and concealing stolen property. Waln, whom police previously identified by her alias, Yvonne Redfeather, also was booked on a felony warrant of engaging in an act of public lewdness.

About 2 p.m. Thursday, Beller and his son saw two people taking items from the son's home and putting them in their car, according to a police report. Beller's son, James Beller, 33, approached them with a gun concealed behind his back and fired at the tires of their car when they tried to flee, the report states.

The Bellers pursued the vehicle along an Interstate 240 access road, police said. Near I-240 and Post Road, Pete Beller took his son's .45-caliber handgun and fired two shots, one hitting Roberts in the back of the head, police said.

Pete Beller's wife, Sharon Beller, told The Oklahoman her husband and son had conceal- carry permits and knew that firing a weapon is "a last resort." Her husband declined comment Friday.

A police report states officers took concealed weapons permits from both men.

The Oklahoma County district attorney's office will decide whether to file charges against the Bellers for possible violations of the Self-Defense Act.

Police Sgt. Charles Phillips said residents should not risk hurting themselves or others over property that can be replaced.

"People feel compelled under certain circumstances to do that," he said. "There's nothing that says they can't. But from our perspective, especially for their own well-being ... we do not recommend any citizens put themselves in harm's way unless it is necessary to protect their lives or the lives of others

 

[Futo Inu]

Well, this is technically no bueno - not justified. But the guy so far is not arrested, and I heard on the radio the OKC police spokesman also said exactly that - "looks like he picked the wrong house." So the police here apparently don't have a big problem with it (nor do I personally). Wes Lane, the DA, might decide to charge him, though, since it's pretty bad on the facts. My brother is an assistant OK county DA, so I'll ask him about it - dunno whether Wes will personally decide, or delegate the decision to my brother or another assistant. The dude is lucky the .45 bullet had to puncture glass first before hitting his head, or he'd probably be dead.

 

[Futo Inu]

Update

Ok, talked to Ken. Yes, they are going to charge him. It may or may be be assigned to Ken. If it is, he says he thinks the appropriate charge is for the FELONY (Grrrrr) of "Discharging a Firearm from a Vehicle" (which of course is a bull???? charge itself - kinda like a hate crime - the penalty is higher because of the reason you did it, or here, the penalty is higher because of WHERE you shot from, instead of the important facts of WHAT you did, or WHY you shot - grrrrrr). Anyway, he said the cops don't want them to charge the guy with anything, but he has to because of the high danger one presents to potential bystanders when shooting during a road chase such as this, even when you're intent is to simply stop the car, not hit the suspect. So he thinks that the appropriate course of action if it gets assigned to him is charge him with a felony as mentioned, but let the guy received a deferred sentence, pay a small fine and perhaps some community service, no jail time, and if he meets the conditions of his probation/deferred sentence, then to have no finding of guilt or conviction at all on his record, not even a misdemeanor (this is how deferred sentences work in OK). He says he can't really charge the guy with assault with a deadly/dangerous weapon because the guy didn't (apparently) intend to hit the suspect, and accordingly, this would be his defense. Further, the perp wasn't "assaulted" since he was shot at from behind (remember, "assuault" mean to place someone in fear of imminent battery, and if the guy is looking the other way - forward - while driving, he's not "assaulted" by the bullet/ sight of being shot at).

Of course my opinion differs, so I said to Ken well then, why not just charge him with "discharging a firearm in the city limits" or "reckless discharge of a firearm" instead of this bogus "Discharge of a firearm from a vehicle"?? He says well those two are both misdemeanors and the latter is a felony, and he needs to charge a felony to discourage people from shooting during car chases to protect property. I said "well, then the legislature has determined that reckless discharge should be a misdemeanor, not a felony, so take it up with the legislature". He said "well, the legislature has determined that 'shooting from a vechicle' should be a felony". Then I explained why "shooting from a vehicle" is a bogus charge like a hate crime, or like making a crime of charging someone with walking and chewing gun at the same time - the DA can charge it whenever they don't have a real, common-law felony to charge, but just don't like the defendant." I further asked what he would do if someone shot in justifiable self-defense from a car - would he charge this 'shooting from a car' felony?? He explains that "well, I'm gonna use the tools (crimes) I have available to me, and this action warrants a felony charge, even if at the same time I realize it doesn't warrant any jail time, so *I* should take it up with the legislature, and if someone shot justifiably from a car, then he would just use his discretion and not charge anything" - touche ,he has a point on the former. But then I explain well you *do* in fact "like" this guy - he's a decorated war hero (apparently) and otherwise a sympathetic defendant, so why not just charge him with reckless discharge? Well, he says, "when the next gangbanger fires into a house or car on a drive-by, we need to be able to be consistent by charging the same thing when someone shoots from a vehicle indiscriminately - needs to be a felony charge, regardless of the follow-up plea bargain accepted." But I say "well he wasn't indiscriminate, he was discriminate in trying to stop the vehicle from fleeing so he could get his property back." No, he says "he may have been discriminate when he tried to shoot out the tires, but he wasn't being discriminate when he shot out the glass, because of the high degree of hitting someone with that shot - after all, one's head when driving is necessarily at glass level" - touche - I guess he has a point. I still disagree, I'd only charge the misdemeanors if I was DA, but I'm not, Ken is, and I see his point. In any event, unless it gets assigned to one of the Nazis down there, he'll only get a slap on the wrist, from a criminal law point of view, in all likelihood. If they seek anything more, you can bet you here at THR and the DA's office will be hearing a lot more from me and other local gun owners/freedom-lovers - as we're going to get involved if any jail time is sought by the DA. In ANY event, the guy's concealed carry license is toast, on the civil side, which of course is no small thing to a gun owner/patriot as this guy is. Hopefully, he can appeal his CCW revocation upon completion of his suspended sentence, if thats how it turns out, based on the lack of any conviction. But he'll be hard-pressed to win such an appeal, I'd bet.

 

[Roper]

There is a difference, in a citizen trying the get his stuff back and a gangbanger shooting into someones home!

 

[Azrael256]

If OCPD is the group investigating this, you can rest assured that you're getting exactly 3% of the facts... what's sad is that you're getting all the facts OCPD has... That dept. couldn't catch a cold. They responded to me calling in a drive-by with "Well, if you see anything else, call us back." Forget discouraging gang-bangers, they won't respond to the call!

That said, I call it a good shoot. Yeah, somebody innocent could have been hurt, but nobody was, and this wasn't a gang-banger shooting in a drive by, which OCPD will not investigate anyway. Don't steal stuff, and you're MUCH less likely to get shot.

Oh, and Wes Lane... don't get me started on him... That whole county has gone down the proverbial toilet with the goose-stepping OCPD, sheriff who can't read the "protect and serve" bit off the side of his car, and their $20mil dome.