PDA

View Full Version : Man Shoots Drunk Intruder in California; now being questioned as a homicide




AuH20
06-24-2013, 09:28 PM
The Golden State.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/24/man-shoots-kills-drunk-intruder-who-broke-into-his-home-and-attacked-his-son-so-why-are-police-investigating-case-as-a-homicide/

sailingaway
06-24-2013, 09:42 PM
“The homeowner, the citizen, has to be able to articulate or apply the appropriate amount of force that was done against them,” Ontario Police Sgt. David McBride told NBC Los Angeles, later adding that Manzano was unarmed at the time of the shooting.

I don't believe that is actually true unless the law changed. I'll check.

squarepusher
06-24-2013, 09:49 PM
wow, seems pretty clear cut.

sailingaway
06-24-2013, 09:56 PM
I don't believe that is actually true unless the law changed. I'll check.


California California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that "Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."[19] This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197.[20] CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine


The California appellate courts have interpreted this section as creating a “rebuttable presumption” that anyone who employs deadly force against an intruder within his residence has done so in reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury. So what does this “rebuttable presumption” mean if I shoot an intruder in my home? It means that if you are charged and there is evidence presented at your trial that you shot a non-household member who you knew or reasonably believed had made an unlawful forcible entry into your residence, it is presumed that you had a reasonable fear that you, a family member or other member of your household was about to be killed or suffer great bodily injury and thus your use of deadly force was lawful, however, the DA will be allowed to present evidence to the contrary and argue to the jury that they can and should disregard the presumption that you acted lawfully when you shot the intruder. To put it another way, the California Home Protection Bill of Rights establishes a presumption that the very act of forcible entry entails a threat to the life and limb of the homeowner and gives the benefit of the doubt in such cases to the resident, but again, subject to the jury agreeing with a DA’s argument that there was evidence to the contrary and they should disregard the presumption and find the resident guilty.

http://www.gunlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81

Keith and stuff
06-24-2013, 10:17 PM
A homicide is a neutral term. It means someone killed someone. Something is missing from the story. Perhaps the author doesn't understand what homicide means and misused the term. Hopefully, from what I know, the government declares this a homicide, a justifiable homicide.

KCIndy
06-24-2013, 11:17 PM
From a local news report:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Ontario-resident-shoots-kills-intruder-212817131.html


An Ontario resident shot and killed an intruder who broke into his apartment in the middle of the night and attacked his sleeping son, police said.

Officers said the suspect, identified as 24-year-old Thomas Gilbert Manzano, entered the home in the 2500 block of East Riverside Drive (map) about 3 a.m. when the resident opened fire.

Manzano and a friend had been drinking alcohol for several hours when they decided to go to what they thought was a vacant apartment where the friend had been squatting, police said. Manzano’s mother lives in the same complex.

When Manzano came to the door, the resident turned him away, police said. That’s when Manzano allegedly threatened the resident, forced his way into the home through a bedroom window and confronted the resident’s adult son. Police said Manzano began to threaten and attack the son.

The father, who heard the commotion from another bedroom, armed himself with a firearm before coming to his son’s aid. He fired several rounds at Manzano and struck him.

So...

1.) intruder was drunk and belligerent.

2.) by the time he was fatally shot, the intruder KNEW he was forcing his way into someone else's residence.

3.) after forcing his way into the dwelling a second time, the intruder attacked a resident who was sleeping.


In almost any other state, this would have been a non-starter. Since it's California, I would guess it's about even odds as to whether the homeowner is prosecuted for the shooting. :(