They say breaking up can be hard to do, especially when some guys don’t take rejection well. Of course, when the new boyfriend has a gun, it’s probably wise not to go full-on Stalkerville and definitely don’t show up “inside” the ex-girlfriend’s or her boyfriend’s home attacking one of them. That seems to be what played out at one Carmichael, California, apartment over the weekend where despite onerous gun laws, citizens can apparently still defend themselves.
A man who shot and killed an intruder in his apartment in the early morning hours of Sunday will not face charges, according to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office. The incident occurred at the Sutter Crossing Apartments on Sutter Avenue in Carmichael CBS News 13 is reporting.
Deputies responded to a distress call around 2 a.m. from a man reporting that he had shot someone who had broken into his bedroom and assaulted him while he was asleep. Upon arrival, law enforcement found the intruder deceased at the scene.
Sergeant Amar Gandhi of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office provided further details during a press briefing.
“The caller reported that a person entered his bedroom and attacked him. In response, he retrieved a firearm and shot the intruder,” Gandhi stated.
The deceased was identified by a woman present at the scene as her ex-boyfriend. The shooter, her current boyfriend, legally owned the firearm used in the incident.
“The new boyfriend had a gun, legally obtained and registered to him, and shot the ex-boyfriend,” Gandhi confirmed with the news station.
Both the shooter and the woman are cooperating fully with the investigation. Preliminary findings led investigators to determine that the shooting was an act of self-defense.
“If this gentleman was presented with a lethal threat that he did not trigger in any way, then he’s entitled to defend himself and kill that intruder,” local attorney Michael Wise told CBS News 13.
Wise elaborated on California’s self-defense laws, highlighting the protections afforded to individuals within their homes. He noted that while the use of deadly force is justifiable in such scenarios, there are legal nuances regarding firearm possession.
“Ironically, you can still be charged for illegal possession of a firearm if you’re not allowed to possess one, but the actual use of deadly force to defend yourself is still justified even if you use a weapon that is not registered in California or if you’re not allowed to possess one,” Wise told the station.
Authorities have not disclosed whether the ex-boyfriend had a history of violence towards the woman. The investigation remains ongoing, but no arrests have been made at this time.
The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office has yet to release the identity of the deceased.
“Both the shooter and the woman are cooperating fully with the investigation.”
Both the defender and the woman are cooperating fully with the investigation.
FIFY
Well there ya go! You CAN shoot a murderous bastard in Commiefornia🙄😀
I was once attacked in my sleep. I had gotten into a fight with the guy earlier. He snuck back into the house and jumped on top of me and started choking, lucky for him and me both the barrel of my bedside revolver was to long to get under his chin, which I was trying to do. So I whacked him in the head with it.
I’m glad I didn’t have to kill the guy.
Aaah, the ole’ Trash Barrel Treatment… noice !!
10n1/2 inch barreled RSBH. Purchased in 1979.
That revolver has some history, its saved my ass 3 times so far and was once stolen and used in holdups. Serial numbers do help, just had a little rust on the cylinder from laying on the ground under a trailor house.
Killed a few deer with it , one coyote, used it in IHMSA and always had it under the front seat if it wasn’t in the house.
I’ve still got it.
Ruger makes some good gunms.,,,,,,,or used to.
no charges filed against the defender … yet.
we’ll see what happens when the investigation concludes. I hope it remains the case, but.
I often wonder in a “love triangle” case like this if the girlfriend and new boyfriend lured the ex-boyfriend over with a promise of three-way $ex as a ruse to get the ex-boyfriend inside the dwelling–and then claim that the ex-boyfriend was an intruder to justify using deadly force.
I was just thinking “it’s California.” 🙂
I doubt that.
Jealousy produces bad judgment. What I find iffy is the statement ” He retrieved a firearmn.”
Sounds or could sound like he did not procure the weapon during the attack.
“Im’a gonna go get my gunm”, and he did.
“If this gentleman was presented with a lethal threat that he did not trigger in any way, then he’s entitled to defend himself and kill that intruder,” — Attorney Michael Wise
Not exactly. The defender was entitled to defend himself, even with deadly force if necessary, to stop the threat of his attacker inflicting great bodily harm or death.
There is a very important subtle detail there. The defender is only entitled to use deadly force while the attacker is a credible and imminent threat of delivering great bodily harm or death. Once the attacker is no longer a credible imminent threat, the defender is no longer legally justified to use deadly force.
That means the defender cannot legally deliver a “finishing shot” or a “coup de grace” once the attacker is no longer a threat. That also means if the attacker dies from his injuries which he sustained while attacking the defender, the defender is legally in the clear.
Summary:
1) Defend yourself until an attacker is no longer a credible imminent threat of inflicting great bodily harm or death upon you.
2) Stop applying deadly force once your attacker is no longer a credible imminent threat.
3) If your attacker dies because you used deadly force while he was attacking you and you stopped using deadly force after you incapacitated your attacker, you are legally in the clear.
Disclaimer: I am not an att-or–ney and the above is not legal advice. The above is my personal opinion. Seek legal advice on use of force for self-defense from your own attorney in your jurisdiction.
I suppose cops shuting a guy 137 times is because he kept moving?
It’s not easy to quit pulling the trigger when your life was in danger.
Dead is dead and yup he’s dead alright.
Relationship amateur should have put on his big boy pants and went looking for a worthwhile relationship…
https://youtube.com/watch?v=VO08gB82mds&feature=shared
Few wemon stick a gunm to their head over losing a guy.
I’ve thought about the difference the way the two sexes treat loss. It does not seem wemon grieve as much. I attribute this to way way back when raising a baby to maturity was iffy and your man not coming back after getting ran over by a Woolly Mammoth. Ingrained instincts.
Hopefully their home owners/renters insurance covers the cost of the clean up. Some do some don’t. I asked my insurance agent about this after reading a different article here. He seemed shocked at first by the question so I explained why I wanted to know. He had to look up the policy and after checking it did. You might want to check yours’ because it is very expensive to have it done professionally.
Yeah great, something else to worry about in the middle of the night, who’s paying for that rug?
Good point, Darkman. Should check the concealed carry policy also, if you have one.
Wife and I are remodeling. Sounds like resilient flooring is an investment.
Darkman,
I suppose that a cleanup could be quite involved. An attacker who bleeds out and dies could also lose bladder and bowel control. If that happened on carpet, there is no way to properly clean that. So you might be thinking, “Blood alone requires replacing the carpeting and padding and so would bladder and bowel contents–so replacing carpeting and padding is not that big of a deal.” And if you had hardwood floor, you might be thinking that all someone has to do is soak up the mess, clean it, sanitize it, and call it good.
Here is the part that you may not anticipate: bodily fluids could soak through the carpet and even hardwood (depending on how you installed it) and get all the way to your sub-floor decking and require replacement of that as well. And if the bodily fluids soaked all the way to your sub-floor on a second story, those fluids could even soak through to the ceiling below requiring removal and replacement.
Replacing hardwood or carpeting/padding–along with the sub-floor decking and possibly even the ceiling below (if on a second story) could get very expensive very quickly–easily pushing $10 grand.
I suppose the popo would take a dim view of your quickly rolling the dearly departed onto a piece of visqueen. Mitigation is an established gov’t standard practice though.
Is spreading kitty litter around the body considered tampering with evidence?
If you’ve got insurance take your good shit out, replace it with flea market, salvation army, set the house on fire.
This must have been an absolutely airtight case of self-defense.
You may be surprised to know that California has an excellent castle doctrine statute.
There is a legal presumption of deadly intent, if anyone uses any amount of force to enter your house.
You are privileged to respond with deadly force, even if they are unarmed.
As uncommon sense said above, you have to stop using force when they are incapacitated.
No execution with a headshot after they collapse.
I would warn all TTAG readers to never chase a fleeing felon.
He no longer wishes to fight, if you, Chase him, you are initiating a second fight and you are the aggressor.
Comments are closed.