Chandler, AZ Police PIO, "don't shoot, call 911"

R

RickD

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

This rival's Phoenix PD mouthpiece Randy Force (yes, that's his name), in anti-self defense stupidity.

You can tell Detective Mendoza what you think by calling him at...

Detective Frank Mendoza
Public Information Officer
Office 480-782-4106

Rick

http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/1217cr-shoot17Z6.html

Break-in suspect is shot
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 17, 2005

A Chandler homeowner shot and wounded a man who was trying to break into his house near Dobson and Pecos roads, police said.

Police gave this account:

Sagio Maurice Henry, 35, of Chandler, rang the doorbell of Cary Dennis' home around 1 p.m. Thursday, and then went to the back door, where Dennis saw him. Dennis went to get a weapon and returned to find Henry prying open a window.

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.

Henry fled on foot and later was picked up by police at a Valley hospital. He was taken to Maricopa Medical Center, where he is receiving medical attention for non-life-threatening wounds in the jail ward.

"I am kind of still shaken up," said Dennis, who works in after-market auto parts. He would not talk further about the incident.

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

"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."

Once his condition improves, Henry will be booked into Maricopa County jail and charged with one count of burglary, Mendoza said.

Police are not pursuing charges against Dennis, Mendoza said.
Click to expand...

That number again...

Detective Frank Mendoza
Public Information Officer
Office 480-782-4106
 
I grew up in the San Fernando Valley in the L.A. area. One night in '99 I was watching the old, familar, "late breaking news." A Bentley automobile had crashed while exiting the 101 Freeway following a police chase. It crashed into a power pole causing a power outage for several square miles, and caught on fire.

It was later revealed that there was a person in the trunk of the car who was fighting for his life from a head wound caused by flying debris.

A few days later, I was shocked to hear that the person was Chris Rawlings, an old high school buddy, that I had seen at college a few years after graduation from high school. I never kept in touch, but it was shocking.

The story, which was even featured on "America's Most Wanted," due to trying to arrest the second suspect, was that he was followed home from the grocery store by two thugs. They followed him into his garage, where they started to fight with him. His wife and children were in the house. His wife heard the commotion, grabbed the kids, and made her way to the roof, while calling 911. The police showed up, and the two BG threw Rawlings into the trunk of his car, and raced away with the police in hot pursuit with the ending as described above.

Only proves that calling 911 might not be enough to save your life. Funny, too, how I never heard the local police official (of the town in AZ) give this same advice when that BG kidnapped that woman from Wal-Mart in Texas (and later killed her), and was shot and wounded while trying to rob a convenience store in AZ a couple days later, by the store clerk, a couple years back!
 
They hope that, 1) we are stupid; 2) we have short memories. I'll vouch for the latter. Never the former.

Rick
 
I think that maybe what the good Detective was talking about was chasing after a suspect and forcing a confrontation. I have absolutely no sympathy for the suspect. Too bad he isn't on a slab. However, most states use of force laws are similar in that in a self defense situation you have an obligation to retreat if you have a reasonable opportunity to do so, except if you are in your home. Chasing a guy down and then having to shoot him could make a pretty hard sale of the fact that you were in fear for your life and had no chance to retreat. He was outside his house. I just think that the smarter choice here would be to stay in the house with your weapon, call 911 and if the BG comes in you light him up. Very few questions to be asked and answered.

I just reread the article. I didn't catch this: "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."

The problem here is "and leave the home". I agree up to that point. Telling someone that they should retreat from there own home is ridiculous and dangerous. My own home is exactly where I want to be with my family. Going outside with two small kids and a wife is not very smart. I know you don't want to have a firefight in your house with your loved ones around, but the alternative is worse. I know my homes layout and in most cases the BG will not and I can set up a hasty ambush to minimize the chance of one of us getting hit. I hope that he was misquoted.
 
He might have been misquoted, but this is the same quote we've read over and over again. Many of us here reject the ostrich solution.

I just think that the smarter choice here would be to stay in the house with your weapon,
Click to expand...

I kinda like the way things turned out. :)

Rick
 
I also fully reject the ostrich solution. Just pointing out that it might be best to make every attempt to show that you truly had no choice and acted reasonably.
 
Chandler has had demographical changes. The change is not for the best. I would have shot the poor transient through the window while on the 911 record-a-murder answering machine.
 
Got this from a gent on another forum...

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 a 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
Click to expand...

As for myself. I sent out seven e-mails. None have been returned.

Time to hit the phone tomorrow.

Rick
 
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.
Click to expand...
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."
Click to expand...

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
 
Rick, are you one of those wild-eyed crazy activists?

Do I believe the officer's version over the reported version? Yes. My own contacts with the press mirror this type of reporting. I learned the value of a "press release" over verbal statements.
 
Isn't AZ a home is castle state

RickD as I remember it AZ is home is your castle correct? I just left SE AZ last June. I also thought, and could be wrong but I believe your "castle" is also your yard/property. I had my CCW class 3 years ago, (AZ Issued it on Christmas Eve too :) ) so my mind could be foggy on the property thing.......
Sir William I have to agree with you about the "911 answering machine"
 
Chandler?:barf:

Not surprising.
Chandler itself is more like Toronto than Tonto.

The only bright spot in my late parents passing away was knowing I never had to set foot in that disgusting town ever again.
 
Rick, are you one of those wild-eyed crazy activists?
Click to expand...

Not that there's anything *wrong* with that.

I learned the value of a "press release" over verbal statements.
Click to expand...

I'm not willing to give Ofc. Mendoza the free pass he wants. But at least we got a chance to let him know what's on our minds.

He didn't mention press release, just that he had a long interview with the reporter from which two sentences were used. He said, "We tend to get our message out correctly when we're on video." I told him that a clever video editor can get you to say what ever he wants, if you don't stay on-message and then cut the interview off -- dead.

As for "home is castle" we have several laws...

Under Arizona law, the bad guy was engaging in felonious activity witnessed by the victim. The victim may arrest the bad guy for this felony. If the bad guy resists, and in this case, assaults the good guy, the bad guy can't claim self defense against the good guy any more than he could claim self defense against responding LEO.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00404.htm
13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.
Click to expand...

13-3884. Arrest by private person
A private person may make an arrest:
1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Click to expand...

However, the burden of proof on whether you were engaged in a good shoot was changed...thanks to Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley who lobbied for a law change (as a tool for law enforcement, don't ya know?)

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Scary sh|t, ain't it?

Rick
 
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...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.
Click to expand...

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

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rick, thanks for all of that. I think...

I'm sure glad that up here in Idaho, that we're still pretty backwards. Our laws are written in straightforward english. Usually, they are quick and easy reads...

At least, the defense only has to make their case with the preponderance of the evidence. Much easier than the "clear and convincing" standard.
 
"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."
Click to expand...

LEAVE THE HOME?!

This Mendoza guy is a FREAKIN' MORON!!

Not only does he disparage the right, prerogative, and choice of defending against a brazen criminal, he advocates an action that can end up even more easily getting the resident killed!

We should leave the home -- RETREAT FROM OUR HOME -- when a criminal tries to break in, going out to face who-knows-what?! Could be accomplices or lookouts... Could be the attacker himself...

This man ought to lose his job and be out on his ass.


-azurefly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top