Homeowner Shoots, Kills 3 am Tresspasser; No Charges Filed

Status
Not open for further replies.

mpage

New member
I'm glad no charges will be filed. I also pasted this for those who use words like "Commiefornia" etc. There have been many cases like this in CA over the years.

By RICHARD BROOKS
The Press-Enterprise

A 53-year-old San Bernardino homeowner, fearful that he was dealing with a dangerous burglar, was legally justified in killing a drunken man during a 3 a.m. confrontation on the homeowner's front walkway, prosecutors said Thursday.

The finding of justifiable homicide means that no criminal charges will be filed against Brad Nielsen for the June 15 slaying of Joshua Munoz, 23, in the Devil Canyon area of northwest San Bernardino.

Munoz died of a single gunshot wound to the chest. Nielsen wasn't arrested.

"He believed that someone was trying to break into his house," San Bernardino County Supervising Deputy District Attorney Rick Young said. "When he saw (Munoz) near his vehicle, he was justified in confronting him.

"Possibly due to his intoxication, the deceased did not respond in a manner to de-escalate the situation but, instead, began approaching the homeowner who -- at gunpoint -- told him several times to stop."

Nielsen feared for his safety and the safety of his wife and child, he told police.

"He felt that if he let the subject get any closer, they would be in a fight for the gun," Young said by phone. "This tragic homicide was legally justified in self-defense and the defense of others."

Munoz had been drinking and had passed out in his Honda Civic that night, investigators have said.

The car was parked in front of his girlfriend's home and across the street from Nielsen's two-story home in the 6400 block of North Ventura Avenue.

Efforts to reach Nielsen and Munoz's girlfriend and aunt on Thursday were unsuccessful.

"He was a kid who drank too much and walked into the wrong yard," Cindy Ledbetter, the mother of Munoz's girlfriend, said earlier. "The whole thing is senseless."

Nielsen was awakened by noises, armed himself with a pistol and walked outside to investigate, police have said.

It remains unclear why Munoz was on Nielsen's property.

"He probably got disoriented and thought he was going into his girlfriend's house," Young Said. "It's a tragedy.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_N_justified27.4a38528.html
 
he is lucky, From what I have been told here in the wild wild west. The minute you walk outside your front door. You are breaking the law. Arizona doesn't have a right to protect property.
 
he is lucky, From what I have been told here in the wild wild west. The minute you walk outside your front door. You are breaking the law. Arizona doesn't have a right to protect property.

In CA you can, but like you said, he's still lucky.
 
Read the report again.

He wasnt protecting his property. He was protecting his life.

Big difference.

He walked outside................that escalated his situation. Shoot someone in your house. That is protecting your life. shooting a fleeing robber or drunk outside. Is a criminal offence here. A jury might get you off. But more than likely you will be charged with a civil suit.
 
He walked outside................that escalated his situation.

He has every right to walk outside. He was on his own property.

shooting a fleeing robber or drunk outside. Is a criminal offence here.

The drunken Munoz wasnt fleeing. He was advancing. Despite being told to stop repeatedly.
 
what? need an explanation? You can not use deadly force to protect your poperty. Atleast here in Arizona.


A guy just shot and killed a guy who stole his truck. Thief went down the wrong street dead end. Thief turned around . And the owner of the truck was standing in the street. He thought the thief was going to try and run him over. So he shot and killed him.

He should not have went outside with his gun. trying to protect his property. Yes when he thought he was in danger he acted. But he shouldn't have been there. That is what opened him up to a law suit from the thief's family. Also he might have a manslaughter charge facing him. Because Arizona does not have a right to use deadly force for property............
 
Because Arizona does not have a right to use deadly force for property............and from what I remember of California. They didn't either. I remember a story about 28 years ago. I heard of where a disabled man shot a female drug addict who was breaking into his house. He shot her when she was half way in. the force of being shot blew her out the window. They were going to proscute him because she was not fully inside.
 
Confronting an unwanted tresspasser who is on your property and who you believe attempted breaking into your property is perfectly legal too...in any of the 50 states.
 
If you are being car jacked, yes you can protect your life and use deadly force. But if your car is outside and you use a gun protecting it. I don't think you will be in the clear.

He said:
Nielsen feared for his safety and the safety of his wife and child, he told police.

"He felt that if he let the subject get any closer, they would be in a fight for the gun,"

Well a good lawyer, will say he put himself in that situation. By walking out of the house with his gun. Really not even a good lawyer. Any lawyer would say that.


Confronting an unwanted tresspasser who is on your property and who you believe attempted breaking into your property is perfectly legal too...in any of the 50 states.

Better check where you live because that is not true. How do you explain "attempting" Some people could say he knocked on the door to hard So I shot him. The Law is not that simple.
 
Well a good lawyer, will say he put himself in that situation. By walking out of the house with his gun. Really not even a good lawyer. Any lawyer would say that.

So what?

Any good prosecutor knows that it is not unreasonable to confront someone who is on your property. Nor is it unreasonable to arm yourself while on your own property when you believe that tresspasser is up to no good on your property in the dead of night.

What is unreasonable is that the unwanted tresspasser turned on the homeowner and continuing to menace that homeowner despite a gun being pointed at him.

Whether this was in Texas or Arizona, this would have eneded up the same way as it did in California.
 
Better check where you live because that is not true. How do you explain "attempting" Some people could say he knocked on the door to hard So I shot him. The Law is not that simple.

In this case, apparently it was.
 
He should not have went outside with his gun. trying to protect his property.
The SMARTEST course of action is probably to stay inside and call the police, but there's nothing illegal about going out on one's own property to see what's going on. And there's nothing illegal (in most places) about arming one's self in case things turn ugly. A person may not intend to use his gun to protect property, but it is to be hoped that he is not stupid enough to confront a criminal unarmed.
But if your car is outside and you use a gun protecting it. I don't think you will be in the clear.
If you go outside to see what's going on and someone attacks you, you can legally use a gun to protect yourSELF in most areas.

The general rule is that if you're where you have a right to be (your own property certainly qualifies) then if you're attacked such that you are in reasonable fear of death or serious injury and retreat is not possible or not reasonable you can use deadly force to protect yourself. In some areas you don't even need to try to retreat.
 
IIRC the California Penal Code states that a firearm can be used to stop a crime, e.g., you see someone breaking into your car, and you go out and confront him.

I'm aware of several instances here in southern CA where a homeowner has done just that and was forced to shoot the person, and no charges were filed.

According to California Penal Code section 197, subsection 2, a homicide is justifiable when "committed in defense of habitation, property, or person against one who manifestly intends.....by violence or surprise, to commit a felony."

Section 198 goes onto say that "a bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned in (subdivision 2)...is not sufficient to justify it. But the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person."

The cat who was shot apparently wasn't committing a felony, but I'd imagine that given the circumstances, the homeowner explained to the police that he felt the guy was a threat. As a police spokesman said, what you perceive from someone coming to your house at 3 a.m. is different than someone at 3 p.m.

I suppose the DA could have filed on him, but it was a judgment call. I think it was the right decision.
 
Confronting an unwanted tresspasser who is on your property and who you believe attempted breaking into your property is perfectly legal too...in any of the 50 states.

Better check where you live because that is not true. How do you explain "attempting" Some people could say he knocked on the door to hard So I shot him. The Law is not that simple.

He is 100% correct, WTW. You have the right to confront people on your property for any reason. The law IS that simple. However, you seem to have confused the difference between what was stated (confronting) versus shooting.

In the OP story, the homeowner confronted a potential burglar, which is 100% legal. The potential burglar then acted aggressively and the homeowner defended himself. At the point in time in which the potential burglar started acting in an aggressive manner, the situation no longer was about whether or not he was a burglar or trespasser.

However, I am open-minded on this. Can you cite any specific statutes that say you can't confront trespassers or burglars on your own property?

--

mpage, your thread title sounds like the homeowner shot a guy only for trespassing and yet wasn't charged. That wasn't the case at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top