Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Break-in suspect checks into hospital with gunshot wound

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...gunshot-wound/


    SAN DIEGO — Investigators determined that a man who showed up at a hospital with gunshot wounds Sunday had earlier tried to break into an Oak Park apartment. He and another man, both armed with handguns, broke down the door of the a home on College Grove Drive near College Grove Way about 10:20 p.m., San Diego police said. As they stormed into the home a woman inside armed herself with a shotgun and opened fire, police said. The men fled and one of them later turned up at Paradise Valley Hospital, police said. He will be arrested after he is treated for his non-life threatening injuries, police said. The other man has not been located, police said.
    http://www.10news.com/news/21495350/detail.html

    [/b]
    SAN DIEGO -- A suspected burglar was arrested Monday after he kicked down an apartment door in Oak Park, prompting a woman inside to shoot the intruder, police said.The suspect was arrested after he turned up overnight at Paradise Valley Hospital with a graze wound, San Diego police Sgt. David Jennings said.He and another suspect, who got away empty handed, banged on the woman's door in the 6400 block of College Grove Drive around 10:20 p.m. Sunday, the sergeant said. The woman said the men were yelling at her to let them in as she stood on a balcony. When she refused, they began kicking the door, prompting her to get a shotgun, according to Jennings.She fired two shots, Jennings said.Detectives were investigating whether the woman and the men knew each other.There were some things said that didn't quite add up, Jennings said. The incident remains under investigation.

  2. #2
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    The shotgun was probably loaded with bird shot or some other small shot. 00 buck would have sent this guy to the coroner instead of the emergency room. Now we get to pay for his medical bills, trial, and room and board for the next dozen years or so. And knowing California like I do, the perp will probably sue the woman for shooting him, and win. That's why you need to use enough gun. And if that doesn't work, shoot them again.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  3. #3
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Well, I think it's too early to say what kind of shot the woman had in her shotgun....but she seems to have done a fine job of defending her residence.

    Stopping the threat is a success. Wishing the guy dead is not particularly relevant.

    Talking of her getting sued is...well, it's kind of....odd?

    She did the job. I hope she wasn't hurt.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Riana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA
    Posts
    943

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Talking of her getting sued is...well, it's kind of....odd?
    Not spent much time in California, I can see...

  5. #5
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    The state of California would rather she serve the intruders tea and sandwiches than shoot them. But she is alive and safe and that's what really matters. That being said, if you decide that you must shoot someone to defend your life, it is generally in your best interest to kill them, since dead men can't sue (though their families and dependants still can). It happens all the time here, and self defense shooters are not shielded from lawsuits in California like they are in other states.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    That being said, if you decide that you must shoot someone to defend your life, it is generally in your best interest to kill them, since dead men can't sue (though their families and dependants still can). It happens all the time here, and self defense shooters are not shielded from lawsuits in California like they are in other states.
    So, does killing the guy actually reduce the likelihood of getting sued? Wouldn't the survivors be just as inclined to sue as an injured home invader?

    Maybe more so?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    So, does killing the guy actually reduce the likelihood of getting sued? Wouldn't the survivors be just as inclined to sue as an injured home invader?

    Maybe more so?
    Sue the dead dipshi#'s family for improper upbring.

    The other link didn't work for me. This one does: http://www.10news.com/news/21495350/detail.html

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    I spoke to a Los Angeles city attorney once, who posed the following question:

    "What do you get when the police shoot a gang member?"

    Answer: "A lawsuit from2 girlfriendsand three kids that the guy never met."



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    The shotgun was probably loaded with bird shot or some other small shot. 00 buck would have sent this guy to the coroner instead of the emergency room. Now we get to pay for his medical bills, trial, and room and board for the next dozen years or so. And knowing California like I do, the perp will probably sue the woman for shooting him, and win. That's why you need to use enough gun. And if that doesn't work, call the police and press charges.
    There I fixed it for you.

    Even 00 Buck needs shot placement. Hard to say what was used, but I'd watch what you post about shooting again unless you are still trying to stop the attack. Seems there is a certain formerly vocal pharmacist doing hard time for doing that. Don't get me wrong, these scumbags are either dead or not dead enough, but spending 20 years with the guys peers isn't worth it.

    HankT wrote:
    wewd wrote:
    That being said, if you decide that you must shoot someone to defend your life, it is generally in your best interest to kill them, since dead men can't sue (though their families and dependants still can). It happens all the time here, and self defense shooters are not shielded from lawsuits in California like they are in other states.
    So, does killing the guy actually reduce the likelihood of getting sued? Wouldn't the survivors be just as inclined to sue as an injured home invader?

    Maybe more so?
    I would say it does slightly reduce the likely hood of being sued since the guy can't claim he just got lost or thought he was breaking into his own house or some other nonsense. More importantly, the dead don't get revenge, and the dead's living friends have a souvenir in a box to make them think twice about it.

    As always I will shoot to stop only and only when there is an immediate threat including intent, capability, and opportunity to cause myself or others great bodily harm as defined by California statutes, precedents, and jury instructions.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    My wife would prefer that if I have to shoot an intruder, that I use bullets that will cauterize the wounds. Then the dead intruder won't leave bloodstains on the carpet.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    108

    Post imported post

    yelohamr wrote:
    My wife would prefer that if I have to shoot an intruder, that I use bullets that will cauterize the wounds.* Then the dead intruder won't leave bloodstains on the carpet.
    Hardwood Floors FTW!!

    (sorry hijack over)

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    inbox485 wrote:
    ...I'd watch what you post about shooting again unless you are still trying to stop the attack... spending 20 years with the guys peers isn't worth it...
    +1

    First off, some people talk a big game, and naively shrug off the consequences of their proposed actions. Watching another human die isn't fun. I've seen it twice, and I still see their faces in my sleep. I can't imagine how much worse this would be if I had caused their death (justified or not), and I don't care to find out.

    Second, making stupid comments on the internet can result in nothing good. Hopefully none of us is ever in a position where we must defend ourselves with deadly force. But, if it does happen, and your local PD has been monitoring this website... bad news for you. Talk about gift-wrapping a case for premeditated murder...
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  13. #13
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    I would prefer not to be in a situation where I had to use deadly force to defend myself, and I do not actively go looking for them. So if ever faced with that situation, I can be reasonably sure that it would not be my choice to take someone's life. It would be entirely theirs. But in a defensive situation, it is always prudent to make sure the threat is neutralized. That's all that really needs to be said. You choose to apply it however you will.

    A retired California Highway Patrol officer once told me that you are to shoot until the attacker stops going after you or for any weapon he may have. The military would say if he still has breath in his lungs, he is still a threat. That doesn't mean you should walk up to the guy and put one in his dome, but you don't fire one shot and expect that to end the confrontation. You fire until the threat is neutralized. That's how police are trained.

    I hope the lady does not get sued by her attacker.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    I would prefer not to be in a situation where I had to use deadly force to defend myself, and I do not actively go looking for them. So if ever faced with that situation, I can be reasonably sure that it would not be my choice to take someone's life. It would be entirely theirs. But in a defensive situation, it is always prudent to make sure the threat is neutralized. That's all that really needs to be said. You choose to apply it however you will.

    A retired California Highway Patrol officer once told me that you are to shoot until the attacker stops going after you or for any weapon he may have. The military would say if he still has breath in his lungs, he is still a threat. That doesn't mean you should walk up to the guy and put one in his dome, but you don't fire one shot and expect that to end the confrontation. You fire until the threat is neutralized. That's how police are trained.

    I hope the lady does not get sued by her attacker.
    Your quite right, and that is what I figured, but any thread being trolled by HankT needs to be clarified if for no other reason than not having to hear his stupid list of acronyms.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Or there was some interveneing cover that might deflect some of the shot... Like maybe a banister as he was coming upstairs... Just a guess on my part, of course...


    -DG

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •