Permit holder holds suspect at gunpoint in Hartford

Edward Peruta · Sep 16, 2010

Homeowner Foils Burglary, Holds Suspect at Gunpoint

BY HILDA MUÑOZ, hmunoz@courant.com
3:10 PM EDT, September 16, 2010
HARTFORD

A Franklin Avenue homeowner caught a burglar coming out of his home Wednesday afternoon and held him at gunpoint until police arrived, police said.

The suspect, identified as Jose Manuel Rivera, was charged with second-degree breach of peace, third-degree burglary, second-degree burglary, second-degree criminal trespass, second-degree criminal mischief, possession of burglary tools and sixth-degree larceny.

His bail is set at $50,000.

The owner of 398-400 Franklin Ave. told police he was home and heard that burglar alarm go off. He saw someone running down the back stairs, and the homeowner ran out the front to stop the suspect, police said.

The owner held the suspect at gunpoint and called the police. The homeowner has a permit to own a gun, police said. The suspect had a VHS player taken from the home, as well as burglary tools, police said.

Rich B · Sep 16, 2010

What a refreshingly nice article to read.

Link to story:
http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-burglary-foiled-0917-20100916,0,5075992.story

Interesting though, I wonder who disclosed the permit status of this person.

CGS 29-28:

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1-210 and 1-211, the name and address of a person issued a permit to sell at retail pistols and revolvers pursuant to subsection (a) of this section or a state or a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or a local permit to carry pistols and revolvers issued by local authorities prior to October 1, 2001, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed, except (1) such information may be disclosed to law enforcement officials acting in the performance of their duties, (2) the issuing authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that such state or temporary state permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and the local authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that a local permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and (3) such information may be disclosed to the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services to carry out the provisions of subsection (c) of section 17a-500.

KIX · Sep 17, 2010

I have a big issue with reporting the permit holders status AND his address.

Kind of like the local law enforcement getting character references from my former drug dealing, prostitute neighbor. they have a record, and now know where they can grab a gun.

Sad.

Jonathan

Rich B · Sep 20, 2010

I have contacted both the writer and the editor involved in that article. They both don't seem to want to disclose their source of the information beyond 'the police told us'. They pointed me to Nancy Mulroy who is the Hartford PD's spokesperson and to their press releases (which seem to contain nothing about this incident).

I have an email into Nancy Mulroy right now, but I have received her out of office reply stating that she will be in tomorrow.

Just a Guy · Sep 20, 2010

What?

The article states "The homeowner has a permit to own a gun, police said."
What the hell is a "permit to own a gun"?

Rich B · Sep 21, 2010

My email conversation with Nancy Mulroy so far.

My conversation so far:

Rich B
Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM
To: nmulroy@ci.hartford.ct.us

I have noticed the following line in an article published by the Hartford Courant.

"The homeowner has a permit to own a gun, police said."

You can find this article online to read yourself at this link:
http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-burglary-foiled-0917-20100916,0,5075992.story

Could you please tell me if you were the person who disclosed this information to the journalists? When I asked them where they got the information, they pointed me to you.

Thank you,
Rich B

Mulroy, Nancy <nmulroy@hartford.gov>
Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:00 AM
To: Rich B

Hi Rich, In responding to questions from the media about this case, without disclosing the name or address of the victim, I did indicate that the victim was in legal possession of the weapon, nothing further. The HPD does not release the identities of victims or their addresses. If you like, you can give me a call as I am back from holiday today. My office number is 860-757-4021.

Sincerely,
Nancy M Mulroy
Media and Communications Coordinator
Hartford Police Department
50 Jennings Road
Hartford, CT 06120
860-757-4021
Visit the Hartford Police Department Website
Follow us on:

Rich B
Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:11 AM
To: "Mulroy, Nancy" <nmulroy@hartford.gov>

Nancy,
Well something is wrong here and I believe a crime has been committed.

Are you aware of this statute?

CGS 29-28:

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1-210 and 1-211, the name and address of a person issued a permit to sell at retail pistols and revolvers pursuant to subsection (a) of this section or a state or a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or a local permit to carry pistols and revolvers issued by local authorities prior to October 1, 2001, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed, except (1) such information may be disclosed to law enforcement officials acting in the performance of their duties, (2) the issuing authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that such state or temporary state permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and the local authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that a local permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and (3) such information may be disclosed to the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services to carry out the provisions of subsection (c) of section 17a-500.

I don't believe you were allowed to answer any questions about the permit status of the individual and I believe this statute was violated in the article where the permit status and the address of the person was disclosed to the public. This is a public safety concern. We now have public information available of where a firearm is located. This person could potentially be targeted because of this information. Even without the statute, this seems to violate basic privacy trust that citizens enter into with the state when they apply for a permit to carry a pistol or revolver.

I notice you made sure to mention that you did not disclose the name or address of the permit holder to the journalist, but the information clearly appears in the article. What is your assumption as to where that information may have come from if not disclosed by the Hartford Police Department? Will you provide all of your communications with the journalist to help me figure out the source of this information?

Why was the permit status of the resident relevant to the story? If the victim possessed the firearm illegally, charges for illegal possession would have been filed by the responding officers and that would be public information.

Thanks,
Rich B

Mulroy, Nancy <nmulroy@hartford.gov>
Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:18 AM
To: Rich B

Your concerns have been noted. We appreciate your information.

Sincerely,

Nancy M Mulroy
Media and Communications Coordinator
Hartford Police Department
50 Jennings Road
Hartford, CT 06120
860-757-4021
Visit the Hartford Police Department Website
Follow us on:

Lenny Benedetto · Sep 21, 2010

Looks like your concerns have been dismissed by Nancy.
If there is more communications with her, I would bet that they go unanswered.

Which is probably smart on her part considering that you accurately pointed out that she or her department has committed a crime!!

This looks like another case that needs to be litigated.

Rich B · Sep 21, 2010

Lenny Benedetto said:
This looks like another case that needs to be litigated.

I agree. This seems like another one CCDL should be jumping all over.

I am hoping someone here can either submit or explain the best way to submit this to the State's Attorney so that maybe the case can be investigated and the individuals involved prosecuted.

Rich B · Sep 21, 2010

Email conversation with Courant reporter

My email conversation with the reporter from the article:

Rich B
To: hmunoz@courant.com

Hilda,

http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-burglary-foiled-0917-20100916,0,5075992.story

Where did you obtain the information in the above article about the resident being in possession of a valid CT pistol permit?

Thank you,
Rich B

Munoz, Hilda <HMunoz@courant.com>
To: Rich B
The police.

Rich B
To: "Munoz, Hilda" <HMunoz@courant.com>

Hilda,
I understand you obtained this info from the police. You stated this in the article. Who in the police department gave you this information?

Thanks,
Rich B

Munoz, Hilda <HMunoz@courant.com>
To: Rich B

Is the information inaccurate?

Rich B
To: "Munoz, Hilda" <HMunoz@courant.com>

Hilda,
I am not interested in the accuracy of the information, nor would I be capable of confirming this either way. It is important that I know who gave you this information however.

Thanks,
Rich B

Rich B
To: "Munoz, Hilda" <HMunoz@courant.com>

Hilda,
I still have not heard back from you regarding this.

Thanks,
Rich B

Munoz, Hilda <HMunoz@courant.com> Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:04 AM
To: Rich B
I’ve given you all the information I have regarding this incident. If you have more questions, you can reach my editor at sbusemeyer@courant.com.

Rich B · Sep 21, 2010

Email conversation with Courant reporter's editor

My email conversation with Hilda's editor after she stopped responding.

Rich B
To: sbusemeyer@courant.com

I have requested information from your writer Hilda Munoz regarding a story published here:
http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-burglary-foiled-0917-20100916,0,5075992.story

This story includes this text:
"The homeowner has a permit to own a gun, police said."

I am requesting the source of this information. Whoever disclosed this information to your newspaper has committed a crime, and so has your writer in publishing it.

CGS 29-28:

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1-210 and 1-211, the name and address of a person issued a permit to sell at retail pistols and revolvers pursuant to subsection (a) of this section or a state or a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or a local permit to carry pistols and revolvers issued by local authorities prior to October 1, 2001, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed, except (1) such information may be disclosed to law enforcement officials acting in the performance of their duties, (2) the issuing authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that such state or temporary state permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and the local authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that a local permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and (3) such information may be disclosed to the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services to carry out the provisions of subsection (c) of section 17a-500.

Please assist me in finding out what police officer or spokesperson made this information available so that we can inform them of their mistake and of the law.

Thank you,
Rich B

Busemeyer, Stephen <SBusemeyer@courant.com>
To: Rich B

Hi Rich,

Thanks for writing. As you know, the courts have ruled that journalists have qualified privilege to report statements made by police officers to the press. What we’ve reported on our website is the extent of what we intend to publish on the matter at the moment.

As for whether the police department erred in this particular exercise of law, I’d suggest you contact them. The main number for the Hartford Police Department is 860-757-4000. Nancy Mulroy is the spokesperson.

The Hartford Police Department puts its press releases on its website, which is:

http://police.hartford.gov/default.aspx

Thanks again for the note, and good luck.

Stephen

Stephen Busemeyer

Breaking News Editor

The Hartford Courant

busemeyer@courant.com

w 860-241-6662

c 860-982-6877

Rich B
To: "Busemeyer, Stephen" <SBusemeyer@courant.com>

Stephen,
The plan is to contact the police department regarding this matter and make them aware of the situation. I certainly understand that your journalists are not the ones at fault here, the police should be expected to know better, that is why I am trying to work with you and your staff to fix this issue. However, I see no press release present for this particular incident on the police website.

Could you please confirm if Nancy Mulroy is the person who disclosed this information or not, and if not, who gave you this particular information?

I think you can agree that it will be more efficient to talk to the involved parties directly from the start so we can get this issue resolved in a hurry. I don't see any reason you would not want to share this information to help ensure public safety and to keep people's rights to confidentiality intact in the future.

Thank you,
Rich B

Busemeyer, Stephen <SBusemeyer@courant.com>
To: Rich B

Hi again Rich,

My reporter spoke to a police department official. There are a couple of sergeants and lieutenants who talk to us. I’m not sure which one spoke to Hilda in this instance, but I don’t need to ask my reporter to answer that for me. I trust her and you can trust that our report is accurate.

Any question about police department policy – or social policy regarding the public nature of gun permits -- is out of my authority.

Good luck,

Stephen

Rich B
To: "Busemeyer, Stephen" <SBusemeyer@courant.com>

Stephen,
I am glad you trust your reporter and I am sure your article is accurate (I have never implied anything to the contrary), but why would you be unwilling to tell me who supplied that information from the police department? That is needlessly wasting my time as well as police personnel's time for something that should be very simple for you and your writer.

Respectfully,
Rich B

Rich B
To: "Busemeyer, Stephen" <SBusemeyer@courant.com>

Stephen,
According to Nancy Mulroy of the Hartford Police Department, she never disclosed to Hilda the permit status of the victim, nor did she supply Hilda the address of the victim. She indicates that the only thing she disclosed was that the victim lawfully possessed the firearm.

As you previously indicated, the press enjoys certain immunities if they publish what the police disclose. It sounds like in this case this is not true, or someone is not telling the truth.

Can you explain where you obtained the permit status (note: legally owning a firearm in the state of CT requires no permit) and the address of the victim?

Thank you,
Rich B

Busemeyer, Stephen <SBusemeyer@courant.com>
To: Rich B

Rich,

I will not discuss sources of information, other than to direct you to what’s already been published.

Thanks again,

Stephen

Leverdude · Sep 22, 2010

Just a Guy said:
The article states "The homeowner has a permit to own a gun, police said."
What the hell is a "permit to own a gun"?

In CT thats what a carry permit ammounts to, with the exception of a person having an eligibility certificate.
We call it a carry permit, but its pretty much a permit to own, try to go out & buy a gun without one. We in CT are permitted to own a handgun without a permit and posess it in our home or place of business but thats it. Unless you move here with a gun or had it prior to 1994 you basically need a permit to get a gun & have it in your home.

Bugs me more to see the common reference to someone having a gun thats "registered" to them. We dont have an official registry but given enough time & acceptance of the term Its not inconceivable for the future.

Rich B · Sep 22, 2010

Leverdude said:
In CT thats what a carry permit ammounts to, with the exception of a person having an eligibility certificate.

That is not true at all. There is no permit or license required to possess or own a firearm. Only a handgun. The article made no reference to any type of firearm.

ESCH · Sep 22, 2010

Question:
Is what this home owner did legal?
He "brandished" a firearm at a person who was leaving "retreating" from the residence. He threatened deadly force (by pointing the gun at him) over the bad guy "leaving" the house with a VCR.
Now the what if parts:
What if the bad guy just got up and walked away? He wasn't going to shoot him is he? If not, is it legal to hold him at gun point?

Remember, the stated "fact" is the perp was leaving the residence. Is it lawful to chase down and detain (at gun point) criminals leaving possible burglary scenes?

I constantly read discussions where it is stated removing a gun from a holster can only be done when actually in fear for ones life. To chase someone down and hold them at gunpoint for taking a VCR as they are leaving?

What say you?

Rich B · Sep 22, 2010

ESCH said:
Question:
Is what this home owner did legal?
He "brandished" a firearm at a person who was leaving "retreating" from the residence. He threatened deadly force (by pointing the gun at him) over the bad guy "leaving" the house with a VCR.

In Connecticut, as a citizen, you have arrest powers. You may use 'reasonable force' in detaining someone to make an arrest.

What if the bad guy just got up and walked away?

Again, 'reasonable force' is to be used. Shooting someone for compliance is obviously not legal. Would/could a LEO do this?

If not, is it legal to hold him at gun point?

I would say that is 'reasonable force'. Some people might disagree. Obviously the police in this case agreed. YMMV.

Relevant statute:
http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dlsurs/sur/htm/chap951.htm#Sec53a-22.htm

f) A private person acting on his or her own account is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has committed such offense; but he or she is not justified in using deadly physical force in such circumstances, except in defense of person as prescribed in section 53a-19.

Does not require person making the arrest to have been present at the time the felony was committed for defense of citizen's arrest to apply. 63 CA 228.

Defendant's firing of warning shot at fleeing assailants constituted use of deadly force proscribed by statute. To permit persons to fire warning shots would frustrate purpose of statute to limit use of guns to emergency situations to protect persons from death or great bodily harm. 35 CS 570. Cited. 39 CS 392.

ESCH · Sep 22, 2010

In the quotes you provided, It states physical force is acceptable in an arrest.
It claims "warning shots" are not physical force, they are deadly force. So not acceptable.
Where does pointing the gun at someone inferring deadly force fall? Deadly force or simple physical force? Does the trigger being pulled change physical force to deadly force?

I can understand actually holding someone with your hands or body as physical force. I can see tying up someone-handcuffing or locking them in a room as physical force. Holding them with a gun to their head in fear for their life seems to cross the line from acceptable physical force.

I only bring this up because of a recent story where a criminal was chased out of a home and the home owner fired shots at the fleeing suspects vehicle. Everyone who posted comments about it assumes the homeowner who fired the shots is out of control. This seems to be a very similar case. Except for the actual pulling of the trigger. Just trying to determine exactly where the line is. Is it simply at the point of pulling the trigger on someone or is it long before that in even drawing down on someone "fleeing."
I can understand the argument that even drawing a gun on someone fleeing and not posing a threat to you is "out of control."

Or is drawing a gun on someone acceptable protection of personal property?

Rich B · Sep 22, 2010

ESCH said:
In the quotes you provided, It states physical force is acceptable in an arrest.
It claims "warning shots" are not physical force, they are deadly force. So not acceptable.
Where does pointing the gun at someone inferring deadly force fall? Deadly force or simple physical force? Does the trigger being pulled change physical force to deadly force?

I don't think a 'reasonable' person would interpret using a firearm to detain someone 'deadly force' if the trigger is never pulled. Again, relate it to a police officer. If a police officer is making a felony arrest and draws his/her firearm while detaining the suspect, that is not 'deadly force'. A citizen is no different based on the law cited.

I can understand actually holding someone with your hands or body as physical force. I can see tying up someone-handcuffing or locking them in a room as physical force. Holding them with a gun to their head in fear for their life seems to cross the line from acceptable physical force.

I don't understand how. Do you feel LEOs should not be able to unholster their firearms unless they are pulling the trigger as well?

I only bring this up because of a recent story where a criminal was chased out of a home and the home owner fired shots at the fleeing suspects vehicle. Everyone who posted comments about it assumes the homeowner who fired the shots is out of control. This seems to be a very similar case. Except for the actual pulling of the trigger. Just trying to determine exactly where the line is. Is it simply at the point of pulling the trigger on someone or is it long before that in even drawing down on someone "fleeing."

To relate firing your firearm at a rapidly fleeing suspect and using your firearm as a potential force multiplier to aid in an arrest seems awfully silly to me.

Again, if you commit felony and run from the police, they are allowed to use their firearm to order you to stop, right? But they are not allowed to just start shooting at you until you pose an imminent threat to the LEO's life or to a third party's life.

The big difference in the statute that I see is that the law specifically allows the LEO to act on behalf of a third party while it does not do the same for a citizen.

Or is drawing a gun on someone acceptable protection of personal property?

I believe I have answered this several times, citing law that says the same.

ESCH · Sep 22, 2010

I guess we might just have to disagree.
I don't see how a civilian attempting to stop someone from fleeing from a larceny, warrants the threat of deadly force.
What we are talking about is a civilian chasing someone who stole something and threatening to shoot them (a gun pointed at someone is a threat of shooting them) while they are fleeing, if they don't stop retreating. Maybe I am alone in thinking that may be over the line.

Rich B · Sep 22, 2010

ESCH said:
I guess we might just have to disagree.
I don't see how a civilian attempting to stop someone from fleeing from a larceny, warrants the threat of deadly force.

Considering neither of us were there, I have no idea why you would be willing to pass any judgment on this person.

What we are talking about is a civilian chasing someone who stole something and threatening to shoot them (a gun pointed at someone is a threat of shooting them) while they are fleeing, if they don't stop retreating. Maybe I am alone in thinking that may be over the line.

I have no information that that is what happened and I don't think you do either. You are making an awful lot of assumptions that I don't think are fair or are justified.

You could just as easily assume that the homeowner chased and captured the suspect (again, using reasonable force) with his firearm (which we don't even know what type it was) holstered and only produced the firearm when the person was captured and detained. At that point, you don't know if the suspect then started threatening the victim or attempting to escape. We also have no way of knowing the Courant's definition of 'at gun point'.

Seeing that the Hartford Police Department made no arrest of the victim in this case, I would tend to think my version is more likely, but we have no way of knowing based on the Courant's article.

Again, these laws are subjective and require the use of common sense. Saying that no citizen should be allowed to chase a criminal, arrest and detain them using a firearm when our laws clearly allow it is really not going to get us anywhere.

Leverdude · Sep 23, 2010

Rich B said:
That is not true at all. There is no permit or license required to possess or own a firearm. Only a handgun. The article made no reference to any type of firearm.

You are quite right. I thought it obvious we were talking about handguns. However it is not true that we need a permit to own or posess a handgun either. Only to buy one or have it legally transferred to you, or of course to carry it.

Leverdude · Sep 23, 2010

ESCH said:
I guess we might just have to disagree.
I don't see how a civilian attempting to stop someone from fleeing from a larceny, warrants the threat of deadly force.
What we are talking about is a civilian chasing someone who stole something and threatening to shoot them (a gun pointed at someone is a threat of shooting them) while they are fleeing, if they don't stop retreating. Maybe I am alone in thinking that may be over the line.

JMHO & I'm not a lawyer. But if its over the line for an individual to use a gun & threat of force to stop a crime then the line, like many other here in CT, needs to be redrawn.

How is it any different than holding them with the threat of a bat? If I'm making a burglar stay put with the threat of hitting him with a bat, or anything else, its no different, yet nobody would suggest that because you were going to whack him if he got up you are unstable or whatever.

Police draw their guns all the time, yet they are under almost the exact same limitations as you & I as far as when they can shoot someone. Generally they cannot shoot you just for failing to obey, but you can bet your but theres a gun pointed at you if they yell "Freeze" or whatever.

Permit holder holds suspect at gunpoint in Hartford

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member