Chinatown Shop Owner Who Saved Woman from Robbery By Firing Gun is Arrested, Bailed Out

[MechAndy]

Hi Ruth.
Hey I agree with you for the most part.

I feel doing things that are reckless or unsafe behaviors should be held liable.
Like if a police officer drives way to fast and hurts kids by their school as he is chasing a bad guy.
Or if a person (police officer or not) shoots in an unsafe area while he thinks it is the right thing to do.
They should be held liable for their actions as well.
Heaven help the idiot that does reckless gun play near my family.

I am not anti police by any means.
As I earlier mentioned I think we should follow the same rules.
These rules should be simple.

Edited to add,
I am sure most sane people wouldn’t go all “John Wayne” on some one for this.
That in itself does make me wonder about but we weren’t there and we don’t know the real story.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I don't know who's right; the police captain raised a point. I don't know if a case like this has ever gone to court anywhere in the US or CA, or how other police precincts handle it. Suddenly, it throws this type of situation into question. It might not be a bad idea to examine the issues involved (I mean--for legal systems to consider such cases).

The charges were dropped, according to a recent update, so that tells us something. But the case raises a number of sticky questions, broader questions, about the use of lethal force by citizens not personally threatened in a situation.

If not you personally, what about a family member? Your best friend? An elderly person you don’t know?
Again if you were attacked, would you want someone to use lethal force to help you?
Non lethal force that would be effective would be what?

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Well, this case seems pretty cut-and-dried, except for the point the police captain raised. But a robbery was going on in a store right in front of the owner, though he wasn't directly involved (until he involved himself). That's straightforward. But there can be situations that evolve out in public, on the street or wherever. that (armed) witnesses could misjudge. Not every situation is so straightforward. Do we really want untrained citizens acting in lieu of the police? Does the law even allow for that? I don't know that it does. People seem to assume that it does, but here we have an instance in which a police captain disagreed. I think this is an important question to clarify.

Yes, the law is very cut and dried - it's perfectly legal to use force to protect a stranger if you believe the person would die or suffer great physical harm if you don't intervene.

The police captain is entitled to his opinion. regardless, the shop owner didn't break any law. There was a violent robbery (as described by the news), violent usually means the victim is attacked physically; and the shop owner intervened with force. This is permitted under the law.

California Self Defense Laws

California law not only permits you to act in defense of yourself, but in the defense of others, as well. In order to establish that you acted in self defense of another person, you must prove you had a reasonable belief that force was necessary to protect another person from an imminent threat of danger.

.

[aslowdodge]

I will add that as far as in lieu of police, if the police were there at that moment and acted, that would be preferable. But no police were anywhere near at the time.

[Boompa]

You are presupposing that he will be punished. He is being charged with firing a weapon withincity limits (which he apparently did. As far as I know there is no question of his owning one. If they fine him $5 for each round this is a lot of fuss.

[Ultrarunner]

Policing is very different in Oakland from other areas in my experience and people often don't even blame the officer on the street.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/ar...y-15955636.php

We have a succession of Police Chiefs with some only lasting days...

https://www.ktvu.com/news/ousted-oak...cial-treatment

Officers I know on the street just want to get out with pension intact.

12 of my friends joined OPD and I have done full shift ride-alongs which is eye opening to see just how much they do in a days work... the morale is suffering because how can you explain arresting someone for crime twice in 24 hours?

Property Crime is the lowest priority... when it has happened to me the response is if you need a report go online and file one... this is nothing new.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...-cops/2095121/

The car jacking last week did get a response and in part because an infant was in the mix...

Your residential burglaries, car thefts, mail and package thefts are so low it is between you and your insurance company...

A former Chief said each citizen is responsible for their own safety... chilling words for many.

I don't know what the answer is because I have clear neighbor video footage of the person and vehicle that broke into my car a few weeks back... there is no interest from police... the online file a report is primarily for insurance purposes.

The Citizen Review Board is by some accounts the most powerful in the country...

The defund the police movement is very strong.

Last night the 580 was totally closed due to a shooting...

The irony is it feels like open season on the law abiding from the not... knowing there is little consequences many times.

All the video footage means nothing if there is no one willing to prosecute.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...ver-last-year/

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

If not you personally, what about a family member? Your best friend? An elderly person you don’t know?
Again if you were attacked, would you want someone to use lethal force to help you?
Non lethal force that would be effective would be what?

Situations aren't always so clear. Someone who appears to be a victim could actually have been the aggressor initially. Situations can be confusing. Personalizing it doesn't help address the potential issues involved.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by beb0p

Yes, the law is very cut and dried - it's perfectly legal to use force to protect a stranger if you believe the person would die or suffer great physical harm if you don't intervene.

The police captain is entitled to his opinion. regardless, the shop owner didn't break any law. There was a violent robbery (as described by the news), violent usually means the victim is attacked physically; and the shop owner intervened with force. This is permitted under the law.


.

Thank you! This was a useful post.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Situations aren't always so clear. Someone who appears to be a victim could actually have been the aggressor initially. Situations can be confusing. Personalizing it doesn't help address the potential issues involved.

Somehow I think seeing a woman on the ground having a Tug of war over a purse with a standing male larger than her , there’s no mistaking who the aggressor is.
Unless you think the woman jumped the man because she wanted HIS purse was a likely scenario.
I usually enjoy your posts, but I notice when a gun is involved in defense, you really give benefit of doubt to the aggressors.
Personalizing does in fact count. It’s all too easy to make judgements sitting from the comfort of your home behind a computer having time to think about things and make judgement about others when you are not in danger.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

Somehow I think seeing a woman on the ground having a Tug of war over a purse with a standing male larger than her , there’s no mistaking who the aggressor is.
Unless you think the woman jumped the man because she wanted HIS purse was a likely scenario.
I usually enjoy your posts, but I notice when a gun is involved in defense, you really give benefit of doubt to the aggressors.
Personalizing does in fact count. It’s all too easy to make judgements sitting from the comfort of your home behind a computer having time to think about things and make judgement about others when you are not in danger.

But, 'dodge, my point is exactly, that it's very easy to throw out clear-cut scenarios from behind one's computer screen, when the reality can be very different. I'm looking at the bigger picture this case opens up, not the specific incident. I'm a bigger-picture kind of gal.

In any case, thanks to Beb0p, we now know that local laws allow a 3rd party to shoot an aggressor as part of the "self-defense" definition (mighty interesting definition of "self", there...). So the matter is moot as far as Oakland or CA is concerned.

So....truce?