CA - Off Duty Police Officer shoots man and parents after altercation in Costco, Corona, June 2019

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think a good attorney could show that the killing of Mr. French was in self defense. I wonder if there could be some type of reckless endangerment charge for shooting his mother.

https://www.justia.com/documents/criminal-law-calcrim.pdf
CA 505. Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another – Law of Self Defense
BBM
California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM 2017)

CA 505. Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another

The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/ she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (self- defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name or description of third party>) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other forcible and atrocious crime>)];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;

AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of death or great bodily injury to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the [attempted] killing was not justified.

When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.

[The defendant’s belief that (he/she/ [or] someone else) was threatened may be reasonable even if (he/she) relied on information that was not true. However, the defendant must actually and reasonably have believed that the information was true.]

[If you find that <insert name of decedent/victim> threatened or harmed the defendant [or others] in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable.]

[If you find that the defendant knew that <insert name of decedent/victim> had threatened or harmed others in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable.]

[Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past, is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self- defense measures against that person.]

[If you find that the defendant received a threat from someone else that (he/she) reasonably associated with <insert name of decedent/victim>, you may consider that threat in deciding whether the defendant was justified in acting in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another).]

[A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/ <insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.]

[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.]

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the [attempted] killing was not justified. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter).
 
BayouBelle_LA said:
I think a good attorney could show that the killing of Mr. French was in self defense. I wonder if there could be some type of reckless endangerment charge for shooting his mother.

https://www.justia.com/documents/criminal-law-calcrim.pdf
CA 505. Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another – Law of Self Defense
BBM
California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM 2017)

CA 505. Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another

The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/ she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (self- defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name or description of third party>) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other forcible and atrocious crime>)];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;

AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of death or great bodily injury to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the [attempted] killing was not justified.

When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.

[The defendant’s belief that (he/she/ [or] someone else) was threatened may be reasonable even if (he/she) relied on information that was not true. However, the defendant must actually and reasonably have believed that the information was true.]

[If you find that <insert name of decedent/victim> threatened or harmed the defendant [or others] in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable.]

[If you find that the defendant knew that <insert name of decedent/victim> had threatened or harmed others in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable.]

[Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past, is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self- defense measures against that person.]

[If you find that the defendant received a threat from someone else that (he/she) reasonably associated with <insert name of decedent/victim>, you may consider that threat in deciding whether the defendant was justified in acting in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another).]

[A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/ <insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.]

[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.]

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the [attempted] killing was not justified. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter).
Click to expand...

Interesting. And additional information:

"Transferred Intent Applies
“[T]he doctrine of self-defense is available to insulate one from criminal responsibility where his act, justifiably in self-defense, inadvertently results in the
injury of an innocent bystander.” (People v. Mathews (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1024 [154 Cal.Rptr. 628]; see also People v. Curtis (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1337,
1357 [37 Cal.Rptr.2d 304].) There is no sua sponte duty to instruct on this principle, although such an instruction must be given on request when substantial
evidence supports it. (People v. Mathews, supra, 91 Cal.App.3d at p. 1025; see also
CALCRIM No. 562, Transferred Intent.)
Definition of “Imminent”
In People v. Aris (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1187 [264 Cal.Rptr. 167], overruled
on other grounds in People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1089 [56
Cal.Rptr.2d 142, 921 P.2d 1], the jury requested clarification of the term “imminent.” In response, the trial court instructed:
“Imminent peril,” as used in these instructions, means that the peril must have existed or appeared to the defendant to have existed at the very time the fatal shot was fired.

In other words, the peril must appear to the defendant as
immediate and present and not prospective or even in the near future. An imminent peril is one that, from appearances, must be instantly dealt with.
(Ibid.) HOMICIDE CALCRIM No. 505 219 0013"

My informal interpretation of this law, is that even though French's parents were shot, because it was in "self defense", it was "inadvertent injury of a bystander".

Looks like, the DA has enough to decide that this situation can be applied to "self defense", and based on how the law is written, justify not pressing any charges.

And even if there was a trial, the law can be interpreted so broadly, that a conviction seems almost impossible to me, based on the law, as written.

Whether or not it seems reasonable to me, is not part of the equation here. Looks like Sanchez can continue to shop at Costco with his gun. Wow.
 
PrairieWind said:
Mickey, all of that will of course still depend upon whether our shooter here can show that his shooting was justified. I also question whether a current Calif court would apply Matthews as they stated back in 1979.
Click to expand...

Remember, this IS the Ninth Circuit, these folks are so extraordinary when it comes to interpreting the law. Of course, they don't like LEO too much...so, who knows?!
 
mickey2942 said:
And shooting someone who pushes you at Costco does not merit self defense with lethal force, killing one man and injuring two others. But, that is my "logic". Not the law.
Click to expand...
SBM
Do we know that the officer was only pushed?

Or is it possible that more extreme violence took place? I'd like to know the details of what happened before I say this is not a justified case of self defense.
 
RANCH said:
SBM
Do we know that the officer was only pushed?

Or is it possible that more extreme violence took place? I'd like to know the details of what happened before I say this is not a justified case of self defense.
Click to expand...

Valid point. The entire situation is a mystery.
 
RANCH said:
SBM
Do we know that the officer was only pushed?

Or is it possible that more extreme violence took place? I'd like to know the details of what happened before I say this is not a justified case of self defense.
Click to expand...
We don't know. We have heard such differing rumors about the situation that its impossible to know what happened. I think we have about another week before the PD has to release the video so we may know more then.
 
PrairieWind said:
We don't know. We have heard such differing rumors about the situation that its impossible to know what happened. I think we have about another week before the PD has to release the video so we may know more then.
Click to expand...

They don't have to release the video if they think it is too prejudicial. Isn't that interesting...

But, that is the standard for LAPD, what is unusual here, is the standard used based on Corona PD? Or LAPD?

Crickets on pending charges as well.
 
mickey2942 said:
They don't have to release the video if they think it is too prejudicial. Isn't that interesting...

But, that is the standard for LAPD, what is unusual here, is the standard used based on Corona PD? Or LAPD?

Crickets on pending charges as well.
Click to expand...
My guess is that in the next week we will see a court filing from local media to force the release. Then the LAPD will have to make a showing of why it shouldn't be released yet. That is going to be difficult for them to meet.
 
PrairieWind said:
My guess is that in the next week we will see a court filing from local media to force the release. Then the LAPD will have to make a showing of why it shouldn't be released yet. That is going to be difficult for them to meet.
Click to expand...
I sure hope you are right about that! Is that when the time period has passed that was referenced earlier in the thread? (something about how LE does not have to release the video for x period of time?)
 
NervousNellie said:
I sure hope you are right about that! Is that when the time period has passed that was referenced earlier in the thread? (something about how LE does not have to release the video for x period of time?)
Click to expand...
I seem to recall that their policy was they could keep it for 45 days, but then had to release unless certain conditions existed. Given their silence so far, I assume they will try to keep it from release. But they will have to make an actual argument to the court IF a suit is filed. I am hoping that happens.
 
RANCH said:
SBM
Do we know that the officer was only pushed?

Or is it possible that more extreme violence took place? I'd like to know the details of what happened before I say this is not a justified case of self defense.
Click to expand...
I’m curious what scenario would justify someone “regaining consciousness”, pulling out their gun, and shooting multiple people inside a crowded grocery/warehouse store.

Other than the person being shot being an active shooter, I can’t determine any scenario that justifies immediate death.
 
PrairieWind said:
My guess is that in the next week we will see a court filing from local media to force the release. Then the LAPD will have to make a showing of why it shouldn't be released yet. That is going to be difficult for them to meet.
Click to expand...

Would it be up to LAPD or Corona PD? The video should be in the hands of Corona PD since it's their jurisdiction, right?
 
apricotpeach said:
Would it be up to LAPD or Corona PD? The video should be in the hands of Corona PD since it's their jurisdiction, right?
Click to expand...

Riverside county district attorney office probably has jurisdiction over the video now. Corona PD has completed their investigation into the Costco shooting, and turned over the investigation results to the Riverside DA. And, we haven't heard anything since.

Shrug. Just another off duty police officer, shooting folks. Salvador Sanchez, Amber Guyger...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 138 more.
Total: 3,533 (members: 139, guests: 3,394)

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
3,394
Total visitors
3,533
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,273
Messages
17,966,509
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top