Self-defense in CA?

Status
Not open for further replies.

esheato

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2003
Messages
2,783
Location
NoVa
Store slaying called self-defense
Co-owner acted responsibly, authorities say

Rob Young
August 20, 2007 - 11:38PM

A Yuba City market owner who shot and killed an armed robber will not be charged with a crime, Sutter County District Attorney Carl Adams said Monday.

Adams said the woman, who co-owns the Percy Avenue Market, acted in self-defense when she pulled a .38 caliber revolver from a drawer the night of Aug. 10 and shot Billy Lloyd Saling at point-blank range.

Adams did not name Hamdan in a press release, but confirmed she is Suad Hamdan, wife of co-owner Chris Hamdan. She earlier declined comment.

Hamdan did what was both legal and right, said Adams.

“Robbery is defined by the law as a forcible and atrocious crime. Homicide is justifiable when it is committed while resisting” such a crime, said Adams.

Saling had a loaded .22 caliber revolver in his hand when Hamdan fired one time, hitting him in the upper left lung. She fired a second time as he ran out the door but missed and hit a wall, said Adams.

Saling collapsed and died in a parking lot five to eight seconds after being hit, the district attorney said.

“It’s pretty clear she was convinced he would shoot her,” said Adams. “It’s clear she thought her life was at risk.”

Saling had five bullets in his six-shot revolver but did not fire. It was not clear if one of the rounds was “under the hammer” when Hamdan fired her gun, said Adams.

The incident at the checkout counter was captured on three of the store’s nine surveillance cameras, he said.

Dressed all in black and the with the hood of a sweatshirt concealing his face, Saling immediately went to the counter after entering the store and demanded money. He pointed the gun in Hamdan’s general direction as he leaned over, his elbows resting on the counter, said Adams.

“He demanded money from (Hamdan) and she complied. He then told her it was not enough and demanded more money,” he said.

When Hamdan reached into the drawer for the gun, Saling may have thought she was reaching for more money.

As he stood up from his leaning position, she shot him, said Adams.

“The clerk hands money to the robber three times from three different locations and, as the robber is demanding more money, the clerk takes a handgun from a drawer and shoots,” he said.

Saling could have been distracted by a patron standing at the back of the store who may have been calling police on a cell phone, said Adams.

Adams estimated Hamdan fired from a distance of three or four feet.

The surveillance tape will not be released, he said.

“It is always a hard thing when a citizen is forced to take a human life, no matter what the situation. While my condolences go out to the family of the deceased, I am also deeply sorry for the clerk and her family. She has to know that she not only did the legal thing, but in these circumstances, she also did the right thing by acting to protect herself and to protect her husband,” he said.

Appeal-Democrat reporter Rob Young can be reached at 749-4710. You may e-mail him at [email protected].

--------------------------------------------------------

Practice those close quarter drills. Never know when you're going to need them.

Ed
 
I'm sincerely amazed.

A California news article favoring the law abiding citizen in using an "evil" gun to defend herself.

I'm pleasantly shocked. :)
 
Saling had five bullets in his six-shot revolver but did not fire. It was not clear if one of the rounds was “under the hammer” when Hamdan fired her gun, said Adams.

She probably didn't check the length of his toe nails, either, or count the change in his pockets.
 
Great article on self defense. Thanks for sharing.

There are CA folks out there that still support the 2nd Amendment. I hope this news article rings out to BGs everywhere and for CA politicians to wake up!

Adams estimated Hamdan fired from a distance of three or four feet.

Most shoot outs happen at that distance.
 
There are CA folks out there that still support the 2nd Amendment. I hope this news article rings out to BGs everywhere and for CA politicians to wake up!

Sad, but they are probably still in sleep mode.
 
CA is a big state with drasticly different areas as far as political opinion. They are all just under the same laws, usualy created to suit inner city problems, but the local opinions of both the citizens and officers can be drasticly different.

Self defense from a store clerk on camera against someone armed with a firearm is about as clear cut as it can get. Had he been armed with something else, they might be questioning whether she really NEEDED to shoot poor goblin with just a knife or blunt object while he was a few feet away.

A store robbery favors self defense more in many ways. The criminal's motivation is clear for the robbery, the person has usualy dressed in a way that implies they planned to do a criminal act, and they are armed on camera approaching someone they do not have personal ties to.

Self defense in the home is slightly less clear, especialy if the criminal is known to the owner, and it can go either way even if justified.
Self defense on the street is often assumed around a 50-50 at fault in CA and both will be arrested and charged in most cases, and it will be up to a jury to decide on the facts. Even someone justified in such cases has a good chance of being found guilty, especialy of lesser felony charges (a jury compromising.)

So CA is far from ideal for self defense, but if you are a small store owner robbed at gunpoint by someone dressed to conceal identity all caught on camera you have a lot more going for you than most self defense cases will.

You notice they still focus on the fact that she only did it after complying and he still wanted more. Implying that had she just opened fire on the goblin who had a gun, was hiding his face, and robbing her, from the start she might have done something wrong.

It is also important to note that in many of these situations the perp runs outside the store and collapses. That means he could have just as easily returned fire with far less effort. Moving a finger is easier with a hole in you than running.

Also dying of a single wound to a lung sounds more like they decided not to save him than it speaks of any lethality of the round. It is pretty easy to keep someone alive with such a wound with rapid medical response. So that may also speak to the mentality of the responding individuals as well.
Sometimes they want to let a bad guy die. Letting a perp bleed out for awhile can easily be excused as "securing the scene" etc We see perps intentionaly allowed to die who have shot at police or killed an officer all the time. Some high profile, some under the radar.
I wonder if some medical personel try with less enthusiasm to save some gang member or criminal than someone else as well.
 
Save The Perp?

Saling collapsed and died in a parking lot five to eight seconds after being hit, the district attorney said.

Also dying of a single wound to a lung sounds more like they decided not to save him than it speaks of any lethality of the round. It is pretty easy to keep someone alive with such a wound with rapid medical response.

If the DA is telling it straight, there's pretty much no way to save the dude.

If, on the other hand, Zoogster's assessment is right, then the DA has decided to absolve the shopkeeper and any responders by portraying his death as inevitable.

Either way, I don't see an injustice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top