Skip to comments.Burglar shot and killed while escaping ruled justifiable.
Posted on 08/15/2012 4:29:54 PM PDT by RC one
A store owner who killed a man during a break-in will not be charged in the shooting, Walla Walla County Prosecutor Jim Nagle said Monday.
The investigation by sheriff's Det. Sgt. Gary Bolster showed that Saul fired his 12-gauge shotgun five times at a distance between 120 and 155 feet, striking Chavira in the back with nearly 50 pellets. Chavira was in the street outside the store when Saul fired.
In a letter stating his decision not to prosecute, Nagle stated the Washington state Legislature and Supreme Court have made it clear that a person should not be charged with murder or manslaughter "when they are defending themselves, their property, or against a felony, unless the prosecution has sufficient evidence to prove the absence of any of the defenses to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."
Chavira's family intends to sue Saul, according to the family's attorney Michelle Trombley.
Related: The 22-year-old, Cesar Chavira, died at the scene. The Walla Walla sheriff's office says he was a known gang member with a criminal record.
And this: Saul has no criminal history while Chavira, a known gang member has been arrested 19 times since 2004. He has six felony convictions including theft and assault. He also has seven gross misdemeanors on file. However he was not armed the night he was shot and killed.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Chavira, a known gang member has been arrested 19 times since 2004. He has six felony convictions including theft and assault. He also has seven gross misdemeanors on file.Sounds like a case of stupid judges letting a dangerous person out on the street.
.....note to self: Make sure they are armed before popo shows up.
That would be murder in many states, including my own. I'm glad that the businessman did the right thing and that the prosecutor did too.
The coroner’s inquest was a special jury.
Mr. Chavira broke into another man’s house while that man was sleeping. That’s all I need to know right there. Good riddance to bad rubbish and yes, he might consider some 4 buck in the future. Good job Mr. Saul and thank you.
>>A store owner who killed a man during a break-in will not be charged in the shooting,<<
*snif* I love a story with a happy ending.
yeah, mine too. Gotta be very careful about the use of deadly force. Rule #1: anything you say WILL be used against you so don’t say anything except “I refuse to answer that question based on the grounds that it may incriminate me”. Rule number 2: it’s better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
Sounds like he died of natural causes to me.
You go around robbing people, naturally they are going to get upset and kill you.
“I refuse to answer that question based on the grounds that it may incriminate me. “
Not to pick nits but that comment alone sounds like a guilty person. Best just to say, “I’ll give my statement after consulting an attorney. I want an attorney/I want to call my attorney.” Until you state your demand for legal representation the cops can still interrogate you.
I understand he was turning his life around, was negotiating a contract as a hip hop artist and was especially kind to his grandmother.
except now he has to defend himself in civil court which requires only a preponderance of the evidence as burden of proof as opposed to “beyond a shadow of a doubt” which means this dirtbag’s family may get to rob this man yet.
Might get ugly in Civ.Ct. Well, it could.
I would never, ever shoot anyone in the back. Even here in Texas.
>>except now he has to defend himself in civil court which requires only a preponderance of the evidence as burden of proof as opposed to beyond a shadow of a doubt which means this dirtbags family may get to rob this man yet.<<
Perhaps. I hope this guy’s lawyer cross-complains to get the costs.
The important fact is this guy is alive and the perp is dead.
yep, you are right... a job related injury. Goes with the territory.
He should have had better parental career counseling.
yeah, that's murder in most states. Morally/ethically though, I don't really have a problem with killing bandits one way or the other. If it were legal in my state, I would have done the same thing. Do you assume a bandit has a problem with shooting you in the back? Do you think soldiers don't get shot in the back all the time? Do you think LEOs don't shoot fleeing suspects in the back? If you are going to fight with monsters, you have to be prepared to become a monster. with apologies to Mr. Nietzsche .
In a situation like that, one should memorize an 11-word script: “I was in fear for my life so I defended myself.”
If an armed perpetrator was running away from me and toward my daughter's bedroom, I would empty my gun into his back as fast as I could. If he was still standing, I would reload and shoot some more.
Just because a person shows you his back does not mean that he is surrendering, that he has given up attacking you, or that he is no longer a danger to you.
Aw jeez, you are right!
I would never shoot anyone in the back, especially if they were carrying my stuff! The 10mm tends to overpenetrate.
That is a whole different scenario, my FRiend.
And a 10mm is deadly, in a bad way.
Just think to yourself that he wasn't "fleeing"....just on the way to the next intended victim.
Not to pick nits but that comment alone sounds like a guilty person.
I used to think the same thing until I watched this video of a law professor and a police officer teaching a class that pleading the Fifth is nothing to be ashamed of. He gives examples of how innocent people can and do get themselves in trouble.