Posted on 10/21/2011 6:00:14 AM PDT by marktwain
MOSES LAKE- A 30-year-old Moses Lake man is dead after being shot Sunday night in what appears to have been an attempted burglary north of Moses Lake city limits.
Grant County Sheriff's deputies and Moses Lake Police officers responded to a mobile home on Ottmar Road Northeast in Cascade Valley around 9 p.m. following a 9-1-1 call for a robbery in progress, according to Grant County Undersheriff Dave Ponozzo.
Officers entered the home of Timothy Mandelas, 44, to discover Joshua Montano had been shot several times in the chest with a pistol, a Moses Lake Police report stated.
Ponozzo said he did not know if anyone else was in the home besides Mandelas when the shooting occurred.
Montano was accompanied by two other males, Ponozzo said, one who stayed on the porch throughout the incident and the other who reportedly entered the residence with Montano carrying a firearm. Both fled the scene after hearing the gunshot and are still at large.
When he entered the home, Montano was reportedly armed with a knife, which Ponozzo said was recovered at the scene.
The homeowner reportedly did not know the alleged burglars, Ponozzo said.
"It is very early in the investigation and many facts are not yet known, but what we believe right now is a man entered the home during an attempted burglary and was allegedly shot by the occupant of that home," Ponozzo stated.
Montano was treated by Grant County Fire District 5 firefighters and AMR paramedics before being transported to Samaritan Hospital in Moses Lake, said Ponozzo. He was later transferred to a Spokane hospital where he died from his injuries early Monday morning.
An autopsy performed in Spokane revealed Montano died from multiple gunshot wounds, according to the Spokane County Medical Examiner's Office.
Montano has a criminal history including a 2007 conviction for theft in the second degree, a 2008 conviction for three counts of assault in the fourth degree and one count of criminal trespassing in the first degree and a 2010 conviction for criminal trespassing in the first degree, according to Grant County court records.
Mandelas has cooperated with investigators regarding the shooting, Ponozzo said. He was booked into the Grant County Jail on suspicion of being a convicted felon possessing a firearm.
His criminal history includes previous arrests for forgery and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and a 2010 arrest for fourth degree assault-domestic violence, Ponozzo said.
In 1986 he was convicted of a felony, theft in the second degree, according to Kittitas County court records, and was involved with another felony charge in Spokane County Superior Court during the same year.
"Burglary?" Hmmm. Has the possible odor of a dope deal gone bad. Felon on felon shooting.
Self-defense it could be, but the shooter is not escaping this one clean.
You know this how? No mention was made of drugs in the article.
You know this how?
the victim is a convicted felon possessing a firearm.
The perp has long criminal record. 2+2=4
Since this is not a court of law speculation is permitted.
Both are criminals. From the article.
I absolutely hate that someone can be charged with a weapons violation in their own house. Why does it matter? How can someone, even a felon, be arrested for protecting himself, or having the means to do so?
It is quite possible that the shooter acted in self-defense. However convicted felons are not permitted to own firearms. It is a citizen's right that they forfeit. "Convicted Felon," in today's lexicon can also mean that the fellow is on parole or probation.
As a practical matter, the shooting may well be ruled Self-Defense*, but bad-boy Mandelas owes something on the gun charge, but there are large discretionary areas in the justice system. Pardon my prejudice, but it would seem that neither the deceased, nor the shooter were, or are exemplary citizens.
* Hell, it might even BE self-defense!
The law is wrong, not legally but morally. I don’t care what the law says. A right to protect oneself in his own house cannot be taken away. The laws against felons owning or possessing a weapon, is just a tool to make it easier to “violate” a former criminal. This is akin to taking away freedom of speech from someone convicted of a crime. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, not to be abridged or regulated. Either the felon is safe to live among people, or he isn’t. Punishment beyond a sentence is an abomination in a land of liberty.
Both Montano and Mandelas have criminal history.
So what? Don't criminals get preyed upon? Don't they need protection from other criminals? You can't assume that both were at fault simply because of the history. The guy in the trailer was NOT in jail, so you have to conclude that the government no longer considered him a threat, and that he had paid his debt to society. Plus he was in his home.
I see no reason why former criminals should not have their rights restored. After all if they're still a danger to society, then they have no business being out of jail and should still be locked up, OTO if they're not locked up then the government has determined that they're no longer a danger. TO turn them lose and then claim that they're still dangerous is mighty hypocritical on the part of the government.
(1)I think you might be shocked to learn of the number of crimes committed on a daily basis by those on probation or parole.
(2) I make no judgement here. I am merely suspicious. (Make that very suspicious.) I certainly would be loathe to accept at face value the statement , "... they did not know each other."
Of course, convicted felons have a legitimate right to self defense. In doing so, they must use means other than firearms. There are many penalties that come with conviction. Jail is just one of them. Others include forfeiture of other citizen rights, occasionally forfeiture of property, as in fines or restitution to victims, travel restrictions beyond the probationary jurisdiction, loss of the vote franchise, etc.
I see no reason why former criminals should not have their rights restored.
You might have a point for convicts who serve a Full Sentence and then, found to be rehabilitated, are released. Those released on parole or probation are merely serving out their sentence in another way.
Don't criminals get preyed upon? Don't they need protection from other criminals?
Pardon me for a short while, FOG. I must find that violin Steve Buscemi played in "Reservoir Dogs." In the meantime, I assume nothing. Mandelas is in jail. If he has violated probation, he will return to the big jail, whence he may appeal. If the judge decides his undeniable right to self defense was exercised here, and that it overrides his illegal weapons possession, why then if there is nothing more to the story, he shall be promptly released with nothing more than an extension of his probation (If indeed he is on probation).
In the meantime, the police must round up the dead man's companions, or accomplices and get to the bottom of the story. In fact, if I were Mandelas, I might not want to be released until those two chaps are in custody. They certainly didn't come to his home to wish him well.
Not in the least, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the judicial system. Murderers serve on average 8 years of actual jail time. Further I am against malum prohibitum laws in general, which brings up the next topic
In doing so, they must use means other than firearms. There are many penalties that come with conviction. Jail is just one of them.
but the constitution does not say " right shall not be infringed except for this or that."
Those released on parole or probation are merely serving out their sentence in another way
On this I agree, and I'd go further and say that there is entirelty too much probation and too little serving out full sentences for violent crimes. But again, the article says nothing about about the shooter being on probation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.