Guns dot com
A Pasco, Washington, homeowner who fatally shot a drunken wanderer last month will not face charges because he acted in self-defense, Franklin County prosecutor Shawn Sant announced last Wednesday.
With his 9mm pistol, Rudy Ontiveros Jr. shot Stephan S. Aceves four times in the hand, chest and head while the 28 year old was apparently trying to force his way into the man’s home at 2:30 in the morning on Feb. 14, the prosecutor explained at the press conference.
According to lab tests, Aceves had a blood alcohol content level of .35 percent, more than four times the level in which one would be considered impaired under state law (.08), when he began making his way into Ontiveros’s home.
“This is a tragic incident and a reminder that alcohol is a drug and can have horrific consequences, especially at elevated levels,” Sant said.
A pathetic drunk stumbling around does not pose a lethal threat, but the gun owner claims he thought exactly that.
The way I see it there are only two possible explanations. One, the home owner is lying about having been in fear for his life and was really so outraged at the audacity of someone entering his home that the home owner executed him on the spot knowing that the permissive castle doctrine defense would get him off. Or two, he mistook the harmless drunk man for a true threat.
Either way the shooter was WRONG.
"Pasco police had been investigating the shooting for more than four weeks to determine if Ontiveros, a nuclear plant security guard, acted in self-defense."
ReplyDelete"Sant said he believes Ontiveros was scared for his life and was within his rights when he used his .9 mm pistol to shoot Aceves. Ontiveros’ fiancée and four small children also were home."
“This is a tragic incident and a reminder that alcohol is a drug and can have horrific consequences, especially at elevated levels,” Sant said. “After a review of all the statements and evidence in the case, and in consultation with members of my office and law enforcement, it is our decision that the shooting is ruled a justifiable homicide.”
"Ontiveros saw Aceves and tried to show through a small glass window that he was armed, Sant said. His fiancée told investigators Ontiveros yelled several times at Aceves to leave. Ontiveros eventually partially opened the front door.
“Rudy states that (Aceves) forced his way into the home using his forearms to force the door open,” Sant said. “The 911 call had just connected and you can hear Rudy yell what sounds like ‘get the (expletive) out’ followed by four gunshots.”
"Sant said evidence at the scene and the medical examiner’s report back up Ontiveros’ account of what happened.
Two bullet fragments hit the front of the door, indicating that the door was open when the shots were fired, Sant said. All four shell casings were found in the living room close to the front door.
“Evidence at the scene clearly indicates that (Aceves) was shot while inside the home,” Sant said."
"Ontiveros, who is 5-foot-4, told investigators that he backed up while firing the shots at the 6-foot-5 Aceves as he started to come into the house. “Rudy described (Aceves’) entry into the home as ‘scaring the (expletive) out of (me),’ ” Sant said."
http://union-bulletin.com/news/2014/mar/20/prosecutor-says-pasco-homeowner-acted-self-defense/
So a lengthy investigation resulted in a decision to not charge based on witness statements, a 911 call recording AND physical evidence. It also looks like forcing his way into houses he doesn't live at is a dangerous habit of his,
"Sant also released information Wednesday that Aceves was involved in a similar incident in March 2011 in his hometown of Troy, Mont.
An intoxicated Aceves entered a home without permission and was held at gunpoint by the homeowner until police arrived, Sant said. Officers ended up driving Aceves home and he was not charged with a crime."
So apparently he didn't learn from his previous mistake.
Mikeb, why do you defend raging drunks? Getting that intoxicated and attempting to break into someone's home is wrong. It's easy to avoid getting shot like this: Don't get drunk and try to break in. The homeowner did exactly the right thing, and until you realize that, your demands are doomed to fail.
ReplyDeleteI don't think so, Greg. I told you in the post what I figure happened. Naturally, after killing someone the shooter is going to claim fear for his life. Either he's lying about that or he was mistaken. His life was not in jeopardy.
DeleteA large and seriously drunk man is trying to break into your home. Are you in any danger?
DeleteMikeb, listen carefully: The fact that you keep saying no is only hurting your cause. Until you can see why good home owners shouldn't have to flee to some inner sanctum in hopes that the raging drunk won't get that far, you will lose. As long as you keep trotting out this nonsense, you shoot yourself in the foot. Whatever good your side may have, and I don't see much, if any, you will lose supporters by advocating for increasing the vulnerability of good people.
You're the one hurting your cause with your extremism. Remember your unflagging support of the dangerous lawful gun owner who murdered the Alzheimer's sufferer unnecessarily and got away with it? Your bias knows no bounds.
DeleteI will always question the legitimacy of an armed man shooting an unarmed man to death. The circumstances have to be really something to convince me that something like that is justified. At best, the shooter made a tragic miscalculation and should be held accountable for the resulting loss of life.
By all means, Mikeb, don't change on my account. In fact, get all your control freak buddies to advocate punishing a homeowner who shoots a drunk home invader. That would do my side much good.
DeleteQuestioning is one thing--questioning veracity, questioning whether they made the right call, etc. What you do isn't questioning. You've determined that the best case scenario is a tragic miscalculation that needs to be punished. All you question is how bad a crime to classify it as and how severely to punish it.
DeleteI have accepted legitimate DGUs in the past. But not when the dead guy was unarmed.
DeleteLet's say the home invader had a gun in his hand, the home owner is also armed and shoots first killing the bad guy. When the cops come, naturally he says the guy had a gun and I was afraid for my life. I would call it a good shoot, or at least one that could have been good and since only the home owner is left standing and since the dead guy was armed, we have to give the home owner the benefit of the doubt.
But an unarmed drunk guy? No.
Like I said--you're not Questioning the situation, you're prejudging the situation based solely on the fact, determined after the shooting, that the deceased was unarmed.
DeleteWow, so consider no DGU legitimate if the attacker is unarmed? Is that your new standard? How about with disparity of force?
DeleteTS, this is likely how Mike feels legitimate self defense should occur, even with disparity of force, like say the assailant being over a foot taller than the victim.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwN6IncWcjk
I personally have problems with the concept of being expected to engage in a "fair fight" with a person who breaks into my house in the middle of the night and threatens the safety of my children, much like what happened in this case.
I suppose there could be an unarmed attacker who receives a legitimate DGU right in the chest, but I can't remember one.
Deletess, the problem with your spin job is that not every person who improperly enters another's house is threatening the safety of the children. That's exactly what the gun/home owner needs to assess.
But you know what's really funny. In this argument your side is the one saying "for the children." And what's funnier, is you're saying it in cases where it does not apply.
"But you know what's really funny. In this argument your side is the one saying "for the children." And what's funnier, is you're saying it in cases where it does not apply."
DeleteMike, being a full time parent, that is always a factor in my response to someone who might be so unwise as to break into my home. And I will always be quite happy to allow the option of whoever does so to reconsider and either leave or surrender.
That being said, why exactly do you wish to require someone to engage in a "fair fight" with someone who breaks into a home in the middle of the night? In this case, not only was he defending unarmed guests, there was a difference in size that makes the video I posted quite illustrative.
That's exactly what the gun/home owner needs to assess.
DeleteAnd he or she needs to make that assessment right now (ever hear of the Tueller drill? Sure, she does not appear to have had a knife, but is there time to determine that? And besides, once one lets even an unarmed attacker get within contact range, one surrenders most of the advantage of having a firearm), under the enormous stress of being the victim of a home invasion, with the penalty for underestimating the threat very possibly being death for the homeowner and family.
ss, in this story, did you have the impression the home owner gave the drunk a chance to "leave or surrender." I didn't.
DeleteKurt, You're preaching exactly what's wrong with the castle doctrine mentality. You say shoot first and then sort out the details. If you were wrong, it was only a scumbag home invader anyway and depending on where you live, you'd have the law on your side. So fuck him, right? If he didn't want to end up dead, he shouldn't have done what he did.
ss, on the other hand included a very interesting point. He'd give the guy a chance to leave or surrender. Shouldn't he shoot first? What if he loses the initiative by hesitating? What about the children? Doesn't he owe it to them the kill the motherfucker first, just in case? That's what you'd do, right?
I imagine SSG can handle himself pretty well, probably in both armed and unarmed combat. That allows him the luxury of giving the scumbag a chance. That's not the case for everyone (say, for example, a home invasion victim who is 13 inches shorter than the perpetrator).
DeleteThat's what you'd do, right?
What I would do is the best I could in a chaotic, stressful situation (one in which I have thankfully never found myself). But if I err, I intend to do so on the side of proactive self-defense. If that ends up reducing the number of home invaders in the living world, I don't imagine I'll shed any tears.
"ss, in this story, did you have the impression the home owner gave the drunk a chance to "leave or surrender." I didn't."
DeleteKurt is correct in that allowing someone to get close enough that he can engage before you can fire is a risk. What Kurt brings up also brings up a challenge in my part because the bedrooms in my apartment are just about 20 feet from the front door. However, in the kind of situation we're discussing, mine wouldn't be in a holster.
I think you might misunderstand about the potential for hesitation. If I can, I'll give the opportunity, but if circumstances don't allow, tough. This is similar to what I teach soldiers in regards to escalation of force. There are a number of steps, but if time doesn't permit, you might need to skip some. Plus, the military teaches warning shots, and I'm not really into them, mainly for safety reasons.
He yelled through the door and displayed his firearm, and he still forced his way into the home.
"Ontiveros saw Aceves and tried to show through a small glass window that he was armed, Sant said. His fiancée told investigators Ontiveros yelled several times at Aceves to leave. Ontiveros eventually partially opened the front door.
“Rudy states that (Aceves) forced his way into the home using his forearms to force the door open,” Sant said. “The 911 call had just connected and you can hear Rudy yell what sounds like ‘get the (expletive) out’ followed by four gunshots.”
http://union-bulletin.com/news/2014/mar/20/prosecutor-says-pasco-homeowner-acted-self-defense/
Actually, it's my understanding (correct me please, anyone, if I am wrong) that Washington has no explicit "castle doctrine," but residents do enjoy the protection of a court precedent set in 1999 (State v. Studd), reaffirmed in 2003 (State v. Reynaldo Redmond), that found: "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."
ReplyDeleteRegardless, the justice system--after a long, and presumably thorough, investigation--has found that the victim of the home invasion was justified in his use of lethal force in defense of himself and his fiancée.
Good enough.
You mean they found no duty of retreat in the common law?
DeleteSo Laci was making that up?
This is my shocked face.
Gunsucks are cowards, and they can only think "Kill person". They are too stupid to reason with the person. This guy was insane drunk. It's evil to kill such persons.
ReplyDeleteActually Nick, we think "stop person", whether they stop by falling down or by leaving hastily on their own two feet, either works for me. This man was defending five unarmed people, four of whom were small children when this very large insane (your word) drunk forced his way into the home after being warned.
DeleteBy the way, how exactly do you reason with an insane drunk?
Ah, well, see, Sarge, the gun control freak doesn't understand what reason means. To someone like Nick, "reason" is this magic power wherein if we all talk about our the effect our mothers had on us and discuss together how we feel about being born a certain color--while Oprah supervises the conversation--no one would ever do anything hurtful to anyone else. Gun control freaks can't accept the fact that some people are beyond reason and must be stopped by the application of force.
DeleteI have had 30 years (bar owner) experience dealing with drunks. They can turn violent in a second, even one considered a personal friend. There are non-deadly force tactics to deal with them, but I'm no going to fault a homeowner for protecting their family given the circumstances given in this report, even using deadly force.
ReplyDelete