Shooting Death Of San Ramon, CA Man Ruled Self-Defense

Bob Irwin highlights the latest self defense and other shootings of the week. Read them and see went wrong, what went right and what we can learn from defense with a gun.

Gavel Lawsuit Courts Guns Justice
Shooting Death Of San Ramon, CA Man Ruled Self-Defense
Bob Irwin
Bob Irwin

Las Vegas, NV –-(Ammoland.com)- The Mercury News reports this week (07/23/2016) in Antioch, California, authorities declined to file criminal charges in the February shooting death of a San Ramon man, but the victim’s family continues to dispute that it was an act of self-defense.

The deceased, age 31, was shot at least four times at a Chevron gas station on Feb. 13 2016. He died in a hospital two days later. A coroner’s report released in June said he was shot with his own handgun, after getting into an argument with a man with whom he had a history. He displayed a gun at his waistband, leading to a struggle where the other man grabbed the weapon.

Police say the unnamed shooter was fighting for his own life, and only fired shots after the deceased declared he had a second gun strapped to his ankle and then reached for his pant leg. However, no guns were found on his body.

The deceased’s family is not accepting the police department’s assessment and is lobbying the District Attorney’s Office to re-examine the case. They say they will ask Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office look into it if the Contra Costa DA’s office doesn’t want to do anything about it.

The Deputy DA said it was a clear-cut decision not to charge the shooter and that he didn’t think prosecutors would be able to prove the shooter’s actions were not in self-defense. Investigators reviewed security footage that depicted the entire incident and it shows the deceased showing he had a gun, then the two struggling over the weapon.

When officers arrive the shooter puts his hands up, puts the gun on the ground, and follows officers’ orders promptly.

Two of the deceased’s wounds were to his backside, one severing an artery, one hit him in his knee, and graze wounds to his chest and arm.

The coroner’s report also states that the shooter had a restraining order against the deceased, but court civil records indicate one was never filed.

Comments:

The family feels every shot has to be justified, but that’s not true in the dynamic motion of a violent confrontation.

It appears the shooter had reason to believe his opponent was about to shoot him. Apparently wrong, but believable at the time and that’s the test.

Sometimes even after no charges are filed the case continues. A decedent’s family will rarely agree that their relative deserved to die. Given economic resources, this case could go on for decades.

Bob Irwin, The Gun Store, Las Vegas

About Bob Irwin

The writer is the owner of The Gun Store in Las Vegas and has a gun talk radio show “Fired Up with Bob Irwin” Firedup is now on KSHP 1400 am radio from 5 to 6 pm on Thursdays and at the same time also on YouTube “Fired Up with Bob Irwin.

Subscribe
Notify of
7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Calgunner
Calgunner
4 years ago

HMLA-167 warrior:

Re-read the article. The dead man flashed a gun, lost it in a struggle, and then claimed to have a second gun on his ankle.

HMLA-167 Warrior
HMLA-167 Warrior
4 years ago
Reply to  Calgunner

I read it multiple times and fully understand what happened. The dead guy flashed his weapon, lost it in the struggle, informed the defender that he had another one on his ankle, reached for his ankle, and got shot by the defender who apparently did not shoot him until his life was again threatened. I disagree with the author’s use of descriptors for the victim (the defender who he calls the “shooter”) and the perpetrator (the pistol flasher who got shot with his own weapon who he calls “his opponent”). The more articles I read written by this author, the… Read more »

HMLA-167 Warrior
HMLA-167 Warrior
4 years ago

I think this statement bothered me the most: “It appears the shooter had reason to believe his opponent was about to shoot him. Apparently wrong, but believable at the time and that’s the test.” Apparently wrong… Flashing that weapon gave the VICTIM, who again the author calls “the shooter,” every reason to believe that the perpetrator, as I said previously not his opponent as this is not a sports match, was about to shoot him at any point during this altercation. Instead of pointing out how the victim was wrong, how about the author point out that one should not… Read more »

Bud
Bud
4 years ago

Just think of the money that will change hands if lawyers keep the case going on and on.

HMLA-167 Warrior
HMLA-167 Warrior
4 years ago

“It appears the shooter had reason to believe his opponent was about to shoot him. Apparently wrong, but believable at the time and that’s the test.” Really Bob? And exactly how do you find that “apparently wrong”? Because the attacker, let’s call him what he was – not just “the opponent” as this wasn’t a sporting event, did not actually get off a shot before the defendant, let’s call him what he was – not just “the shooter’, was able to disarm him before he could? If anyone shows me any weapon in any confrontation, my assumption is that they… Read more »

Chris N
Chris N
4 years ago

I think Bob was referring to when the decedent claimed to have a second gun in an ankle holster but did not actually have one. According to this report the shooter did not fire the gun until the decedent went for the supposed second gun, so in that respect Bob is correct because there was no second gun even though he was made to beleive that there was which means that the shooter was not actually about to be shot with a second gun at that time. Bob does also point out that the shooter did have every reason to… Read more »

SuperG
SuperG
4 years ago

The story doesn’t say if the man had a concealed carry permit, which I doubt. The deceased went looking for trouble and found it if you ask me, as Antioch isn’t renowned for its social elite. I’ll bet they both had rap sheets.