Homeowner Ticketed for Negligent Discharge in Confrontation with Teen Aggressor

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

Gun Barrel Smoke
Homeowner Ticketed for Negligent Discharge in Confrontation with Teen Aggressor
Bob Irwin
Bob Irwin

USA –-(Ammoland.com)- The Press Democrat reports 11-18-2016 min Cloverdale, California, a 43-year-old local man was arrested after he inadvertently fired a gun while scuffling with a 17-year-old boy, Cloverdale police officials said Thursday.

The incident began when the 17-year-old, who wasn’t identified, confronted the resident at his Merlot Street home, Cloverdale Police Chief Stephen Cramer said.

The teen apparently believed the resident had vandalized his truck. The resident demanded the teen leave but the boy refused.

The resident then retrieved his Glock 30 .45-caliber sub-compact semiautomatic pistol. The teen again refused to leave and they engaged in a “shoving match”.

According to police, during that engagement the 43 year old inadvertently fired his gun into the air. The teen then fled and ran into an officer nearby.

The officer said the resident “was very contrite and admitted that the gun had inadvertently discharged.” No one was injured. The shooter was cited to appear December 19 2016 in Sonoma County Superior Court.

Comments:

I know it’s a crime just about everywhere to shoot your gun into the air. But seriously, an unintentional shot that hit nothing, while the resident is trying to kick the teenage trespasser off of his property?

The reports don’t detail whether they were inside or outside but as the round went into the air, we’ll assume they were outside. There is also no information on physical size or agility of the two individuals involved.

So, the threatening trespasser is ordered off the property but refuses to leave. OK, the resident should have just gone back into his home and called 911, I agree. But it seems to me the wrong guy got cited.

My “Fired Up” Gun Defense Attorney Don Green, who practices in Nevada & California thinks this homeowner could be in serious trouble even though the shot was unintentional and it hurt no one. Given the facts that the teen was clearly the aggressor and was given multiple opportunities to withdraw, this case seems backwards.

How serious is this? Maybe Christmas in jail for the victim? Welcome to Kalifornia!

Support the Firearms Policy Coalition in California in their lawsuits to fix these laws!

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.

21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tad Abney
Tad Abney
4 years ago

As a die hard 2nd amendment supporter I have to agree with old 1811. If you leave the scene of a confrontation and COME BACK ARMED to continue the confrontation you are now the aggressor. It sucks that he was arrested but that’s how it is. I live in KY. And we have stand your ground law but a move like that will get you arrested here as well.

Old 1811
Old 1811
4 years ago
Reply to  Tad Abney

I’m also a die-hard Second Amendment supporter (actually a die-hard Bill of Rights supporter). That’s why I get so wrought up at people acting stupid with guns, and other people justifying their stupid actions with bromides and flawed reasoning.
If you notice, I never comment on straight-up good shootings. When I comment on iffy or outright bad shootings, it’s in an effort to explain why the shootings are iffy or bad, and who did what wrong, so people who read the stories won’t make the same mistakes. Nobody learns anything when everything goes right.

Old 1811
Old 1811
4 years ago

The shoving match was the SECOND confrontation, after the homeowner had left the original one. He then ARMED HIMSELF AND RETURNED TO THE FIGHT. That’s what made him the aggressor. Just because the homeowner is a gun owner and (apparently) not a prohibited person, that doesn’t mean he’s an angelic, put-upon victim. And the kid had a reason for suspecting him of vandalizing the truck. If you ask any experienced detective (like, for instance, moi), you’ll be told in that 80+% of these mutual combat situations, the participants are drunken louts who know each other. So I’m just going with… Read more »

TRUTH BE TOLD
TRUTH BE TOLD
4 years ago

The REAL problem here is commiefornia has been allowed to steal away the rights of the people and that can Never be fixed through crooked commie courts and only force can fix things and make them right. A man has the right to protect whats his and if someone is on your land and starts crap this is why you have a weapon, but then liberal scum criminally takes said rights away….. having to fear for your life to shoot someone is a crock of crap too.. Gun owners Need to make themselves heard and dare the government to stop… Read more »

Old 1811
Old 1811
4 years ago
Reply to  TRUTH BE TOLD

So then, the kid had a perfect right to come after the person who he thought had vandalized his truck, right? Because California has taken away his right to protect what’s his.
Just following your logic to its logical conclusion.

Lee Cruse
Lee Cruse
4 years ago
Reply to  Old 1811

“vandalized truck” is not a justification for the use of force in any state. After the fact, the police can do their job to record and investigate the property crime. That is not justification to attack anyone even if you think they did vandalize your truck. Small claims court is also another acceptable path, not attack and trespass.

Old 1811
Old 1811
4 years ago
Reply to  Lee Cruse

I agree with you. I’m just taking TBT’s argument to its logical conclusion. And “standing in your yard yelling at you” is not a justification for the use of force, either. The homeowner had left the scene. He then armed himself and returned to continue the argument. That made him the aggressor. That’s where he screwed up. Ask yourself: What would cause so much bad blood between a 17-year-old kid and a 43-year-old guy? The answer is obvious: The kid was sniffing around the homeowner’s daughter. If you accept that as a thesis, everything else makes perfect sense. It doesn’t… Read more »

TRUTH BE TOLD
TRUTH BE TOLD
4 years ago

1811 – liberals never blame the aggressor if theres a gun owner around, you add alot to the story that was missing, thank you. You Only see fault in the LAND OWNER or should I say GUN OWNER and never once put any blame or speculation of blame on the person who not only started this but did it on not his land but someone elses, the kid started everything but like liberals everywhere the gun owners the one who had to of vandilized the truck as you get to at the end of your fan-ta-see, you libs only see… Read more »

Bobby Hargrave
Bobby Hargrave
4 years ago

Never make a statement to law enforcement without counsel. He screwed himself.

Old 1811
Old 1811
4 years ago

This is a sketchy story in a small-town newspaper. It leaves out a lot. Cloverdale, CA, is a small town of about 8,000 people, with an area of less than 3 square miles. How did he kid get the idea that the homeowner had vandalized the kid’s truck? Did he pick the guy at random? How did the kid know where the homeowner lived? Most likely, they knew each other, and the kid either saw the homeowner around the vandalized truck or someone told him the homeowner had done it. Where did the initial confrontation take place? Was it in… Read more »

TRUTH BE TOLD
TRUTH BE TOLD
4 years ago
Reply to  Old 1811

1811 is like liberal brains everywhere, always making it the gun owners fault even though the kid is on his private land and starts shoving the land owner is just why we keep weapons, you never once say the Kid should of called police or stay off the mans land but tye gun owner is too blame, and because scumbagifornia liberates itself on gunowners is just bullshit, in florida you could blow that punk away shoving you and rightfully so. You also think that the home owner had to retrive a gun since no use him spending 15 bucks on… Read more »

Old 1811
Old 1811
4 years ago
Reply to  TRUTH BE TOLD

The “town” has no story. The only story is the police report, which is based on what the officer was told by the two participants. That’s incorporated into the newspaper story. The only way to figure out the “town’s story” is to infer it from the actions of the authorities. They charged the homeowner, but (apparently) not the kid. I mentioned the town’s size to explain my reasoning that the two participants likely knew each other. It’s much more likely in a 3-square-mile town of 8,000 than it is in a 30-square-mile town of 80,000. I never said the kid… Read more »

Old 1811
Old 1811
4 years ago
Reply to  TRUTH BE TOLD

You didn’t follow my argument very well. I said that since the homeowner couldn’t legally carry the firearm outside his house, he likely didn’t have a holster for it. Most people who have “house only” guns don’t have holsters for them. Why would they need them? Actually, in surmising that the homeowner didn’t have a holster, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since the gun “inadvertently” discharged during the shoving match, it obviously was in his hand. If he had it in his hand all along because he didn’t have a holster, he could conceivably deny he… Read more »

Lee Cruse
Lee Cruse
4 years ago
Reply to  Old 1811

Yes he had the right to have and hold a gun on HIS property. Inside or outside the house makes absolutely no difference. Since, apparently the teen did in fact attack the home owner, using a firearm for self defense is also legal even in CA. I suspicion is that CA is so anti-gun (anti-civil rights) these days that the homeowner got bad, unjustified and illegal treatment. Hopefully, some national press will cause him to get legal and financial help. The discharge should have been considered a “miss” rather then ND. Exactly why you always need to have legal advice… Read more »

Old 1811
Old 1811
4 years ago
Reply to  Lee Cruse

The homeowner had already left the scene of the altercation. Then he armed himself and returned to continue the argument. There’s no indication that the teenager “attacked” (that is, made the first physical contact with) the homeowner. And the ND occurred during a “shoving match,” which is generally called “mutual combat.”
I never said the homeowner didn’t have the right to be armed on his own property. But he had ALREADY LEFT THE SCENE. He then ARMED HIMSELF AND RETURNED TO CONTINUE THE ARGUMENT. That’s aggressive behavior, and that’s what put him in the wrong.

Lee Cruse
Lee Cruse
4 years ago
Reply to  Old 1811

“Someone standing in your yard and yelling at you is not a threat.” Not so fast. The “teen” was probably stronger physically than the homeowner, so he certainly had the ability to seriously harm the homeowner, The “teen” was on the homeowner’s property close enough to close the distance in a very short time span so the opportunity to seriously harm the homeowner is also proven. Now, yelling COULD be a good indication of intent to do serious harm to the homeowner. So, unless the details do not conform to this account I would find it hard to not consider… Read more »

Old 1811
Old 1811
4 years ago
Reply to  Lee Cruse

Everybody here seems to misread the story and my comments to fit their own agenda.
I’m talking about the SECOND altercation. There had ALREADY BEEN a confrontation, with no violence. So the homeowner armed himself and returned to the fight. In other words, he escalated the situation.
And, the teen was “close enough to close the distance” BECAUSE THE HOMEOWNER, WHO HAD ALREADY LEFT THE SCENE OF THE CONFRONTATION, LEFT A PLACE OF SAFETY (HIS HOUSE) AND RETURNED TO CONTINUE THE ARGUMENT. That’s where he made his mistake.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Old 1811

@Old, It makes no difference that the home owner temporarily left to arm himself. The teenager engaged in one common course of conduct, and escalated by engaging in the shoving match. This is not a two part thing, sorry. Oh, and Merry Christmas.

Old 1811
Old 1811
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Actually, it does. You may recall the Florida case that occurred about the same time as the Zimmerman case. A woman was convicted of assaulting her ex-husband, who was in her home, and sentenced to a long prison term. Some said at the time that she was convicted because she was a black female, but the facts were these: She LEFT THE SCENE OF THE CONFRONTATION. She went somewhere (I believe her car) and retrieved a pistol. Then she RETURNED TO THE SCENE AND CONTINUED THE ARGUMENT. She then fired (she said) a warning shot into the wall. Sound familiar?… Read more »

Old 1811
Old 1811
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Actually, it does make a difference, and it is a two-part thing. You may recall the Florida case that occurred about the same time as the Zimmerman case. A woman was convicted of assault and sentenced to a long prison term after she fired a weapon during an argument with her ex-husband. The two were in the woman’s home at the time. This was presented by some as a race issue: The black woman goes to prison, but the semi-white guy (Zimmerman) gets off. The facts were these: The woman and the ex were arguing inside the woman’s house. She… Read more »

TRUTH BE TOLD
TRUTH BE TOLD
4 years ago

Wait, guys on his land shoving him? Should of just shot the little scumbag…. I wouldnt pay the fine