Why the Misdemeanor Charge?

[Cal4D4]

To sum up the article, we have a self defense shooting where the DA presses no felony charges. The attacker had made threats and the victim armed himself for self defense. The incident is on parking lot security camera and threats were on answering machine. Sentenced the victim to misdemeanor gun charges and 104 days time served. Why? Is this to protect the system from lawsuit?


http://www.dailybreeze.com/content/bln/nmcolon15.html

 

[Chuck McDonald]

Why the Charge?

Easy... the victim is guilty of LIK... Living in Kalifornia.

All very nice and convenient... toss the poor guy in jail for nearly four months... and clear the whole thing with him coping a lesser plea.

I think Colon would have been smart, given the circumstances, to have asked for a jury trial on the weapons charge and used a "neccessity" defence.

My cut on this is Colon had a pretty poor attorney.

FWIW

Chuck

 

[Mute]

“Today is also a great day for the California criminal justice system, because we've seen it work to provide justice to the innocent as well as punishment for those who are found guilty,” Laughlin said.

No. I'd say he had a dumb@$$, incompetent lawyer who wouldn't know justice if it bit him in the @$$. It's absolutely outrageous that he was charged in any way, shape or form. F@$@ the judge and the DA in this case.

 

[dinosaur]

Unfortunately, Mr. Colon and his friends and obviously his lawyer have sheep mentalities. When it was ruled it was justifiable self defense, a little bulb should have gone off over somebody`s head. Of course, in today`s media controlled world,:barf: who knows what anyone actually said?

 

[RobW]

It's just another example of our "New World". Protect the criminal and throw the victim in jail!

 

[Blackhawk]

dinosaur is right.

The fact that Colon spent even 1 day in jail is a travesty.

 

[Dave P]

Still Employed?

I am glad Colon came up with this line, at least: "Colon was planning on going to the firing range that evening, so he had a loaded pistol in his car"


100 days for self-defense? I agree, his lawyer stinks! "with credit for the 104 days he has served since his arrest after the June 6 shooting."

What a crock!

And I imagine TRW will fire him, if it already hasn't (firearm on property). ANybody know?

 

[Hemicuda]

because it is "The Land of Fruits and Nuts" (AKA-Kalifornia) that he decided to live in, when having to protect himself...

 

[simon jester]

And I imagine TRW will fire him, if it already hasn't (firearm on property). ANybody know?

YEP! Against Co. policy to have ANY firearm,projectile,etc. on Co. Prop.

I know quite a lot about this saga.

 

[simon jester]

Colon called 911 and waited for emergency personnel to arrive. He was arrested and charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon.

Colon did not call 911,witnesses in the parking lot did.

after a review of TRW security tape that caught the incident on camera

Not sure about this tape,the cameras usually pointed the other way.

My best friend,who was driving thru the lot right at that time but did not see the actual shooting,saw this guy on the ground and another standing over him.He pulled up,got out, thinking the guy had a heart attack, then saw the blood and then the gun, a 9mm ready to fire in his hand.He,did not assess the sit. 1st,which most others would,but asked to not be shot and rolled over face-down this solis who was gurgling and drowning on his own blood.Colon,while still anxius(sp),banged the muzzle on friends chest,leaving a visible mark.He asked for the gun,which would not be reluinquished and then asked that it be put in the car which it was.This is when the police showed up.
The rest can be gained from the report.

And my opinion,friend is a dumb-azz.After a conversation,he wont be doing that again before assessing whats up.

 

[Blackhawk]

He asked for the gun,which would not be reluinquished and then asked that it be put in the car which it was.

Can't say that I'd give my gun to a stranger in a similar situation either -- unless the stranger showed me a badge and identified himself as a LEO....

 

[Chuck Dye]

Excuse me?

1) It is my belief that anyone who carries in violation of the law has accepted, in advance, the penalty for getting caught. I would hope that such acceptance is part of a conscientious, fully informed, cost, risks, benefits analysis, though clearly many never give it a thought.

b) I have only read the article provided by the link and have no other report to go by, but I wonder-why wasn't the weapon of choice the car? Assulted by a pedestrian while exiting the car? Take your seat and drive away! I strongly suspect that Colon had other, better options. Again- a matter of a fully informed cost, risks, benefits analysis.

iii) I am not familiar with the law as currently practiced by California DA's, but I suspect (please! note that word "suspect"!) that the no lo'ed charge was loaded firearm in a vehicle and I further suspect that there are ways an aggressive DA could have easily found a felony in Colon's actions.

 

[simon jester]

loaded firearm in a vehicle

True,thats right

 

[Chuck Dye]

Ooops! Was interupted.

Why the misdemeanor charge? No doubt because of the blatant, slam dunk violation. Had Colon not admitted to a loaded gun in the car but rather stated he loaded an unloaded weapon to defend himself, and the video surveillance not contradicted him, ther could have been a different outcome. This, again, goes back to the need for a fully informed cost, risk, benefits analysis.

 

[Standing Wolf]

What passes for so-called "justice" in the People's Republic of California is a shameless mockery of justice, which is one of the main reasons I don't still live there.

 

[KSFreeman]

Why the misdemeanor charge? First, the prosecution DID press several felony counts. That said:

1. Contrary to the yammerings of GSCs, that's what happens when you use violence. Someone is going to prosecute you, not give you a community service award.

2. Because plea deal to time served on a misdemeanor is a lot better than several felony convictions and being jumped in the shower at DOC.

3. Because his attorney did not possess the TFL Powers of The Mall Ninja to foresee what a Kalifornia jury would do with several felony counts.

4. Because the Defendant goes back to his family after the guilty plea and sentencing instead of being held without bond until the trial or appeal after using violence against a fellow human being.

5. Because the Government is not your friend. It exists to prosecute you, not protect you.

6. Because the Defendant did not want/ could not get a second mortgage or loan to pay for his trial and possible appeal.

7. Because the Defendant's family did not want to be put through the emotional train wreck that is a major felony trial.

8. Because a conviction in criminal court on other charges would aid the plaintiff's case in any upcoming civil trial.

9. Because this conviction may not help the petitioner in the protective order hearing where the Defendant will lose his guns.

10. Because it may help him on the admin side to someday carry legally.

 

[El Rojo]

Ok, just did some PRK penal code research. There is a way he could have gotten out of this.

First

12031 (h) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any
officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful
purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm
within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful
possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that
property.

Is it possible the company he worked for might allow concealed carry on the premises? Was it the companies private parking lot? If there is no policy against it, does that mean you can?

Then the part that might work or might not.

12031 (j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the
carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would
otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the
person or property of himself or herself or of another is in
immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is
necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used
in this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and
after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has
been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its
assistance.

If I read that right, he screwed up when he stated the gun was loaded when he got there. If it was unloaded in the car, there would be no charge. As was stated, it might have not been worth the hassle to just give in, take a few days, and then go back to work. That is life. I still don't see how they have a solid case on him as long as he would have kept his mouth shut and not mentioned the gun was already loaded. Yeah I might have a hard time being dishonest in court, but hey, the other guy is clearly at fault. I still don't see how they could prove he had a loaded firearm illegally in his car.

Colon was planning on going to the firing range that evening, so he had a loaded pistol in his car, which he retrieved, Laughlin said.

If he would have just had it unloaded. Then again, the time it takes you to get back in your car and load the gun is time you can get in, lock the doors and drive a way.

Two morals to this story. 1) If you suspect your wife is cheating on you, don't threaten an armed man or you will likely get shot. 2) Don't get in a shoot out if you don't have a CCW unless you absolutely have too. Run or drive away.

Thank God I live in Kern County and have my CCW!