‘Good Samaritan’ arrested with gun

[RamboLiberal]

A “Good Samaritan” who came to an assault victim’s aid in downtown San Mateo yesterday afternoon ended up starting a panic in the area after pulling out a .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun on the victim’s assailant, police said.

The man ended up in jail, however, for assault with a firearm, drawing a weapon in a threatening manner and carrying a loaded firearm while the woman’s assailant faces misdemeanor charges of simple assault and was able to walk away from the scene, police said.

Viola was driving his car on Third Avenue and witnessed a 57-year-old San Mateo woman being assaulted near San Mateo Drive and asked her if she was OK, police said.

She indicated she was OK and then told Viola that the assailant was running down the street, police said.

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=161555&title=%E2%80%98Good%20Samaritan%E2%80%99%20arrested%20with%20gun

SAN MATEO -- A San Pablo man thought he was being a good Samaritan on Wednesday afternoon when he pulled a gun on a man he saw assault a woman near a busy downtown street corner, police said.

Instead, he was nearly shot by officers who rushed to Third Avenue and San Mateo Drive about 3:15 p.m., said San Mateo Deputy Police Chief Mike Callagy. The armed man, 23-year-old Ashley Viola, was still holding his .45-caliber pistol when police found and arrested him. No shots were fired.

"(Officers) have a split second to decide whether to shoot or not to shoot," said Callagy. "All he had to do was call police."

The trouble started when the would-be good Samaritan was driving on Third Avenue and saw a man push a 57-year-old San Mateo woman, almost knocking her down. The relationship between the pair was not clear. Witnesses said they watched the man get out of his vehicle and charge toward the pair with his gun drawn.

http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_18335475?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1

Story says he did not have carry permit.

[flamin lib]

1. From reading the article I'd say that's not Samaritanism but vigilantism. nt

[PavePusher]

2. Catching criminals is not "vigilantism".

Excessive force would be.

[flamin lib]

7. From the article one cannot ascertain that a crime was committed.

1. The gunman saw a woman in distress, she said she had been accosted and the gunman ran after the accused and stuck a gun in his face. How did the gunman know it wasn't a simple domestic dispute with the woman falsely accusing her husband/boyfriend to get revenge? The gunman could not know but he had a gun and illegally brandished it. So much for law abiding.

2.Who died and made you judge and jury to pronounce someone a criminal? I thought that was up to a jury of our peers, not some over eager guy with a gun.

[PavePusher]

10. My apologies, you are correct on #2: "alleged criminal" or "suspect", if you will.

As for #1, it is perfectly legal for citizens to detain someone believed to have commited a crime. Circumstances vary, of course, and it is possible for people to over-react, I never claimed otherwise. If the chaser reasonably believed he was apprehending a criminal, the brandishing may be legal.

In any event, he will have to have a good explaination for the police and DA's, and may well be prosecuted for various items.

[cleanhippie]

12. From reading your post I'd say that you do not know the difference between the two.

[Abq_Sarah]

3. Once the assailant ran away

He no longer posed an imminent threat.

[slackmaster]

5. Fleeing the scene of a crime can be a felony in California

Stay tuned...

[slackmaster]

4. Article is poorly written and smacks of bias on the part of the reporter

Story says he did not have carry permit.

Yes, that is the norm in California because of our Byzantine system for issuing permits.

There is not enough information in the story to determine whether he actually did anything illegal. Deadly force out in public is permitted in California in order to stop a felony in progress or to assist law enforcement.

I'll withhold judgment on this until I see more information.

[petronius]

6. To be transporting it in his car, it would have needed to be unloaded in an

inaccessible compartment, right? So it seems pretty likely that that part of it was illegal, although his intervention (albeit ill-advised) may not have been.

The part that confuses me is, how did the police not confuse him for a criminal and riddle him (and the rest of the neighborhood) with bullets? Perhaps that confusion only occurs when the person holding the gun has a permit? :shrug:

[slackmaster]

8. If you put something in an "inaccessible" compartment,

...How could you ever get it out?

[petronius]

9. Pfff. You display an endearingly child-like faith in Newtonian physics

:P

But let's pretend I meant inaccessible by the driver while the vehicle is in motion.

But even better, let's pretend that I remembered OC was legal in CA and he could have had it unloaded until the moment of intervening, in which case you're right - there is insufficient detail to show that a crime was committed...

[slackmaster]

11. While it is sketchy, the incident described sounds like an example of why OC is legal in California

Here's the part of the Penal Code that explains when deadly force is justifiable:

195. Homicide is excusable in the following cases:
1. When committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any
other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution,
and without any unlawful intent.
2. When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of
passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden
combat, when no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon
used, and when the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and
those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--
1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,
2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to
the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other
legal duty; or,
3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been
rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting
persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or
resisting such arrest.

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

[Bold Lib]

13. Your conditions do not apply in all states.

On edit, I do believe you are correct for california though.

[Kennah]

14. Immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent

I have a Washington CPL, and I do carry. However, I can't see any reason I would have charged in, sword drawn, banner flying, trusty steed at full gallup. I mean gun drawn.

Pushing and shoving might constitute a felony, but pushing and shoving along isn't deadly force.

Be a good witness and call 9-1-1.