By Nico Ludwig-Stock
PASADENA, CA – In a preliminary hearing Wednesday morning here at the Pasadena Courthouse of Los Angeles County Superior Court, attorneys argued over what constituted self-defense, following an incident in which a man allegedly fired his gun toward the ground out of a moving vehicle in response to another man’s threats against his family.
Two co-accused, a man and a woman, were present during the hearing’s second day, each with their own defense attorneys. The male accused was being charged with the “willful discharge of a firearm in a grossly negligent manner.” The female accused was being charged as an accessory.
“Yesterday you were testifying that it was easy to see what was in the video,” began the deputy public defender in her cross-examination of the police officer who had investigated the case. She motioned towards the television, as she cued up the first of several short clips of surveillance footage.
“Yes,” agreed the witness.
“Those three individuals were alone, correct?” asked the DPD. She pointed towards the screen where three figures could be seen sitting down at a table outside a restaurant. The witness agreed. The female accused could be seen sitting with her sister and another man. Shortly thereafter, a second man—the male accused in the case—could be seen getting out of his car and approaching the group.
While the video had no audio, the DPD led the officer through the ensuing events based on his observations of everyone’s gestures and body language. When the male accused arrives, the interaction among the group members turns from conversation to altercation. One of the women stands up. Then the man beside her removes his shirt and gestures at the male accused, as if looking to “start a fight,” in the DPD’s words.
At this point the male accused has his children by him, and the two co-accused attempt to go around the man with the children to get to their car and leave. The man appears to continue threatening the family after they enter their vehicle.
In a subsequent interview the officer had with the female accused, she stated that the man who threatened them “has a chip on his shoulder and is prone to tripping.”
On redirect, the deputy district attorney inquired as to what the officer saw the male accused doing with his right hand in the video, based on his “background, training and experience.” The accused had his hand in his pocket which the officer suggested “usually means they’re trying to keep a weapon secure.”
One of the DPDs followed up on this. “You can’t see a weapon, correct?” he asked, adding that “he could have been holding up his shorts because they were too loose.” The witness admitted this was also a possibility.
After the witness finished testifying, one of the DPDs asked for the case against both the male and female accused to be dismissed. He argued the other man in the video was the aggressor and the male accused was only trying to defend himself and protect his family. The male accused was simply trying to get his children into the car.
The DPD argued when the “aggressor” then ran in front of the car, the male accused fired one round into the ground “in self-defense,” noting it was essentially a “warning shot” to dissuade the other man from continuing to come after them. Because it was fired into the ground, there was no risk of bodily injury, the DPD stated.
The DPD again asked for the charge of negligently discharging one’s firearm to be dismissed or at least reduced to a misdemeanor.
In regard to the possession charges, the DPD cited the Second Amendment. He stated that unlike fully automatic weapons, semi-automatic ones such as the one used in this incident do not have a history of regulation and therefore the male accused had a right to use it, particularly while defending himself.
As for the female accused, she should not be charged as an accessory if the male accused was acting in self-defense, the DPD argued.
The DDA countered these arguments by stating “no act of self-defense would warrant shooting a gun out of a moving car,” adding the man never came into contact with the family. The male accused’s bullet ricocheted off the ground, striking another car’s bumper, but it could have easily struck another person, said the DDA. Thus, it was extremely dangerous and negligent of the male accused to do so, the DDA stated.
In regard to the female accused, the DDA referenced her prior training at junior police academy. “She should have known she was harboring, concealing, and aiding him after he committed a felony… she had two months where she could have reported this, but she didn’t.”
Finally, to address the male accused’s charges for possessing a firearm, the DDA stated the male accused did not have a concealed carry license, adding, “No license for that is another crime.”
Judge Rupa Goswami decided there was sufficient cause for Counts 1 through 4 against the male accused to be tried. However, she ordered the charge against the female accused to be reduced to a misdemeanor.
The case will return for an arraignment hearing and trial setting later this month.
