View Full Version : One CCW permit holder shoots another (VA)
I remember when this was first reported in March. The media used it to push the "Waterside is violent" angle, nothing about 2 of the 3 parties involved being CCW permit holders.
The verdict came back a couple of days ago. Not guilty on everything but "unlawful wounding" which is, you guessed it, a felony.
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/01/jury-selected-trial-man-charged-waterside-garage-killing
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/01/waterside-garage-shooter-guilty-unlawful-wounding?page=1
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/waterside-shooting-was-selfdefense-accused-says?page=2
Accused shooter recounts Waterside garage slaying
By Michelle Washington
The Virginian-Pilot
© January 22, 2010
NORFOLK
The man accused of murder in a shooting at the Waterside parking garage that left one man dead and another seriously wounded testified Thursday that he was never the aggressor in the altercation.
Reginald Royals, 25, is standing trial on charges of second-degree murder and malicious wounding in the March shooting.
Juan Carlos Ovalle, 26, died of a single gunshot wound to the head. Ovalle's friend, Marcus McGee, was shot five times.
Others testified that Royals had been revving his engine as traffic snaked out of the parking garage the night of March 22.
Royals said his car, an older model Chevrolet Caprice Classic, idles high until the engine warms up.
Others testified that Royals pushed his way into the line of traffic and bumped the white Nissan Altima Ovalle was driving.
Royals said he had been inching into traffic before Ovalle came down the ramp, and that Ovalle's car "touched" his.
Royals said that Ovalle and McGee jumped out of the Altima and approached him, demanding that he pay for damages, asking for his insurance information.
Royals testified that he told them, "I didn't hit you," looked at Ovalle's car and saw no damage.
That's when he saw Ovalle pull a gun out of his pocket, hold it at his waistband, and return the weapon to his pocket. Ovalle stood there, hand on the gun, Royals said.
"I said, 'It's not like that. It's not like that.' " Royals testified.
Royals' own gun, a weapon he said he bought for protection because he worked long hours at a shipyard and for which he had a concealed weapons permit, was between the front seats of his car.
Ovalle's weapon had been legally purchased and he also held a concealed weapons permit.
Royals' lawyer, Jeffrey Swartz, asked why Royals did not tell Ovalle about his own weapon.
"I didn't want to make the situation worse than what it already appeared to be to me," Royals said.
Royals told the men he had insurance, said he would pay. McGee repeatedly told him "you don't have insurance," Royals testified.
"Why wouldn't I have insurance on a car like this?" Royals asked them.
Eventually Ovalle and McGee returned to their car, and Royals got into his. He pulled out his gun and cocked it and put it on the seat.
"I was scared," Royals said. "They threatened me for no reason."
Royals testified that Ovalle and McGee got out of their car again and approached him. Royals also got out, but he left his gun behind, he said.
Again, Swartz asked why Royals didn't display his weapon.
"I didn't want to make the situation worse," Royals said.
Both Ovalle and McGee began punching him, Royals said, and he put up his hands to try to fend them off. He pushed Ovalle, who fell back a step.
"He reached toward his pants pocket." Royals said. "I thought he was going to grab that gun and shoot me. After that I grabbed my gun and started shooting."
Under questioning by prosecutor Megan Zwisohn, Royals admitted that Ovalle had not pointed the gun at him, and that he had never seen a gun on McGee. But, he said, the men had returned to their car for a few seconds, and he didn't know what they had done there.
"I didn't think I had time to wait and see," Royals testified.
A toxicologist testified that Ovalle and McGee had enough alcohol in their systems to be considered legally intoxicated. The legal limit for driving is 0.08; Ovalle's blood-alcohol concentration was 0.17 and McGee's about 0.11.
The prosecution and defense finished presenting evidence Thursday. Jurors will begin deliberations today.
Michelle Washington, (757) 446-2287, michelle.washington@pilotonline.com
One things the above article misses (one of the links gets it), there were 4 guys in Ovalle's car, all of whom jumped out for the first altercation. It's unclear if all four were participating in the second altercation.
This is a nightmare scenario for self-defense advocates. Two permit holders getting into a fight with one shooting another. Even though it seems like a clear self-defense shoot, the shooter ends up in jail for 10 months and gets a felony conviction.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-29-10, 21:00
Why wouldn't have Royals called the cops as soon as his car was hit, and then again afgter the brandishing of the gun when he got back in his car? Weird.
Business_Casual
01-29-10, 21:05
Royals bumped the white car, so that's why they got out of the car. Plus they were pissed. Sounds like he was being a dick and then it got out of control, yes?
M_P
Hard to say anything for sure without more details, but if a carload of drunk guys started beating me over a fender bender and I shot at them, I'd be pretty pissed and getting my appeal lined up if I were convicted of anything other than "improper driving."
One thing is for sure, the DUI driver that decided to pick a fight(possibly even brandishing his pistol as a means to intimidate) should never have been given the CCW license in the first place. The gross collective of irresponsible and illegal actions on his part makes the whole CCW program look VERY bad.
Many of you probably don't agree, but I'm in favor of tighter controls on who is issued CCW permits. I've arrested approximately a dozen legal CCW holders in the last couple of years who have had their weapons on their person and were DUI. Many of them also had additional controlled substances on their person or in their vehicles. A couple of them actively resisted arrest. Allowing people who display criminal behavior(convicted or not) to legally carry a weapon is a recipe for disaster for those who are law abiding citizens.
Robb Jensen
01-30-10, 11:04
The freedom loving American in me wishes for Vermont style carry.
Darwin would quickly take care of the idiots.
MarshallDodge
01-30-10, 11:18
The freedom loving American in me wishes for Vermont style carry.
Darwin would quickly take care of the idiots.
Amen! Laws only try to protect against stupidity.
Common sense says that carrying a firearm while drinking is just asking for trouble. Does there really need to be a law on the books for this? :rolleyes:
RogerinTPA
01-30-10, 11:30
No one can judge another for what they do or fail to do. Fear and panic affect folks differently from trained individuals with the proper mindset. Just because you hold a CCW permit, doesn't mean you are thoroughly trained, your S.A. is where it should be, nor does it mean you have thought about most or all possible scenarios to cover the use of deadly force. There are too many variables to know what the correct action would be or the possible outcomes. Gaming it after the fact, doesn't assist the situation in the here and now. Locking one's self in the car and calling the cops is a smart thing to do, but given the typical reaction time, not knowing whether the other folks are armed, trapping one's self in your vehicle, the other two calling for the other vehicle occupants to react, it's hard to pass judgment in this case.
I agree with Marcus, that if you are convicted of DUI, drug related or any other criminal activities, you should get your CCW revoked. Adding a nation wide "open carry" law would go a long way to curb irrational behavior.
Business_Casual
01-30-10, 11:46
The freedom loving American in me wishes for Vermont style carry.
Darwin would quickly take care of the idiots.
American as apple pie.
M_P
John_Wayne777
01-30-10, 12:08
Hard to say anything for sure without more details, but if a carload of drunk guys started beating me over a fender bender and I shot at them, I'd be pretty pissed and getting my appeal lined up if I were convicted of anything other than "improper driving."
...and that brings up an important point. It sounds like the stupid was strong with both parties in this incident. If you participate in something stupid that then turns into something deadly it can dramatically complicate a self defense claim. I don't have the facts here, obviously, but I'll take a wild stab and posit that there was probably a significant exchange of "fighting words" between the two parties.
From the description in the story this was a righteous shoot. Guy gets into a fender bender, the hit party, a guy who is drunk off his ass, comes out with 4 dudes and starts waving a gun. The idiots come back a short time later and start attacking the guy who initiated the fender bender, then the lead dumbass reaches for his waistband...
Now given that this same individual has already brandished a firearm, assuming that he's going for his gun would be perfectly reasonable.
The only explanation I can come up with for why it has gotten this far is that the defendant helped escalate the situation according to some information in the investigation. Well, the other possible explanation is that the people working for the government in this case are morons with an agenda....
One thing is for sure, the DUI driver that decided to pick a fight(possibly even brandishing his pistol as a means to intimidate) should never have been given the CCW license in the first place. The gross collective of irresponsible and illegal actions on his part makes the whole CCW program look VERY bad.
With all due respect, Marcus...the kind of dumbass who is driving drunk and will whip out a gun to intimidate somebody into writing him a check on the spot for a fender bender probably isn't going to be dissuaded from carrying a gun by the law.
...and that brings up an important point. It sounds like the stupid was strong with both parties in this incident. If you participate in something stupid that then turns into something deadly it can dramatically complicate a self defense claim. I don't have the facts here, obviously, but I'll take a wild stab and posit that there was probably a significant exchange of "fighting words" between the two parties.
Uh huh...
Lots of people like to partially quote the case law and jury instructions about there being no duty to retreat before using deadly force to protect yourself from an imminent deadly threat. The part they leave out says you have to be without fault in causing or contributing to the altercation. Your ability to stand your ground and then use deadly force, in other words, is predicated on your being an angel within the context of the situation. Even if the other guy(s) "started it" or are subjectively much "more" at fault than you, if you contributed at all to the shitstorm then you'd better start retreating before you resort to shooting.
Uh huh...
Lots of people like to partially quote the case law and jury instructions about there being no duty to retreat before using deadly force to protect yourself from an imminent deadly threat. The part they leave out says you have to be without fault in causing or contributing to the altercation. Your ability to stand your ground and then use deadly force, in other words, is predicated on your being an angel within the context of the situation. Even if the other guy(s) "started it" or are subjectively much "more" at fault than you, if you contributed at all to the shitstorm then you'd better start retreating before you resort to shooting.
good point :)
my brother is a Lawyer (prosecutor) we have talked about stuff like this
he has said if a guy has a permit then goes through a bad part of town or does something he would not normally do or go but since he has a gun and permit now he feels he can do this since he is protected
sadly its a touchy thing and comes down to did you contribute to the fight in anyway ?
I think in the above situation with the guys the Royal guy sounds like a chuck of male anatomy !!!!!
pushing his way in traffic getting out etc..
all in all a bad situation
With all due respect, Marcus...the kind of dumbass who is driving drunk and will whip out a gun to intimidate somebody into writing him a check on the spot for a fender bender probably isn't going to be dissuaded from carrying a gun by the law.
I don't argue with the fact that he would have likely been carrying anyway while on the road. However, if he was forced to carry the weapon illegally, then when he gets arrested for the DUI the weapons possession is an additional charge that can be stacked onto him. In some states weapons charges can really add up to additional time and fines.........why give a guy that openly displays criminal behavior an additional free-bee, when he should have never been issued the permit in the first place? Also, those who carry illegally generally fear being caught and if possible will choose to carry something small like a .380 or mouse gun. CCW permit holders tend to go a little larger as they do not fear discovery, and I'd rather the scumbag carry the mouse gun(illegally) than the G19(legally).
After checking a couple of hundred weapons of drivers a year, you start to see a pattern.
The freedom loving American in me wishes for Vermont style carry.
Darwin would quickly take care of the idiots.
Not Charles Darwin.
Thomas Malthus.
A toxicologist testified that Ovalle and McGee had enough alcohol in their systems to be considered legally intoxicated. The legal limit for driving is 0.08; Ovalle's blood-alcohol concentration was 0.17 and McGee's about 0.11.
That surely didn't help.
Guns and booze don't mix.
The_War_Wagon
02-02-10, 10:41
Guns and booze don't mix.
Yep. Clear case of DON'T drink & drive, much less, bring guns to the resultant fender-bender. :rolleyes:
I was under the impression that your CCW permit is rendered invalid at any time you're under the influence of anything, much less when you're hammered. At least that's the case here in CA. One of the few gun control laws here in CA I actually agree with.
Pathfinder Ops
02-02-10, 12:44
Here is another observation:
It says in the article presented that Royals "saw Ovalle pull a gun out of his pocket, hold it at his waistband, and return the weapon to his pocket."
Seems to me that his doing that qualifies as an OVERT threat. Thus escalating this situation to begin with.
He further states that: "I was scared," Royals said. "They threatened me for no reason." Or at a minimum for reasons a prudent man would not consider using a gun over.
Subsequently: "Both Ovalle and McGee began punching him, Royals said, and he put up his hands to try to fend them off. He pushed Ovalle, who fell back a step.
"He reached toward his pants pocket." Royals said. "I thought he was going to grab that gun and shoot me. After that I grabbed my gun and started shooting."
Sounds to me like Royal's was in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's about all.
The man felt like his life was in danger secondary to an obvious threat with a firearm and was ACTUALLY being assaulted by 2 people.
Considering the totality of the circumstance even here in New York(istan) (NYS Penal Code Art. 35 Use of deadly Force) Royals would have been justified in using his firearm to defend himself since he can easily make the case that he felt his life was in jeopardy.
No doubt it would have been a court battle as this was but hell its better than being dead.
The "Wounding" thing eludes my ability to understand with out knowing what that was based on. Maybe the fact that he shot the other guy 5 times?
I was under the impression that your CCW permit is rendered invalid at any time you're under the influence of anything, much less when you're hammered. At least that's the case here in CA. One of the few gun control laws here in CA I actually agree with.
In NV you can legally carry up until .10 BAC.
Correct me if I am wrong as I have no legal background, but it seems to me that Royals was aquited of the second-degree murder of Ovalle but convicted of malicious wounding of McGee?
This makes sence to me since one could argue that the thread of sirious injury or death was from Ovalle and his firearm. Once this thread was eliminated, with one round to the head as the article states, I could only assume that the threat that McGee posed was no longer there.
I don't know about you guys, but if my friend and I are punching some guy who shoots my friend in the head, I will completly ignore the poop in my pants and immediatly stop punching the shooter. Once again, I can only assume that something similar happend in this situation. Ovalle is dead on the ground, and McGee stoped his assault of Royals when he saw his friends brain spray from the back of his head. There was most likely no reason to shoot McGee at this point. Let alone shoot him 5 times.
Now I understand that in that situation some with little or no experience under such stress [myself included] would undoubtedly pull the trigger untill the slide locks back on an empty mag and then take note of what has happend so I can not blaim Royals for his actions. But I think I can see where the prosecution may have gone.
This is why Royals should have (1) not gotten out of the freakin' car in the first place, and (2) took off like a bat out of hell the minute the other party displayed a weapon.
The vehicle is usually your best means of escape, and failing that, your best weapon.
Pathfinder Ops
02-02-10, 14:45
Correct me if I am wrong as I have no legal background, but it seems to me that Royals was aquited of the second-degree murder of Ovalle but convicted of malicious wounding of McGee?
This makes sence to me since one could argue that the thread of sirious injury or death was from Ovalle and his firearm. Once this thread was eliminated, with one round to the head as the article states, I could only assume that the threat that McGee posed was no longer there.
I don't know about you guys, but if my friend and I are punching some guy who shoots my friend in the head, I will completly ignore the poop in my pants and immediatly stop punching the shooter. Once again, I can only assume that something similar happend in this situation. Ovalle is dead on the ground, and McGee stoped his assault of Royals when he saw his friends brain spray from the back of his head. There was most likely no reason to shoot McGee at this point. Let alone shoot him 5 times.
Now I understand that in that situation some with little or no experience under such stress [myself included] would undoubtedly pull the trigger untill the slide locks back on an empty mag and then take note of what has happend so I can not blaim Royals for his actions. But I think I can see where the prosecution may have gone.
Your point is good depending on (as I said) what the details of the 5shots on the other guy were, when they were taken etc.
I mean for example... We teach folks that when confronted my multiple assailants you gotta address both quick not; resolve one then move to the other.
Possibly Ovalle wasn't the first target he engaged. Possibly McGee was and as we also teach you to keep shooting until you are certain the threat is resolved.
A couple shots on target 1 a couple shots on target 2, then re-address the first....
Next thing you know guy 1 has 5 holes in him before the adrenaline rush backs down and you can reassess.
There is a lot of data missing from this story.
How many shots were fired over all?
At whom were they fired? Maybe 1 or 2 of the rounds in McGee were meant for Ovalle.
I could go but you get the point.
Obviously the jury felt his behavior was prudent to a degree but a wee bit too much for them overall.
Too bad. Because from what I know of this story which is ONLY what we have in this thread I don't have a problem with thanking Royales for trying to send a message that mob rule is not the rule of the day and that being the victim is unacceptable.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.