Hero risks life and uses CCW pistol to save lives

[TPaine7]

Just another post that proves absolutely nothing:


From a Winnemucca, Nevada police statement:

On Sunday May 25, 2008 at approximately 2:30 a.m. the Winnemucca Police Department was dispatched to the Players Bar and Grill .... There were approximately 300 patrons in and around the bar....

The officers on scene discovered three adult males who had died from obvious gunshot wounds. Two additional gunshot victims were also located<, treated, and released from the hospital>....

The ... investigation lead detectives to believe that Villagomez<, 30,> entered the bar and at some point began firing multiple rounds. At least two of these rounds struck and killed the other two decedents, Jose Torres age, 20 and his brother Margarito Torres, age 19 both of Winnemucca. At some point during this shooting spree Villagomez allegedly stopped and according to witnesses reloaded his high capacity handgun and began shooting again.

It was at this point that ... produced a concealed handgun and proceeded to fire upon Villagomez who succumbed to his wounds. The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office.... he shooting of Villagomez by the Reno man was a justifiable homicide ....

The investigation is currently pursuing a lead that indicates that this event may have been the result of a long standing feud between several families....

Primary Source: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880526010

Hat tip to the Volokh Conspiracy http://volokh.com/ for the link.

[Taverner]

1. Well

For the Gun supporters: If he had a baseball bat or knife he would have been just as effective

For the Gun Control supporters: If he had a baseball bat or a knife he would have been just as effective

[sandnsea]

2. Yep, guns solve problems

I'm sure Jose and Margarito would agree. :eyes:

[krispos42]

3. Ah, but you don't get it

The only time to shoot somebody defensively and legally is if they have a gun. And if we outlawed guns, nobody would ever need to carry legally because they would never be attacked by somebody with a gun.

Problem solved!

[TomInTib]

4. Not really

I do not know of a single person who would voluntarily give up their firearms.

[TomInTib]

6. Duhh.... You'd think I'd have figured it out by now.

edited because I am an idiot

[DCKit]

11. Yeah, 'cause everybody knows the criminals wouldn't carry illegal weapons.

Oh, damn.

[shireen]

16. problem NOT solved

The only time to shoot somebody defensively and legally is if they have a gun.

What if a stronger person came towards me with a knife, or for that matter, without a knife, with the clear intent to hurt me? I can't fight him off, I'm not strong enough. If I had a gun, I'd be within my legal rights to shoot defensively.

And if we outlawed guns, nobody would ever need to carry legally because they would never be attacked by somebody with a gun.

Outlawing guns means that people cannot legally keep guns. When you find me a law-abiding criminal that respects and follows the law, I'll turn in my revolver and live happily ever after.

As a woman, I feel very vulnerable in this violence-infested society. DO NOT TAKE AWAY MY RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF WITH A GUN! And I don't want to hear BS about how gun-owners are more likely to hurt themselves in an altercation ... I take my gun ownership very seriously and responsibly, and have the necessary training to deal with defensive situations.

[Kutjara]

23. Leaving aside the fact that krispos was being sarcastic...

...you need to be very careful when exercising your "rights." If, to use your example, you are attacked in the street by an unarmed opponent and shoot the attacker, you'd better make damned sure your attacker left significant injuries on your body that can be forensically traced back to them, or that there were several witnesses to the attack. Otherwise, all the cops will see is a unarmed dead person and you holding the murder weapon. Your claim that the attacker was "stronger" than you can easily be ripped to shreds by a competent prosecutor, and the very fact you carry a gun will be used to make you look like a paranoid vigilante.

As my old high-school civics teacher used to say, "if you shoot an intruder in your house, make sure you wound them badly enough so they can't get back outside. Otherwise the intruder will own your house."

This is the real problem with the "do it yourself" school of law enforcement: you may save your own life, only to spend the rest of it in jail.

[shireen]

26. so we're stuck between a rock and a hard place?

Yes, we ALL need to be very careful but it will be a cold day in hell when I allow someone to harm me because I was being overly cautious. There are NO clear black&white solutions to these situations. The best we can do is to educate and train ourselves to appropriately defend ourselves. I've decided to use a gun for home defense, and i'm learning how to be damned good at it. Someone who does not like guns may choose another way to handle their defense. To each our own and we will deal with the consequences of our decisions.

As for krispos's sarcasm, he was being way too subtle for me.

[Kutjara]

27. That's exactly the problem.

In the current situation, we can't rely on the police or the state to protect us, but we can rely on them to come down on us like a ton of bricks when we protect ourselves.

A friend of mine once half jokingly said that the cops and the criminals are actually on the same side, because the criminals keep the cops employed. It's therefore in the cops' interest to ensure that criminals can operate safely. The best way to do that is to make sure ordinary people can't fight back.

We shouldn't be in a situation where ordinary citizens need a law degree to walk down the street or have to weigh up fine points of perceived threat and measured response before defending themselves from a violent attack. The fact is, however, that's what we all have to do.

The system is completely broken, yet we never seem to get any further than a discussion of whether or not people should be able to carry guns. That's like arguing about what brand of respirator to use on a critical patient, when the hospital itself has no electricity.

[iverglas]

28. I keep hoping someone will substantiate all this stuff

In the current situation, we can't rely on the police or the state to protect us, but we can rely on them to come down on us like a ton of bricks when we protect ourselves.

Actually, one way the state protects people is by prohibiting other people from hurting them, and punishing people who do. So when YOU hurt someone, the state is just as obligated to investigate the event as it is if someone else hurts you.

Sometimes even people who really don't care much about other people can see the wisdom in this, from their own perspective, since if someone hurt them they would probalby want the event to be investigated, even if the person who hurt them claimed to have done it in self-defence.

A friend of mine once half jokingly said that the cops and the criminals are actually on the same side, because the criminals keep the cops employed. It's therefore in the cops' interest to ensure that criminals can operate safely. The best way to do that is to make sure ordinary people can't fight back.

And if your friend was half serious, s/he was an idiot.

We shouldn't be in a situation where ordinary citizens need a law degree to walk down the street or have to weigh up fine points of perceived threat and measured response before defending themselves from a violent attack. The fact is, however, that's what we all have to do.

And what I want to know is: where do you get this notion? What evidence, even anecdotal, is there to base it on?

Even jurisdictions where the laws are strictest regarding the self-defence excuse/justification require things like reasonable belief, and require that circumstances be considered in determining whether a stated belief was reasonable. If someone isn't capable of meeting that really very low standard by showing that s/he reasonably believed in the circumstances that s/he was in danger of serious injury or death and that the force used was reasonable, then what exactly might s/he have based his/her actions on?

The system is completely broken

If you're talking about the system in growing numbers of US states, I'd certainly agree with you. More and more of them are adopting incoherent legislation that permits people to kill other people without even having to claim justification in the form of reasonable belief, and in some cases prohibits police and prosecutors from even investigating such incidents, let alone prosecuting. That's what I call very seriously broken: permitting the killing of human beings with complete impunity would have to be the dictionary picture for a sick and barbaric society.

I have a feeling that isn't what you're talking about.

[Kutjara]

30. My point is slightly different.

In brief, what I'm saying is:

We can't rely on the state to protect us. We can't protect ourselves individually (no matter how many guns we have.) The only way society can be safe is if people take an interest in each other and in their community. A decent society grows from a common interest in the common good. If we don't have that, it doesn't matter whether no one has guns or everyone does: we're still in big trouble.

[iverglas]

31. oh well then

Never mind. ;)



-- and let there be less violins on TV!

[shireen]

29. yeah, it's frustrating

In some ways, we're paralyzed. Broken systems are kept alive by special interests, working against the greater good. Like our political system. That's why I get so exasperated by the gun control arguments. We go around in circles, never getting anywhere. Very few people will acknowledge the root problem of violence in society: poverty. That's the real enemy.

[krispos42]

34. Welcome to the Gungeon

I'm on the pro-gun-rights team, don't you worry about that!

:hi:

[shireen]

36. sorry, krispos42

i was feeling a bit crabby, didn't see the sarcasm. I'm one of those dense people who needs emoticons. :crazy:


:hi:

[Dean Martin]

39. Amen!

I'm small physically, and have some physical problems. If a large person decided to strangle me, beat me or otherwise physically cause my demise, a gun is my only possession that would stop them. When I first met my fiance, who grew up in a ghetto and falls into the group that politicians love to tell us are historically anti-gun, I asked her if she wanted me to get rid of mine, as she had actually indicated she was a little afraid of them.
Her response from years of living in bad neighborhoods was a resounding "H*LL NO!" Oh, and now that she's been around them and sees that they won't magically rise up from the table and shoot her, she's not afraid of them anymore.

[iverglas]

42. some people have really bad taste in lovers, I guess

Oh, and now that she's been around them and sees that they won't magically rise up from the table and shoot her

Man, if I found myself keeping company with a man that doltish ... well, I'd have to get somebody else to shoot me.

[Dean Martin]

43. I'd never shoot anyone

I couldn't find myself with someone as ignorant as most anti gun people are either.

[iverglas]

44. hmm

If only that had made sense somehow, you might have been able to pass it off as wit.

Oh well.

[Dean Martin]

45. Of course you wouldn't understand

I wouldn't expect it to make sense to people who pretty much make opinions based on emotion instead of logic. I'd wager a great percentage of vocal anti gunners have never even spent time in inner city slums and other high crime areas, much less lived in them. Anti gun people look at the world through rose colored glasses and think crime and violence will magically disappear if only we outlaw guns.
It's funny that some of the very people who harp about the government spying on us, taking our liberties, and warn they'll haul us off someday also want guns banned, which would make all of those things even easier for the government to do.

When it comes to crime, most anti gun people are ignorant, pure and simple. Ignorant.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. Made sense to me.

[maxidivine]

47. Made sense to me too

[iverglas]

48. My dear Mr. Martin

YOU are the one who said, of the woman in your life:

Oh, and now that she's been around them and sees that they won't magically rise up from the table and shoot her, she's not afraid of them anymore.

So when you say:

I couldn't find myself with someone as ignorant as most anti gun people are either.

... well, like I said: if only it had made sense.


Quite amusing to see all the contrarians pretending to think it was wit, though!

[maxidivine]

49. I see him speaking about her inexperience with guns

you see him degrading the woman by insulting her intelligence. Too bad firearms are a topic where plenty of otherwise sharp people have the sense float right out of their head. Many people have an irrational fear of firearms, mainly because they just haven't been exposed to them and don't really understand them. It isn't an insult to have a sense of humor about your significant other becoming more comfortable with guns. It isn't an insult to other gun-ignorant people either. The only time that a person should feel insulted when someone shows that they know nothing about a subject is if they are acting as if they know about the subject.

[iverglas]

50. eh?

you see him degrading the woman by insulting her intelligence

Noooo ... I see him saying that he was keeping company with a woman who could only be really dumb or very delusional. If either is true, it's no insult to say it!

[iverglas]

18. you still seem to need to telegraph the sarcasm for shireen here

Or maybe shireen just thinks everybody else is too stupid to get it.

[Kutjara]

5. How far we've come.

A mean hombre walks into a saloon, pulls out his gun and starts blasting. Then a mysterious stranger in a white hat pulls out his gun and shoots the hombre dead.

Is this 2008 or 1878?

[SteveM]

13. I hope we will continue...

I'll take the mysterious stranger in the white hat -- even in 2018. I bet the survivors in that bar would agree.

[Kutjara]

15. I'm not sure the Wild West is such a great model...

...for a modern society to follow. The myth of the lone gunslinger, righting wrongs and riding off into the sunset is just that, a myth. For every case like this where Shane saves the town, there are a thousand where no one comes to the rescue. Yet people still insist on pretending an armed populace is an effective means of ensuring public safety. Yippee ki-ay!

[SteveM]

20. Even in 1878, crime was a bigger problem in the Eastern cities...

The main reason for individuals arming themselves is self-defense. The question you raise about "ensuring public safety" usually arises when discussing concealed weapons. Frankly, the phenomenon of "CCW" is a little too recent to measure any public policy benefit coming from an individual's decision to arm his/her self. Self-defense is adequate enough a reason for people to apply for these permits, whether or not society "benefits" from that action. Perhaps, later in the future we will see if there is an additional benefit accruing to the public.

One thing seems clear: the millions of people who have received concealed carry permits have not caused the streets to run red with blood, as was predicted by some. In fact, the over all crime rates have declined for 10 years and have only recently begun to inch back up.

[Kutjara]

21. It's arguable that the higher crime rate...

...in Eastern cities was due to their higher population density. Crowd people together and make them compete for scarce resources, and they'll start to resent each other. Create wide disparities in income and wealth, and they'll hate each other even more.

In the West, population density was far lower than in the East and wealth (or the lack of it) was more evenly distributed. Also, people in Western communities knew each other well and knew each other's business even better, making crime much harder to get away with. Strangers and "drifters" were viewed with suspicion, and the beady eyes of the populace were on them at all times. Neighborhood Watch was a way of life rather than a slogan.

These factors, more than the ready availability of firearms, contributed to the lower crime rates in Western towns versus Eastern cities. Of course, close communities and nosy neighbors don't make for exciting movies, so the myth of the lawless West with it's gunslingers and desperados held at bay only through the grit of John Wayne and Gary Cooper has been perpetuated to this day. The reality is far more prosaic, yet far more relevant to our own situation.

[SteveM]

24. Good neighbors are always the best and most cost-effective way to go...

I have never fallen victim to the Hollywood's take on how to hold the bad guys "at bay." And I know of few people who think the possession of firearms in the "Old West" was the reason for lower crime rates. Most prosaic of all, the reason people had guns was for hunting and self-defense.

I think Coop in "High Noon" was the best take on how some people treat "community" (something for someone else to take care of). Lon Chaney, Jr.'s cameo really summed it up. Wayne was just fun.

[gorfle]

38. And why is that?

For every case like this where Shane saves the town, there are a thousand where no one comes to the rescue.

All the more reason to secure the means of rescuing yourself!

[TomInTib]

7. At least he didn't hit any bystanders.

I have always dreaded the prospect of having to pull a pistol in a crowded bar. Thank heavens I never have been in that situation.

[iverglas]

22. you appear to live in California

In what circumstances would you HAVE a pistol in a crowded bar?

[TomInTib]

25. No particular circumstance(s).

I always carry something.

One just never knows.

[cephalexin]

8. When seconds count, the police will be there in minutes.

...

[derby378]

9. Just ask the townfolk in Killeen, TX

That shooting at Luby's is the reason we legalized CHL in the first place. :mad:

[Xenotime]

41. And, had guns not been so easy to buy, it might not have happened at all.

[iverglas]

10. not likely over

Authorities say the man who killed two men during the weekend in a crowded Winnemucca tavern might have been angry about delays in the trial of the men accused of shooting his brother during a long-standing family feud.

... Margarito Torres, 19, was accused of shooting Villagomez's relative, Mario Villagomez, in July 2007. Margarito Torres and another man accused of shooting at Mario, Jose Jesus Castellano-Moreno, were freed from jail after their bail was reduced from $220,000 late last year.

... But now that three people are dead in the town 160 miles northeast of Reno, authorities believe violence between the Villagomez and Torres family could continue.

Gee ... if only there were some way of reducing the risk that they'll get their hands on firearms.

They might just succeed in wiping one another out without taking out the bystanders while they're at it, if they couldn't get their hands on firearms. Oh, or not:

After the July shooting, Margarito Torres reported to police that on April 28 while he was at Wal-Mart with his infant child and girlfriend, a man he identified as Jose Socorro Villagomez tried to strangle him while he was battered by Nicholas Villagomez and Jose Cervantes, according to police reports. He said Jose Villagomez then used a strap with a blade to punch him about the head and arms. Arrest warrants were issued for the three suspects; two were arrested, Smith said.

And on April 6, Ernesto and Nicholas Villagomez reported that Jose Torres battered them in the parking lot of the county fairgrounds and damaged Ernesto Villagomez's vehicle. Earlier this month, Jose Torres pleaded not guilty to battery and destruction of property charges related to the incident.

Gosh darn it. No guns, no deaths.

Anybody ever heard of somebody killed when they were caught in the, er, crossthrow in a knife fight?


That someone could look at this event, and the events leading up to it, and see it as a basis for advocating the proliferation of firearms ... yeesh. Makes the head hurt.

"They believed they had to do whatever they could to defend their families," Smith said, adding the feud escalated from fights to gunfire after a female family member was described as sexually loose.

Ah yes ... protecting those wimminfolk ...

A whole lot of people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near firearms seem to have had no difficulty whatsoever in acquiring firearms / keeping the firearms they had. That looks to me like something a truly thinking person of goodwill would be given pause by.

[slackmaster]

12. If they were in jail instead of out on bail, they would not have been able to get firearms

Problem solved.

[SteveM]

14. Now, THAT'S an idea. Any takers? (nt)

[iverglas]

17. try reading it slowly now

I know how confusing these things can be.

The person doing the shooting had not been charged with anything.

Pre-emptive jailing w/o bail, you were maybe thinking?

At least two of these rounds struck and killed the other two decedents, Jose Torres age, 20 and his brother Margarito Torres, age 19 both of Winnemucca.

Margarito Torres, 19, was accused of shooting Villagomez's relative, Mario Villagomez, in July 2007. Margarito Torres and another man accused of shooting at Mario, Jose Jesus Castellano-Moreno, were freed from jail after their bail was reduced from $220,000 late last year.

Authorities say the man who killed two men during the weekend in a crowded Winnemucca tavern might have been angry about delays in the trial of the men accused of shooting his brother during a long-standing family feud.

Now, if Margarito Torres hadn't been released on bail, HE might still be alive ...

[Recursion]

51. This is getting old

Gee ... if only there were some way of reducing the risk that they'll get their hands on firearms.

You think there is. I think there isn't.

[Indy Lurker]

19. Another CCW holder arrested

Chalk up the arrest of another CCW for the "Brady Bunch".

After further investigation as well as ongoing discussions with Humboldt County District Attorney Russell Smith, the decision was made that the shooting of Villagomez by the Reno man was a justifiable homicide as outlined in Nevada Revised Statute 200.120 and 200.160. Because of this the Reno man was released from police custody.

If he was in custody, he must have been arrested.

[ManiacJoe]

32. Of course he was arrested.

He shot someone. At the time of his arrest, the police could not determine if he was a Good Guy or Bad Guy. As the investigation continued, more facts came to light; the police/DA made the determination of "Good Guy" and properly released him.

[iverglas]

33. it's as I was saying

I think we'd all like to think that if someone killed us, the event would be investigated rather than someone's word just being taken about what happened and the person being allowed to drift off into the night -- since we wouldn't be there to give any other account that might be given.

And it's like how I always wonder what's wrong with people on Law&Order when they realize they might be suspected of abusing their children, and proceed to pitch fits. For the love of ducks, people do abuse their children, and isn't it reassuring to know that the police are actually doing their job??

[krispos42]

35. It's more complicated than that, though

Some district attorneys have an axe to grind. Some may want to clamp down on what they see as "vigilante justice". You've seen it here before when a poster can't or won't admit there is a difference between hunting somebody down and killing them for a perceived wrong, and killing somebody so they stop hurting you. You and I, for example, would draw the line between "justifiable homicide" and "homicide" in different places.

Some think they have to send a "signal" to the community about "gun violence", because they believe a disarmed society is a civilized society and don't ever ever ever want to actually encourage people "taking the law into their own hands" or "putting more guns on the street" or "continuing the cycle of violence".

Some think that they can get a conviction based on evidence and testimony and they should "let a jury decide".

And some are ambitious politically and can see a high-profile case as something to build a career on.

And of course there could be publicity issues and political interference and pressure as well.


The variable is the DA. The police will do their job and present their findings to the DA, who will take it from there and may or may not take the instincts and conclusions of the police and crime lab.

[Eagle_Eye]

37. I don't know about Nevada, but here in Florida a Concealed Carry License does not allow gun in bars

As per Florida Statutes 790.06 -

No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05

and it goes on to say:

any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose

Had the Reno man had his gun in a bar here in Florida, he would have been arrested and charged.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Same here in Washington.

I can't find any similar provision in Nevada. That seems unusual to me.