Suspected Drunk Driver Shot In The Arm By Home Owner

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Los Osos, CA-- San Luis Obispo Sheriff's Deputies and officers with the California Highway Patrol are investigating a bizarre incident that left one homeowner cleaning up a mess and sent a 18-year-old driver to the hospital with a gunshot wound.

Sheriff Investigators are trying to figure out why Los Osos' resident Chris Saletta shot 18-year-old Nicole Galvez in the arm.

According to Saletta, Galvez plowed her PT Cruiser through Saletta's fence and into the backyard of his home on the 2000 block of Sombrero Road. Saletta says, he awoke to find Galvez driving her car wildly through his back yard and he was forced to shoot her because he thought she would crash her car into his children's bedroom.


http://www.keyt.com/home/ticker/41228632.html


What a bizarre story. I'm glad no one was seriously injured.


David

[Renew Deal]

1. There was an incident like this when I was in SC for Obama.

It was election night. I just shut down my laptop to go to bed at like 1AM. I hear some screeching wheels and a crash. I thought someone hit my rental. I get up and look out the window. Some very large pickup truck is there with a parked SUV basically T-Boned behind it. My car was 2 cars away (thankfully). I'm watching to see what this guy does. He hits the gas again and moves the SUV some. He then drives forward through the parking lot. There's a small field and a water fountain (or something like that) there. He tries driving all through this field to get out. I had already called the cops when he pulled away from the SUV. I hurry up and get dressed. I'm on the phone with the cops. He eventually turns himself around after driving all around the grass. He leaves the parking lot. I got in my rental and chased him while talking to the cops on the cell phone. The cops catch up and pull him over. He was arrested for DWI. This guy was extremely drunk. He was barely punished from what I've heard. Anyway, that's my story from SC primary night 2008. :party:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. Glad you caught him before he killed someone.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Did you call the media so they had a wacky story to report?

[Renew Deal]

5. No

I just went to bed. It was like 3AM before I could sleep. The owners of the car that got hit were grateful.

[petronius]

59. To be fair to the people in these wacky stories, I think the media gets the

scoop from the police reports, rather than being called by the participants.

(And I'll admit, I'm damn glad the media was on the ball the night my class-mate's ex-girlfriend had to be lifted out of a chimney by the F.D. :D )

[AlCzervik]

3. Drunk drivers suck.

The first young person i knew that died was killed by a drunk driver, he was on a motor cycle and the driver hit him doing over 80 on a surface street. Needless to say it was a closed casket wake.

[ddeclue]

6. NOT a reason to shoot someone!

This shooter belongs in jail!

:argh:

All you ever do is post "reasons to shoot someone" threads Fire Medic Dave - you are a one trick pony and your posts are tiresome. Stop playing with guns and grow up already....

:eyes:

[Renew Deal]

7. Fire Medic Dave's posts make me want to shoot someone.

Must...Control...Urges :nuke:

:rofl:

[AlCzervik]

8. meh, i normally skip gungeon threads but the drunk driver angle added some new flavor

to the usual shoot em!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. That's some good shit.

[Renew Deal]

52. I was just playing

:pals:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. I know I thought it was funny.

:toast:

David

[LisaL]

9. No reason? Are you kidding me?

Ever heard of self-defense? Car can be a deadly weapon.

[Renew Deal]

11. And we're off

[AlCzervik]

14. New Shooter, new shooter coming out

[Richard Steele]

23. Best comment of the week!

Gawd, I miss the DUzy awards. That post was worth 2 of 'em, Itellyawhut! :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. What about the OP strikes you as propaganda?

[ddeclue]

34. YOU do Dave.. every post you make is a "justifiable shooting" post

and this is the least justified one yet that you've posted.

The solution to every problem in life isn't to shoot it. If you really ARE an EMT you ought to know better.

Doug D.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. Based on the information available I'm not sure this is a justifiable shooting.

I thought it would spark some interesting debate about the subject which it has. If you'll show me where I said the solution to every problem is to shoot it, then I won't call you a liar. I am a Fire Captain and a Paramedic and out of the several dozens gunshot victims I have treated not one of them was shot with a legally possessed firearm.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. On another note.

Did that job you were interviewing for work out? Hope things are well.

David

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

15. actually not true

as a firearms instructor, who teaches deadly force (as part of my training), and based on the rather thin fact pattern as presented in the media report (which always suck), he very well may have been justified in using deadly force.

if the guy was screeching around the homeowners yard, in proximity to the bedroom with his kids in it, then generally speaking, deadly force would be justified.

EFFECTIVE?

not usually. shooting at a moving car, especially with a handgun is rarely effective, but that's a different argument than whether it is justified, which is a question of legality and constitutionality, not practicality.

[ddeclue]

18. NO It is NOT a reason to shoot someone for the following reasons:

1) You are more likely to miss and hit your neighbor across the street than the driver at medium range with a handgun. This is wreckless endangerment.

2) The car is NOT likely to come through the house and hurt anyone in any event as the house (unless it is really poorly built) will stop the car cold in just a few feet.

3) If you have time to go find your gun and shoot someone you have time to get to a safe side of your house.

4) Shooting the driver doesn't stop the car and in fact makes the car more dangerous than it would have been because it goes from being under poor control to NO control. It could then veer out and kill someone else in the street.


Face it - unless you are a cop trapped in a narrow alley facing down a determined driver trying to run you down, shooting at a wreckless or drunken driver is actually far more wreckless than what the driver is doing.

You don't kill people with a gun for wreckless driving or drunken driving - you call the cops. This is NOT justifiable at all - it is prosecutable behavior.

The article refers to the driver as "alleged" drunken driver so that part really isn't even confirmed, for all we know the driver could have had an epileptic seizure, a heart attack, a stroke, or a diabetic problem at the wheel. You don't get to shoot people for the hell of it.\

:argh:

[paulsby]

24. um, no

"1) You are more likely to miss and hit your neighbor across the street than the driver at medium range with a handgun. This is wreckless endangerment."

generally speaking, a shooter has to consider his backstop, but when presented with an imminent threat to himself or others, that is secondary to the immediate threat.

sorry, i am speaking case law. you are speaking your opinion.

do you also KNOW what kind of neighborhood the guy LIVES in? for all you know there were woods behind him, not an occupied apartment building. you are assuming facts not evidence. that's why i said BASED ON THE FACT PATTERN AS PRESENTED, which is thin as fuck, it VERY WELL MAY HAVE BEEN (my words) justified.

"2) The car is NOT likely to come through the house and hurt anyone in any event as the house (unless it is really poorly built) will stop the car cold in just a few feet."

i've seen several cars completely demolish the room they crashed into. sorry, those are actual collisions i've investigated, not your theories.

"3) If you have time to go find your gun and shoot someone you have time to get to a safe side of your house."

you are again assuming facts not in evidence. did the guy run inside and get a gun, or was he already armed when he came outside? you don't KNOW, but you are assuming he went to go find a gun vs. he was outside with it, when he was presented with the perceived threat to his kids.

"4) Shooting the driver doesn't stop the car and in fact makes the car more dangerous than it would have been because it goes from being under poor control to NO control. It could then veer out and kill someone else in the street."

i've already addressed this. this is an issue of whether it's a good idea, NOT whether it's LEGALLY justified.

those are different metrics. as somebody who has testified in several inquests regarding civilian deaths, seen many other inquests, investigated many uses of force (civilian and cop), etc. i know what the LEGAL./Constitutional standards are.

just because something is not tactically optimal or is even not particularly effective does not mean it's not LEGALLY justified, which is what i am addressing.

"The article refers to the driver as "alleged" drunken driver so that part really isn't even confirmed, for all we know the driver could have had an epileptic seizure, a heart attack, a stroke, or a diabetic problem at the wheel. You don't get to shoot people for the hell of it.\"

you are speaking your opinion. i am speaking case law. that is the difference.

please understand there is a significant difference between when deadly force is legally justified such that it is not CRIMINAL, whether it is CIVILLY JUSTIFIED (iow whether a lawsuit will be justified) , and whether it is optimal, tactically sound, or a good idea.

all i am addressing is the first. whether it is legally justified. and based on the fact pattern as presented, and my significant experience investigating (and even being involved in) cases involving deadly force or threatened deadly force... i repeat...

based on the rather thin fact pattern as presented, he may very well have been justified.

LEGALLY.

i can speak to federal standards, and the specific laws of several states.

[ddeclue]

32. Justifying shooting when its not justified.

1) The driver really isn't an immediate threat unless the car is pointed directly at a human being and is not attempting to stop or veer out of the way. The bullet will travel further than the car will and god knows what it will hit if the shooter misses.

2) It seems reasonable to assume that the driver approached the house from the FRONT yard not out of the woods from the back yard. In a typical neighborhood that means there is a house across the street.

3) As an engineer, I can tell you that the car isn't going to demolish an entire house before it stops - not a theory - a fact. The house owner has an alternative that doesn't involve shooting someone so the shooting isn't justified, they can go upstairs or into the back yard the car isn't going to hit them and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

The shooter (like anyone) has to consider the reasonable consequences of their actions such as shooting and missing (a fairly likely possibility under the circumstance) and hitting an unintended target or shooting and hitting (unlikely but possible) but having the consequence of causing the driver to totally lose control of the vehicle and kill someone in the street or be killed when the driver clearly posed no imminent threat to the shooter or anyone else.

You and I both know the above is true and all your tap dancing is just that.

Doug D.

[paulsby]

36. you are not applying

the law, you are applying opinion, and a "best is the enemy of the good" analysis.

i am explaining to you the case law, and you are giving me your opinion of what you WISH the law said.

try that in court sometime and see how it works out for you.

[ddeclue]

37. NO you aren't applying the law because you don't get to shoot someone

when there is an obvious alternative.

Stop acting like you know more than you really do - I've already demonstrated that there were clearly alternatives and that there were clearly bad possible consequences to this wreckless action.

Stick it buddy.

[paulsby]

41. again, you are displaying your ignorance of the law

deadly force case law does NOT require to you to eschew deadly force if there is an alternative, see for example the no duty to retreat principle

nor are the facts in evidence that there WAS an "obvious " alternative.

If there is an alternative that does not make the deadly force prima facie unreasonable.

again, you are not talking the LAW (which is often, as one wag said - an ass), you are proclaiming your opinion about how the law SHOULD be according to you.

glad to see you could remain civil too (lol), which is a true sign of desperation.

[ddeclue]

43. Sorry but you don't get to kill people when there are reasonable alternatives.

I don't know in what yahoo state you live but not here in Florida jackass:

from the concealed carry state website

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

Q. When can I use deadly force in the defense of another person?

A. If you see someone who is being attacked, you can use deadly force to defend him/her if the circumstances would justify that person's use of deadly force in his/her own defense. In other words, you "stand in the shoes" of the person being attacked.


Someone doing donuts in your front yard does NOT constitute an immediate threat to your (or anyone else's life) unless you are standing in your front yard.

Thanks for playing...

:crazy:

[paulsby]

47. again, you are displaying your ignorance of the law

nothing u quoted refutes what i explained to you

and deadly force justification is NOT obviated because there are "reasonable alternatives" (even assuming there were in this case)

one doctrine that disputes that is the "no duty to retreat doctrine" which is ESTABLISHED CASE/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW in the US (but not in the UK, for instance)

you are flat out wrong. feel free to consult an attorney because YOU do not understand the law.

it is 100% false (your obvious alternatives claim). established case law proves it.

again, you are also making the ASSUMPTION (which i am not, which is why i said it MAY be justified) that the donuts were not an immediate threat.

i don't know the house layout, where the kids were, etc.

nor do you. but that does not stop you from making up facts to suit your prejudices.

[slackmaster]

55. Nobody got killed in this incident, ddeclue

:eyes:

[bossy22]

62. hmm

"According to Saletta, Galvez refused to get out of her car and continued to drive towards Saletta's home.""

doesnt sound like donuts to me

heading towards someone with an automobile is just like point a gun at someone

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. The Sheriff's Department investigating the case disagrees with you.

A preliminary investigation by the Sheriff's Department reveals that Saletta lawfully fired his weapon in self-defense.

David

[ddeclue]

44. We'll see what happens - if I were the driver I'd press charges for assault.

If I were a neighbor I would file a complaint for wreckless endangerment.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. Maybe they will pursue those options.

[bossy22]

61. not really going to fly...depending on the facts

A car can legally be defined in certain situations as a lethal weapon. Right now the sheriffs department says it was legit (the shooting that was)

it sounds like she was driving the car erratically and the man could reasonably believe that his life was in danger (ever see what happens when a car hits a person?....i can tell you its not pretty).

now lets change this story around....what happens if this woman instead of having a car, had a gun, and started firing it in all directions...now if this was the case i think it would be hard to justify this not being a legitimate self defense shooting.


and i dont think the neighbor is going to fire complaints, i think most people would believe that this is a reasonable course of action.

[petronius]

60. "wreckless endangerment" - best typo of the day!

:rofl: ('wreckless driver' is good, too - sort of flips the meaning.)

And accurate, if the point of the shooting was to prevent a wreck, and it was successful, I guess the endangerment was in fact wreck-less... :)

(Caveat - I mean this as a friendly jibe. We all make typos, this one just turned to be funny.)

[aikoaiko]

19. Erratic dangerous driver was endangering children in bedroom.

That's good enough for me.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

31. Disabling a dangerous driver is better than letting them continue.

Shooting isn't the answer to every problem, but sometimes it is.

And in this case it worked out ok. That must really make you grind your teeth. Hahaha.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. The Cruiser came to an abrupt stop after Saletta fired the shot.

It seems to have accomplished the task in this case.

David

[aikoaiko]

53. Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you have to be rude.

Wwhen faced with an out of control driver threatenig life and limb its safest to disable the driver because that cause them to stop pressing on the accelerator. I'd rather have a slow moving car, then one where the accelerator is to the floor.

Look at police procedures. When a police officer is faced with someone threatening life with a car, the officer shoots the driver, not the wheels, raditor, or engine.

In this case the shooter said he feared for the lives/well-being of his children.

[dysfunctional press]

51. reason enough for me.

the driver belongs in the morgue.

[slackmaster]

54. It could very well be a justifiable shooting under California law

Educate yourself.

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

[NutmegYankee]

56. Protecting one's children from death is always a reason.

And natural instinct for MOST humans.

[paulsby]

16. i once investigated a case

(domestic violence) where a woman shot at her boyfriend's car, as he drove off because she claimed he had been drunk, and she was trying to stop him from driving off.

THAT was unjustified. the only thing she could be charged with (based on my state's penal code) was reckless endangerment, iirc, a misdemeanor.

she did hit the car fwiw.

also, the boyfriend was totally noncooperative and didn't want to give a statement, but she gave a confession, AND we had a witness, not to mention the gun, and the hole in the car.

[depakid]

17. Now there's a beauty

Drunk driver (check HATE).

Shot in the arm (check only wingend him)

home owner (check ?).

Seems to some observers like your gun fetish is really getting out of hand.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[depakid]

25. Surely

Gun entitlement is of course another thing- one that tends to have adverse consequences on others....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. I'm not familiar with that term.

[depakid]

30. Not yet.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. I've never seen a right referred to as an entitlement.

[depakid]

50. Then you haven't looked very deeply.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. Must have a different definition in Australia.

[frylock]

26. this is supposed to be a positive gun story?!

i mean really, dude. if your intent is to show the positive aspect of gun ownership, you failed MISERABLY by posting this shit. if that numbnuts lived in my neighborhood and discharged a weapon under these circumstances, i would be beating his stupid fucking ass up one side and down the other. this guy is a fucking IDIOT, and as a gun owner, i'm embarrassed to read this.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

What about my comments makes you thinks this is a positive gun story?

[frylock]

29. i've read enough of your posts to know what side of the fence you sit upon..

your lack of commentary, re: the wreckless discharge of a fireearm, was also a dead giveaway.

edited for speeling.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. So you think I posted this story, where there is a questionable use of force...

with some ulterior motive?


David

[ConcernedCanuk]

49. LOL - "edited for speeling." - ummm - try again . . LOL

.
.
.

"edited for speeling"

wow

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. Pokerstars double post sorry.

[jefflrrp]

58. although FireMedicDave tends to post articles . . .

that often show justified shootings, I think he posted this one just for the lively debate that would probably ensue. Quite frankly, based on the limited evidence available from the article, I would tenatively agree that this was a 'justified' shooting. Don't want to get shot by a homeowner: don't drive drunk in the homeowner's yard and possibly endanger his kids. Duh. First post btw!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Ding, ding, ding we have a winner.

Welcome to DU.

David

[Taitertots]

67. Then you would end up going to jail

or being his second justifiable homicide.

Do you really think name calling and advocating unjustified violence are a positive reflection of your character?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tim01]

57. Ban alcohol, ban cars, or ban both. nt