CA: Man who Killed two Robbers found Not Guilty of Murder, Guilty of Weapons Charge

Gun Watch ^ | 23 August, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Kamhen "Omar" Saleh in suit and tie.

Two years ago, a 20 year old California man withdrew $44,000 from the bank for the family business.  He placed the money in a backpack in his vehicle.  He also had a 9mm pistol in the vehicle.  Two men attempted to steal the money; he saw one in his SUV and confronted him; ultimately shooting both men.  In the confrontation they had occupied another vehicle, taking the backpack and money with them.  From From abc30.com:

At only 22-years-old he says he shot and killed two robbers in self-defense. Police say those two robbers -- Omar Calderon and Adam Verdusco were stealing $44,000 from Saleh's car, money from his family's business. A jury found him innocent of all but one charge -- a misdemeanor for carrying a loaded weapon.

Defense attorney John Jackson said, "It makes me feel good that the jury came to the right decision what doesn't make me feel good is that the district attorney's office forced an innocent person for two years to have to suffer and basically make him think that he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail."

The two robbers weren't carrying firearms, just knives according to police. Because of that the district attorney's office argued Saleh used unreasonable force.

From recorderonlin.com:

Once he spotted the knife, Saleh said he backed out of the car and wasn’t sure where the other man went. He testified he went around to the driver’s side of his vehicle and pulled out his 9 mm gun, which he had placed between the driver’s seat and the center console after returning from the bank. Saleh said he also had his cell phone in his hand and was trying to make a phone call to get help.

Saleh fired 8 shots from his 9mm pistol.  The men were in the other vehicle by the time he started shooting.  He says he feared that they were going to run him over.

Saleh did not fire any more shots as the men in the vehicle fled the parking lot, but pursued the men, money and vehicle in his own SUV.  Both robbers were already mortally wounded.

The trial process took two years.  Saleh was found not guilty of all charges, except for the weapons charge, having a loaded firearm in a vehicle.   From abc30.com:

Saleh's trial ended with quick deliberation Wednesday.

While the defense attorney criticized the prosecutor for pursuing this case, I can see the prosecutor's side.  The robbers were in a vehicle, so their knives were not a threat.  Saleh shot into the side and rear of their vehicle.   The prosecutor questioned Saley's judgement on a couple of points.  From recorderonlin.com

“So, you left $44,000 and a loaded handgun unattended?” in the vehicle when going into Office Max, Dempsey asked. “Weren’t you concerned about following a car when you [felt threatened]?” he asked.

In the end, the Jury sided with Saleh.  While Saleh was close to 21, he was not there yet.  Under California law, there was no way for him to legally carry a firearm to protect his family's property that day in August of 2013.  


©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

[marktwain]

The Jury was not sympathetic to thieves and robbers.

[demshateGod]

But they were sympathetic to tyrannical laws. People who live in California are slaves.

[BitWielder1]

The two robbers weren't carrying firearms, just knives according to police. Because of that the district attorney's office argued Saleh used unreasonable force.

What's reasonable force? Another knife? Two knives?
You can end up just as dead being stabbed.
A threat to one's life is a threat to one's life, you should not have to match the style of weapon to the attacker, even if by chance you know exactly what the attacker has on him.
Police routinely shoot suspects for pointing a wallet (I thought he had a gun).

[Sasparilla]

Too bad the jury didn’t nullify the gun law and acquit on it too. None of the charges should ever have been filed.
It is a sick society that fails to allow its citizens the right to protect themselves from well armed robbers. That sick society is California and similar states.

[marktwain]

Link to Gun Watch

[Redbob]

Federal law says you have to be 21 to legally own a handgun unless you’re in the military.
Achmed wasn’t 21.
Should we change the law, or give him a special pass?

[hoosierham]

change the law.

[wbarmy]

Jury nullification. If the jury feels the law is in error, they have the constitutional authority to nullify that law. Works every single time and the judge and the law can do nothing about it.

[KeyLargo]

Kentucky Chuck E. Cheese refuses to serve police officer with firearm
Published August 23, 2015

FoxNews.com

A Kentucky Chuck E. Cheese appears to have taken the kid-friendly chain’s “no guns” policy too far, refusing to serve a police officer who entered the restaurant with a firearm.

[Mr. Lucky]

Idiots, too.

[marktwain]

You are close, but not correct. You only need to be 18 to own a handgun without parental permission under federal law.

If you have parental permission,you may own a handgun before that age.

You have to be 21 to buy a handgun from a federally licensed dealer.

[TalonDJ]

“Federal law says you have to be 21 to legally own a handgun unless you’re in the military.”

Wrong. You have to be 21 to BUY one but not to own one. Yeah it makes no sense.

[i_robot73]

When has that EVER been brought up in court? Hell, most times I’ve heard is a judge dictating what can and CANNOT be done; nary a hint re: nullification.

Most black robed tyrants believe it’s *their* courtroom, in some way/shape/fashion...To remind the People that THEIR will is the *FINAL* arbiter? I think not.

[MeganC]

But if a cop had been in the same situation then the shoot would have been “justifiable” and so should it be for an armed citizen!!!!!!