Posted on 06/29/2009 9:18:55 AM PDT by granite
The following information has been provided by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department:
On Sunday, June 28, 2009, at 8:11 a.m., deputies from the Jurupa Valley Station responded to a report of shots fired in the 31000 Block of Chardonnay Way in the community of Mira Loma. Deputies found a deceased male adult in the street.
Investigators from the Jurupa Valley Station and the Sheriff’s Central Homicide Unit responded to the location and assumed the investigation.
Investigators learned the victim of the homicide and a female companion had participated in a home invasion robbery. During the robbery, a struggle ensued between the suspects and the homeowners. The male suspect dropped his firearm during the struggle with the homeowner. The homeowner retrieved the firearm and fatally shot the suspect during the struggle for the weapon. The suspect attempted to flee the residence after he was shot, but collapsed in front of the residence.
The identity of the deceased male is being withheld pending notification of next of kin.
ping
Thanks for the ping; post. GRRRREAT news!
HUH? The Victim was the Homeowner.
The update to the story at the site is as follows:
Update: The female suspect in the home invasion robbery was located by the Ontario Police Department in the area of Walnut and Cucamonga on Sunday at 7:15 p.m. The suspect was identified as Amy Schinzel (pictured), 30 years of age, from Ontario. She was arrested and booked for murder. (emphasis mine).
Why would they charge her with murder when she (presumably) committed burglary?
Yeah, noticed that too. Editor apparently drunk.
Ah. Thank you!
I was wondering if it wasn’t possibly something like that.
That you for the good-news-to-enjoy-with-coffee ping.
In many states anyone committing a felony crime which results in someone's death can be charged with and found guilty of murdering the deceased. It matters not who the deceased was, whether a fellow felon (as in this case), an intended victim of the felony, a responding peace officer, or an otherwise uninvolved bystander.
“Victim of the Homicide” is technically correct. The author did specify that correctly. Had they left the victim as non-specific in a story about a burglary, we would rightly criticize the author on the basis of the presummed subject of the story.
I give the author a pass. Indeed the homeowners were the victim of the crime. But the victim of the homicide was definately the criminal. I think “subject” of the homicide may have been better suited in the context.
I guess some reporters need to justify their social education.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.