By Dan Williams
Thursday brought the closing arguments in a gun case that puts the justification of a gun-carrying law in Yolo County to the test.
If you’re not familiar with the case, here’s a rundown of what happened.
Near the end of September, Mr. Torres, a professional, uniformed, armed security guard came to work late after some family issues and was told to return home. He lives in Vacaville, but was staying in Motel 6 on Main Street in Woodland. Sometime after he gets to Motel 6 but just before he departs home to Vacaville, he runs out, starts his car, goes back into the hotel to retrieve some things, and notices that a woman at this point was now sitting in his car.
He yells at her and she runs off. He gets in his car and notices $100 missing from his dash. He has somebody call 911 and chases after her, around the corner to the room she was staying in. He makes this chase in his car, and hides the gun, that he is occupationally obliged to carry, under his seat. He just didn’t have time in the heat of things to eject the mag, empty the chamber, reload the chamber bullet into the mag, and lock it all up. The police arrive on the scene, confirm ownership of his car, ask him if he has any guns. Torres explains that he has a gun under his seat, and that he is a security guard. The officers then arrest him for unlawfully carrying a gun in his car.
This narrative is agreed on by both sides, and nobody is contesting what I’ve laid out here. The issue in contention is what the law says about carrying a gun in your vehicle, and specifically what it says about doing so as a security guard.
In this case, as crazy as it seems, the law is not on Mr. Torres’ side. The security guard exception to carrying a loaded firearm in your vehicle states that it only applies en route to and from work and home. Surprisingly, Torres’ counsel did not argue that sleeping in Motel 6 before heading home to Vacaville was part of the route home, she argued that Mr. Torres for those hours had two homes. The prosecution rebutted with the sound logic that the law does not cover going from home to home.
If one is to accept the defense and prosecution thought processes, and categorize the motel as a “residence,” then I don’t believe Mr. Torres has much hope of an acquittal, unless there are gun activists on the jury who rightly see this law for the joke that it is.
This is undoubtedly a situation where the defendant acted completely rationally, did nothing wrong morally or philosophically, yet still finds himself on trial, and will likely get three months to a year in jail, along with a fine of up to $1000.
In essence, Mr. Torres likely faces jail time because he didn’t take the two full minutes to secure his gun while he was being robbed. It is unfortunate that security guards, even when being robbed, face arrest and prosecution simply for calling the police for help, and doing what they can under the circumstances to be responsible gun owners.
The jury is still out on the verdict, so here’s to hoping one or more of them stands their ground on this joke of a law.
[quote]stands their ground on this joke of a law.[/quote]
I have no opinion on whether or not this law is a “joke” since I do not know the details of how its details were derived. What is not a joke is gun safety and anticipating that a professional will follow all safety precautions to the maximum. I am not in any way addressing the issues of residence or route home.
But I would like to look at Mr. Torres actions from the only point of view that matters to me as a doctor whose sole focus is gun safety.
1. Mr. Torres notices a woman in his car. We are not told whether he took time in his haste to thoroughly
check his car to make sure no one else had entered it and was for instance, hiding in the back.
2. He chases after her in his car and hides the gun under his seat without unloading and securing it
presumably because he “doesn’t have time”. Please notice that the location is a motel where it is not
unusual to have children staying with their parents.
So now, regardless of what may seem like reasonable actions taken to stop a robbery, what we actually have is an illegally and unsafely stored weapon. My father was a hunter who provided much of our food.
I was learning to shoot at the time of his death. I am not opposed to legally and safely stored weapons.
This is not the case here. When we read about the tragedies of children or someone mentally unstable who encounter a weapon and kill themselves, or someone else accidentally or secondary to illness, the story is often the same. The rightful, legal owner of the gun, a law abiding citizen who under normal circumstances handles and stores their weapon completely safely, becomes distracted by an unexpected event and leaves the weapon in an accessible location for just a moment. Just long enough to allow access. It is precisely under these situations of duress that people who use guns whether for food, recreation, or as part of their job must be the most vigilant and mindful of the potential danger of their unsecured weapon.
While I do not believe that Mr. Torres should face jail time, I do believe that he is culpable for the unsafe management of his weapon. Perhaps a repeat of this portion of his training on safe weapon management and the laws regarding storage and transport might be a more fitting outcome.
[quote]unless there are gun activists on the jury who rightly see this law for the joke that it is.[/quote]
Beyond the issue of gun safety is an even larger problem I see with your article. I may be mistaking your intent, Dan, and please correct me if I am. It appears to me that you believe that it would be right for the jurors to acquit Mr.Torres if they do not agree with the law. The job of the jury is not to evaluate the
legitimacy of the law, it is to decide whether or not the defendant broke the law.
If the law itself is believed unjust a potential juror has at least three options of which I am aware.
1) An individual who knows that they are biased with regard to an issue can state so and not be seated on the jury. This would apply to “gun activists” on either side of the issue.
2) Once on the jury, it is possible to request excusal and replacement with an alternate if one determines that one cannot remain impartial or objective.
3) The jurors have the ability to express their concerns by note to the judge.
What they do not have the right to do is to decide whether or not they will honor the law. This is done through the legislature, not in the jury room.
And yet in the exact same situation, a cop would be allowed to do what the security guard, who is also hired to protect us, is not allowed to do. Hmmmm. And in many cases, security guards have at least as much education/training as cops. Hmmm.
JD
Point well taken. Can’t help but think of the concurrently running articles about the lack of judgement demonstrated by Lt. Pike. It would seem that being a policeman does not confer any magical powers of
foresight and restraint. This is precisely why I believe that the issue should be about consistent safety, not necessarily who gets to do what.
I’m not sure about the distinction that JD makes. Police officers (along with fire fighters, correctional officers, and others) are sworn peace officers and have powers of arrest in most circumstances. I am not sure that security guards are sworn officers. I could not find exact legal language, but I think that the laws that apply to police officers may not apply to security guards such as the man in this situation. If anyone knows, I would appreciate the information.
Correction – I said in my post that sworn officers have the power of arrest in “most” circumstances. That should have been “some” circumstances. Off-duty correctional officers do not have power of arrest, I believe.
medwoman, I believe Dan may be suggesting jury nullification…
[quote]And yet in the exact same situation, a cop would be allowed to do what the security guard, who is also hired to protect us, is not allowed to do. Hmmmm. And in many cases, security guards have at least as much education/training as cops. Hmmm.[/quote]
If we put a cop in the same situation I would hope they would not throw their guns under the seat of their car. That would moronic and unsafe to the officer.
JD- Please locate training program for security guards that provides at least as much training as the minimum training required to be a police officer.
[quote]In essence, Mr. Torres likely faces jail time because he didn’t take the two full minutes to secure his gun while he was being robbed. It is unfortunate that security guards, even when being robbed, face arrest and prosecution simply for calling the police for help, and doing what they can under the circumstances to be responsible gun owners.[/quote]
How does this constitute a robbery? Sounds like a theft from an unlocked vehicle. Mr Torres isn’t being charge for calling the police. He is being charged for unlawfully storing a gun, there is a difference.
[quote]Thursday brought the closing arguments in a gun case that puts the justification of a gun-carrying law in Yolo County to the test.[/quote]
Is the law in Yolo County any different than the California law?
This article leaves a big question about Mr Torres. Does Mr Torres have the required permit to carry a firearm through the California Bureau of Investigative Services?
And why isn’t this article listed as “commentary”? I thought the interns we reporting.
“If we put a cop in the same situation I would hope they would not throw their guns under the seat of their car. That would moronic and unsafe to the officer.”
Mr. Obvious, A cop recently brought a loaded rifle to a school. He was there to teach the children about a D.A.R.E. program. One of the students was able to access the cop’s rifle, and pulled the trigger. Luckily, no one was killed.
JD
Great example of the primary importance of gun safety first and foremost. It is gun owners and those who have the highest levels of gun training who seem most likely to extrapolate their level of gun awareness and handling to others. They often operate as though because they are trained in safety and correct usage, everyone else is as well. This kind of mentality can lead to the momentary lapses that allow someone who does not share that understanding access to a weapon often with tragic consequences.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/23/us/police-motorcycle-gun-discharges-at-school/index.html?iref=allsearch
I don’t know what the police officers mistake has to do with the Torres situation other than to point out that Torres isn’t the only person to make an error with a firearm. Even if you want to compare these to incidents they are very different.
If you want to make a point that the officer should have followed protocol by having the rifle unloaded while it was secured in the rifle rack on his motorcycle I will agree with you. I would also suggest the department use different rifle rack that doesn’t give people access to the working parts of the rifle while it is secured in the rack.
Speaking only for myself, the point in drawing this comparison is only that this kinds of errors in gun management happen to even those who are highly trained in the safe storage and management of their weapons. What I would suggest is that no one take a firearm onto a school campus when they are there for any purpose not specifically requiring the use of the firearm. This would seem to me to be the straightforward solution with no possibility for error. No gun on campus, no possibility for a gun related accident.
Thats a good thought until an unarmed officer ends up in a situation where he needs to be armed.
I agree with Medwoman:
“This would seem to me to be the straightforward solution with no possibility for error. No gun on campus, no possibility for a gun related accident.”
P.S. If no guns whatsoever on campus, perhaps an unarmed officer, in good physical shape, could use all her/his other training to assist in a bad situation. Just like a person who learns self defense, carries a whistle, perhaps pepper spray or wasp spray, and maybe walks with a large dog, can learn how to protect herself/himself without a loaded firearm.
P.P.S. In these United States, having a firearm in your home, even hidden, away from your children, in your garage, can wind you in prison. Evidence the case of the battered African American woman who was recently sentenced to a very long prison sentence for firing a warning shot which did not hurt anyone) when cornered in her garage by her previously physically abusive partner. So maybe firearms are not the best way to “protect” anyone. Just sayin’.