Reno police ruled that a late-night April shooting was justified after learning that the so-called “victim” (the dead guy) tried to sexually assault two women before being shot. Initially, cops had arrested the shooter, claiming that she had been drinking. Further investigation determined her actions justified.
Josue Oconitrillo, 29, displayed poor victim selection instincts when he approached two women who were walking at 1:00am. He probably thought that one or both of the women would provide some companionship.
Skipping the courtship process, he tried to progress directly to romance. The subject of his affections aggressively rebuffed his advances. Soon, the friend got involved, trying to fight him off as well.
Finally, the friend – who is licensed to carry a firearm – drew a pistol and issued a final warning to Mr. Oconitrillo. Nobody will ever know what Mr. O. was thinking at that point, but he continued to unlawfully chase the object of his affections. And at that point, the second woman shot him.
Oconitrillo lingered for seven days before finally expiring from his wounds. And now, police have ruled the homicide justified.
After a woman shot and killed a man that was sexually assaulting her and a friend on the Sierra Street bridge on April 20, the Reno Police Department has determined she was justified in her actions.
Reno investigators determined that in the early-morning hours of Saturday, April 20, 29-year-old Josue Oconitrillo approached two women walking across the Sierra Street bridge and attempted to sexually assault one of the women.
The women fought back and one of them drew a firearm, demanding he stop the attack.
Oconitrillo continued the assault and the woman shot him in the upper torso.
This case has plenty of useful personal defense lessons. First of all, have a gun. Without a gun, these two women might not have been able to fight off Mr. Oconitrillo’s advances.
Second, public intoxication tends to serve as a magnet for trouble. Remain (mostly) sober unless in the company of one or more trusted sober friends.
Third, don’t become intoxicated or even “buzzed” if you’re going to carry. In some states, carrying while intoxicated is a felony. And shooting someone after you’ve been drinking makes you chum for anti-gun prosecutors looking to score political points. At best it muddies the waters in the aftermath and investigation.
Finally, Reno police are nothing like the Reno 911 TV show.
Nevada going Commie.
Safer for Rapists. Not so much for victims.
Might help if she flicked-up that safety…..
Do the police normally decide if something is justified or not?
Depends on whether they’re doing the shooting or not…
Yeah, I was going to say, “thank you, oh so wise police, for letting me know you approve of my actions.” Police in this county, and in many other countries, have become a government unto themselves. They believe we are beholden to them, when it is quite the opposite.
Police do the investigation. It’s the District Attorney that decides on whether to file charges or not.
Unless you’re a dirty cop named Jim Comey.
That’s not always true in every state. Some states allow the police to file charges to be reviewed by a prosecutor and then decided upon. That’s how you sometimes get someone arrested and then the charges immediately dropped. The cops filed charges as part of an arrest, the prosecutor looks at it, thinks it’s weak or bullshit and dismisses the charges before it ever gets to a judge.
100% accurate for the state of Nevada and the city of Reno.
As with many things, it depends. 50 different states, 50 different jurisdictions. Usually the prosecutor’s office or a grand jury determines whether there is probable cause to charge someone (or drop the charges if the person was arrested). You never know, journalists don’t bother with nuance like that.
In Rhode Island, the shooting would be referred to the Grand Jury.
They arrested her for drunk in possession of a firearm, when they should have given her a medal.
Perhaps they were trying to demonstrate how stupid the drunk in possession statute is?
Anyway, seems like he chose almost wisely, if drunk chicks are unarmed by law, why not rape drunk chicks?
The unwise part was trying to rape a chick who was not alone at the time.
Think about it from the cops point of view. They arrived at the scene, found an unarmed man dead and the person who shot him to be drunk. Of course they were going to arrest her initially. I can’t really fault them for that. So long as they cleared her later when they had the facts.
This is a great lesson for why going out drinking in public while carrying is a terrible idea. The victim in this case is very fortunate there were eyewitnesses who could confirm her self defense case. Otherwise she’d likely be facing murder charges.
…going out drinking in public is a terrible idea.
Fixed it for you.
When the cops arrived at the scene the “unarmed man” was not dead and was coherent. The woman who shot the man was under the legal limit for carrying in Nevada (0.08). The only lesson that should be learned from this is DON’T RAPE.
They arrested her for the suspicion of possessing a firearm while under the influence of alcohol. The cops did not have any political motivations behind the arrest. Also I would say trying to or actually raping anyone is “unwise” and despicable.
So if you have a few drinks you surrender your right to defend yourself ? Think not. Carrying while intoxicated is not seen as a responsible action for sure, but if someone tries to harm you this should be overlooked if you have to defend yourself.
Drinking doesn’t deprive you of the right to defend yourself. However, depending on the jurisdiction, it may deprive you of the right to carry the best tool for the job. Here in Nebraska, legal BAC when carrying concealed is zero. Across the river in Iowa or in Kansas, it’s 0.08% the same as for driving.
Also, walking down the street at 1 am is not a smart thing to do.
That’s something they owe themselves but not the would be rapist or society. Neither should it have been a mitigating factor had he lived to go on trial.
Off topic but since it seems to have been bounced from the national news, what was it about the shooting yesterday that didn’t fit the hysteria narrative to keep it in the public eye?
Something-something-something-(female-to-male tranny perp)-something-nothing-to-see-here…….
Along with one of the shooters being trans-gendered, one of the intended victims had the gall to rush one of the 2 shooters, taking them down, instead of doing what the Leftists expects a victim to do, cower in a corner and wait their turn to be shot. That got the intended victim of ‘Gun Violence’ shot multiple times and killed.
Yeah, it’s gonna flat evaporate and disappear from the gun-grabbers attention.
How *dare* those intended victims fight back!
The other shooter was a registered Democrat, Trump hater, Vocal Atheist. Yeah, this one is gonna get memory holed at warp speed.
Neither firearm was legally purchased by perps as they were to young. Unsure yet as too how they acquired them. Red Flag laws were rendered moot.
At Brady’s Wave Bloody Shirt and Call For Gun Control rally, the students weren’t up for playing the exploited victims and marched out chanting for mental health instead of gun laws.
“Reno Police Rule CCW Shooting of Would-Be Rapist ‘Justified’”
How after thoughtful of them…
He lingered on for 7 days
Her drinking got in the way of an instant kill lesson drink responsibly
Her shot had exactly the desired effect – it stopped the attack. Attacker’s death, immediate or postponed a week, is only unfortunate side effect.
In self defense you aim to stop the attacker from doing you harm. Never to kill him.
Her verbal warning to stop attacking or she would shoot along with the facts that she only fired one shot and then immediately began administering first aid to the man shows that the intention was only to stop the attack and never to kill.
She was obviously sober enough that her aim was better than his judgment.
Have a designated driver, have a designated shooter. They can be the same person.
“Two witnesses watched the attack take place and one of them rushed to help the two women before police arrived on scene. ”
So maybe once all the interviews were done the law figured out what the witnesses saw was a proper self defense use of a firearm.
As someone who doesn’t drink alcohol, this has never been an issue for me. But for everyone else, I have to say, going out and drinking in public while carrying invites a whole host of problems. As we can see, if you ever have to shoot someone in self defense, even if you are totally justified, there is a good chance you’ll still be charged. In this case the victim was quite fortunate to be in Nevada, which is a fairly CCW friendly state. If she had done this in neighboring California, I think it’s almost assured she would still be facing carrying-while-intoxicated charges even after the police determined the shooting was justified.
And of course, being intoxicated at the time of the shooting makes it less likely the cops will believe your self defense case. Here I think it’s extremely fortunate the victim didn’t end up facing murder charges. Probably the only reason she isn’t is because there were bystanders who witnessed the assault and could confirm she was the the victim in this event.
Nevada HAS been fairly 2A friendly. With BOTH houses of the legislature AND both the Governors House and the State Attorney General FIRMLY in the pockets of the commie demonrats that fact IS changing AS WE SPEAK.
Why were two women out walking by themselves after midnight?
Obviously they were coming home from an outing that involved drinking. Why shouldn’t they? Do you think they should have been driving? The fact is that the women were bothered by a would be rapist. There is no law that keeps them from being out at night, or going home after a late dinner, drinks, movie or even a school dance.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!! PREACH!!!!!!!!!
This is not Saudi Arabia. We are not under Shariah Law.
In America, women have the right to walk without a male guardian.
They were not each “walking by themselves”, they were each walking with a friend. Furthermore, one of them was armed, and the results show that they were better able to protect themselves than most men.
If two men can walk together at night, two women can walk together at night also — unless they’re in Saudi Arabia (KSA)!
An anti-gun person would say, “If the women weren’t walking at night, they wouldn’t have needed a gun.” That”s like saying, “If she hadn’t dressed provocatively, she wouldn’t have been raped.” They have the right to walk at night, and they have the right to self-defense. They also have the right to consume alcohol, again because this isn’t Saudi Arabia. They exercised all three rights admirably (despite having consumed alcohol — alcohol and guns usually aren’t a good mix).
Come on. We’re really going to argue the merits of carrying a firearm while intoxicated? Dont give the rest of us a bad name, k?
She was under the legal limit for Nevada Law at the time of the shooting. Its called facts.