San Francisco Area Resident Shoots, Kills Daylight Home Invader [VIDEO]

Police in Brisbane, California, a San Francisco suburb, responded to a call of a home invasion with shots fired yesterday.

According to abc7news.com,

When police arrived, a man was found at the home with fatal gunshot wounds. The resident was safe inside and now, cooperating with police.

“We don’t have quite the details yet, it sounds like it was the intruder was the one who was shot,” said Michelle Moneda, public information officer for Brisbane Police Department.

Firearms are used hundreds of thousands of times a year in this country. If the total number is even roughly distributed by population, that means over 100,000 of those defensive gun uses happen in California. That’s 100,000 assaults, robberies, rapes and murders prevented.

The Brisbane PD posted this statement on their Facebook page:

 

 

[ED: This post has been corrected to remove an inaccurate reference to this incident being called an “isolated incident” by the Brisbane Police Department. The BPD statement notes that the incident was isolated to one particular residence.]

comments

  1. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    And up next, homeowner on trial after family of home intruder sues, because you know…California…

    1. avatar Geoff "I got your Super Bowl right *here*" PR says:

      …and they are ostracized by the community and are harassed out of town for “murdering that poor person who was turning his/her/other life around.

      One less ‘sidewalk shitter’ I suppose… 🙂

      1. avatar tinhats says:

        Maybe he did not want to shit on the sidewalk and was coming in solely to use the toilet.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Exactly; there were no clean spots on the street left to cr*p in.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      California courts are more friendly to self-defense than you’d think. But if we’re talking about San Franshitsco and not the statewide justice system, all bets are off.

      1. avatar SpecialEd says:

        It was Brisbane, which is San Mateo County, so the home owners chances are better.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      California law expressly presumes that in intruder (someone who breaks and enters) in your home intends to commit serious bodily injury or death. The effect of this presumption is to put the burden on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homeowner was NOT acting in self-defense. This presumption does not apply to other members of the same household. I recall only one prosecution in the last decade or more where the avidly anti-gun Marin County DA prosecuted a retired doctor through three trials when the doctor shot a road rager in his garage. The DA ultimately lost.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Mark N.,

        … the avidly anti-gun Marin County DA prosecuted a retired doctor through three trials when the doctor shot a road rager in his garage.

        So much for our Constitutional double-jeopardy protection? Was it two hung juries and the courts declared that the two previous trials with hung juries were “mistrials” and therefore not really trials? I personally would argue that even a hung jury is still a binding result which should invoke double-jeopardy protection and proscribe the government from initiating a trial again.

        … the avidly anti-gun Marin County DA prosecuted a retired doctor through three trials when the doctor shot a road rager in his garage. The DA ultimately lost.

        The doctor lost in a huge way as well. (The doctor lost in terms of the stress and time involved going through the trial process. And the doctor also lost in terms of money that he/she paid for his/her defense attorney/s. Either one by itself is ginormous. Combined, they border on insufferable.)

        (Mark N. I know that you know this and I am not busting your balls here. I am highlighting this fact for other people who do not realize how much the defendant loses even if the jury returns a “not-guilty” verdict and the defendant prevails in court.)

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          hey were hung, but I don’t recall the splits, but they favored the defendant. And you are right about the costs of defense. It is stuff like this that is the reason for self-defense policies (policies at least two states are intent on eliminating as being “murder insurance”).

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          I don’t think a hung jury applies double jeopardy anywhere in the US. It’s typically a mistrial… although once you’ve had a couple of them the prosecutor often decides that it’s not worth pursuing, unless there’s significant political capital behind it.

      2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Yes, in the California Penal Code, it used to be known as the “homeowner’s presumption,” and it is found in PC 198.5:

        I’ll quote it here:

        “198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

        As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.”

        Two things to note carefully here:

        1. The homeowner is presumed to have “reasonable fear” – this means that if the members of the jury were presented with the homeowner’s circumstances at the moment of firing the shot, that they had a “reasonable fear” (as opposed to “bare fear” which a fear without informed thought).

        2. The presumption of “reasonable fear” means that the homeowner doesn’t need to establish the intent of the intruder. The fact that the intruder is breaking into the dwelling is what establishes the fear as reasonable.

      3. avatar rt66paul says:

        So, if my adult son(who lives with me) were to shoot an intruder, he would NOT be protected as my wife or I would, being homeowners? What about a renter?

        I have lived in Ca my whole life and never heard this. While it may be true, I would love to see some references.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          rt66paul,

          To answer your question:

          Any person using force … within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear …

          The way I read that, that law protects your son as long he is a “resident” of your home.

          Disclaimer: I am not an attorney — the above is my personal opinion and is not legal advice.

      4. avatar Kyle says:

        Yea, but the America’s antigun movement has long ago figured out how to win anyway. They bankrupt you. Just make sure you delay, and drown the defended in lawyers fees until he runs screaming.

        Its a tried and true tactic that needs to be fixed.

        If a defendant is found not guilty in a prosecution, especially by the state, the state should be required to pay all costs associated with the case. Until they are, this will be the system the state will use to win.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          The practical fix is to maintain self-defense “insurance”.

          The prosecutor sizes up the weight of your wallet and determines the likelihood of you running out of money before getting an acquittal.

          If you can’t afford a $300,000+ trial then you are his lawful prey.
          If you CAN afford a $300,000+ trial then he is apt to not try to coerce you to cop a plea nor to take you to trial.
          If your insurance coverage is unlimited (or enough to cover repeated trials) then he is apt to give-up after the first mis-trial where your insurance will have paid-out six figures.

          No one who carries a gun outside the home should do so without a self-defense “insurance” program. Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network is only $135/year which is pretty cheap. US Law Shield is $131. Others are $500 – $600/year.

    4. avatar Alan says:

      And what might be the result of a counter suit?

      1. avatar Geoff "I got your Super Bowl right *here*" PR says:

        In your case, probable bankruptcy…

    5. avatar mac says:

      Sadly, you are correct. Unfortunately, that can happen even in gun friendly states. The family of an armed robber in Austin, TEXAS sued the APD, claiming that the officer who threw a bicycle at their dearly departed son, who was pointing his handgun at APD officers who were thwarting his getaway. Thanks to then APD police chief Art Acevedo’s professed opinion that he did not like it when an officer shot at an armed suspect simply because THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF THE DEPARTMENT PERMITTED THE OFFICER TO LEGALLY DO SO, (not making that up) the cop threw the bike at the robber’s gun instead.
      Unfortunately for him, the dirtbag’s family claimed that it was only the bike striking their loved one’s arm that caused his handgun to discharge, resulting in his being shot by other officers. (not making that up either) Thanks, Acevedo.

  2. avatar guy says:

    I wonder if concealed carry insurance or self defense insurance covers carpet replacement if you splatter some dbag all over your carpet?

    1. avatar Cliff says:

      Naw… probably the victim defense fund… we have one here in Delaware…they come in after all the mess (legal – court appearance by the purp. etc..), then the victim must make a claim (if they are still alive).

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Couple of hounds will clean the mess up in minutes.

    3. avatar VaqueroJustice says:

      As the blood most certainly constitutes a biohazard,

      itreally should .

    4. avatar James Campbell says:

      Yes.
      Firearm Legal Protection in Texas pays for clean up and repairs after a home shooting. They also provide bail should the homeowner be arrested, pay the legal and expert testimony fees AS THE TRIAL PROCEEDS (no out of pocket as the trial proceeds), a payment of $1,000.00 to replace a firearm if it was taken as evidence (regardless of firearm “true” value, no need to pay the $1k back if firearm is returned to owner after trial).
      Being a member has its privileges.

  3. avatar Cowgirl says:

    Excellent gun control to the home owner. Not one word of this on the news. I’m sure it wont be either. It will totally mess up the dems agenda for campaigning for gun confiscation. I hope the home owner doesn’t get harassed or taken to court. I wonder if the criminal is another one of dumbos illegals?

  4. avatar Marcus says:

    What are the chances of a home invader picking the only house where someone owns a gun in a 50 mile radius?!?!?!?!

    1. avatar RGP says:

      He got lucky I guess but it didn’t quite work out as intended…

      1. avatar Cliff says:

        I would think that the purp …got very unlucky.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          I think the correct word is “punk.” As in, “do you feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?”

        2. avatar RGP says:

          People in San Francisco are enlightened, I don’t think it’s socially acceptable to refer to a punk as a punk there.

    2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      I wonder if there are more guns in SF homes than we might think.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Believe me, there are more here than anyone knows. It would make any ignorant Lefty crap his/her/its pants. I have three in my vehicle right now as we speak, unloaded, secured, and tucked out of sight (per CA restrictive law, of course).

        I was in a firearm course recently, and one of the fellow students was from the East Bay (Oakland) area. He said he makes sure he has a gun within reach at all times, as do many of his conservative friends and neighbors. There’s an underground 2A army living their lives undetected that would drive ‘ol Governor Hair Gel into conniptions.

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Come to think of it didn’t California have a huge gun culture in the 70’s to somewhere in the 90’s. Would figure there are still plenty of firearms floating around legal or not.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          We still have a huge gun culture here. It’s a state that has as many as 8 million gun owners. Unfortunately the bad guys outnumber the good guys here.

          As far as being charged or facing a suit for killing a home invader. You can avoid that worry by getting killed instead of doing the killing. I’d rather face any legal hassles, myself.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          I Haz a Question,

          [A student from the East Bay (Oakland) area] said he makes sure he has a gun within reach at all times, as do many of his conservative friends and neighbors.

          /begin_sarcasm

          Conservative people in the Bay area? Pffffftttt. No way man.

          /end_sarcasm

        4. avatar Adam V Strand says:

          Believe it or not… There are lots of lefties that fully support gun rights. And many do carry as well. I live in the City and if my home were invaded, I would do the same as the person in article, with no hesitation. Home castle. Intruder eliminate. Set up defense fund.

      2. avatar OBOB says:

        IN homes===yes
        In apartments==no

        because when you BUY a home suddenly on most cases YOU start to see what REAL taxes cost a person
        AND most new home owners suddenly convert from lefty blue DNC to Full BLOWN right red GOP when that first tax bill comes due!

        1. avatar Imayeti says:

          Send the family a bill for carpet cleaning and ammo.

    3. avatar R. Corrino says:

      You would be surprised how many residents in the bay area, not San Francisco but its surrounding cities and counties are armed. It is just that these are the people who are quiet, go on with their lives and unfortunately, do not vote as they believe that their votes mean nothing. Sadly, they are correct. The vocal minority is the one the State government panders to and this will only be stopped if we conservatives get off our asses and start shouting louder.

  5. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    if you count the number of air vent louvers you can approximate the age of that type11.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Solid rear window so after 1953.

      Other than that just not enough of the car for me to say what year it is.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        If those high back seats are stock, it’s at least a ‘68.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Memories………

        2. avatar Bob in Calif says:

          High back seats..’68 or later
          Louvered rear deck lid..’69 or later
          Bumpers changed in ’70 so I’d peg this one as a ’69.
          And by the way, it’s a type I.

    2. avatar Geoff "I got your Super Bowl right *here*" PR says:

      How in the hell could that VW ‘Bug’ survive without dissolving into a pool of rust, considering it was literally soaking in that salt air?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Proper care.

        My mother used to tell everyone she taught, from freshmen to PhD students the same thing: “If you can name one thing, that is object, in the physical world that doesn’t involve chemistry you get an A (or degree as the case may have been)”.

        No one ever managed to get that freebee.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        CA has a true car culture. I see classics used as daily drivers. You go from point a to point b here and you’re liable to encounter damn near any kind of car that can be licensed. I saw a Bently going past on my morning walk today.

        People take better care of their vehicles than they do of themselves here.

  6. avatar GS650G says:

    These events slow down the same types if crime for a while by reminding the scum there is no appeal, and no leniency from an armed victim.

  7. avatar OBOB says:

    I just looked up that address area

    OHHH MY F__KING GOD!!
    A 600sqft 1 bed 1 bath 750,000$$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. avatar guy says:

      Its insane!

  8. avatar Billb says:

    So the lush Peelosi will have this murderer tarred and feathered for daring to have a, GASP, GUN! when old booze head strictly forbade it!

    1. avatar R. Corrino says:

      It was barely in the news around here. Only Fox made a quick mention of it.

      It does not fit the narrative and it looks like the homeowner did everything by the book so they may nave to invent charges to indict him.

  9. avatar Dennis says:

    Awwww, he was probably just lookin for a place to take a dump!

    1. avatar bryan1980 says:

      Should’ve just used the sidewalk live everyone else!

      1. avatar bryan1980 says:

        *like

  10. avatar Fire says:

    One down 10,000+ to go!!

  11. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Soon to be Prosecuted Deplorable Gun Vigilante to be Prosecuted for Gratuitous Assisination of Home Invader

    There FIFY

  12. avatar bob says:

    Anyone else have an ad come up that was for Elizibeth Warren for president that smeared Trump as a rich kid?

    TTAG airing pro Democrat advertisement? Follow the money.

    1. avatar Ian in Transit says:

      No ads at all using Brave browser.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      bob,

      No. Most websites do not directly show advertisements. They typically allow a third party to show advertisements on their website.

      Think of it as TTaG providing a small space on their web page and an advertising agency pays TTaG for that small space. Then Business Z pays that advertising agency to display Business Z’s advertisement in that space. Thus, TTaG quite literally has basically no idea (nor control) over what appears in that space.

      1. avatar Toni Smith says:

        which means the advertising agency literally has no idea of the people they are advertising to. Though there are a few lefties on here so maybe it is for them. sadly cant see many of the lefties on here coming to the light

  13. avatar Douglas DiToro says:

    It shows again what happens when the police are not available to protect oneself. Kudos to the home owner. One has a God given right to protect oneself and ones family from evil doers. Hopefully the word will get around. Hopeful[y he has enough insurance from the law suit that will probably come from the criminal
    s family who will probably sue the homeowner. It is a sad state of affairs when the good guy is wrong and the bad gay is in the right.

  14. avatar EndDangerEd says:

    Homeowner should file suit against any next of kin….. Mental Anguish for having to defend themselves in that manner….” I’ll be seeing that blood forever”,,,, “I thought I was going to die! ” ad nauseum…

  15. avatar former water walker says:

    Better off getting rid of the body in Frisco😩😯😢

    1. avatar tommy haltom says:

      I like the way you think.

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    That linked video is a great illustration of the truth about police and violent crime: 99.99% of the time police show up long after the violent crime is over and put yellow tape around the area.

    I am absolutely confident that was no comfort to the homeowner while the home invasion was happening.

    As a retired police officer stated on this website a few months back with respect to violent crime: police are Historians and Janitors. Their assistance is limited to recording (for historical purposes) what they think happened and facilitating clean-up of the mess. Until they get there (minutes or hours later), you are on your own.

    1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      “As a retired police officer stated on this website a few months back with respect to violent crime: police are Historians and Janitors. Their assistance is limited to recording (for historical purposes) what they think happened and facilitating clean-up of the mess. Until they get there (minutes or hours later), you are on your own.”

      That is so true.

  17. avatar 1 in 3 million stopped in America with guns! says:

    Imagine that…someone in Cali Needed a gun…….that is 1 stopped out of a 100,000 assaults, robberies, rapes and murders in California and 1 in 3 million stopped n America with guns!

  18. avatar Retrocon says:

    Just a note to the author…

    The police did not call this “an isolated incident” insinuating that it does not happen often, they said “the incident is isolated to this residence.”

    That means that no other residences or public spaces are involved… a reassurance to the public.

    Otherwise, always glad when DGUs get press!

    1. You are correct. Text has been amended and a correction note posted. Thanks.

  19. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Having grown up in the 1970s in Sacramento County during the East Area Rapist attacks, it seems people have learned a little. Keep a gun in your home.

    But don’t tell anyone in 2020. And that’s the difference from all those years ago.

  20. avatar TheTruthHurts says:

    If Brisbane is anything like it was when I left the Bay Area 11 years ago let’s just say there was still an Old Town Western Mentality with closeknit neighbors who will Shoot your Ass if you Fuck Up in their town & the Police back then would Thank You for cleaning up a mess for them. The community back then was & still is Mostly White which in the Bay Area is Rare so Homeowner Wins. I think a lot of Cops live there as well.

  21. avatar RedFlagRising says:

    Have they arrested the illegal gun and charged it with violence yet?

  22. avatar ms. legit says:

    there was a correction to the original police report that came out early on 2/4 stating that this DID NOT APPEAR TO BE A HOME INVASION OR ROBBERY. not sure why gunguy didn’t include this. #factsmatter

  23. avatar Mr.357mag says:

    TheTruthHurts? Not really.
    Your view of Brisbane circa 2009 doesn’t match any of the hundreds of neighbors here I know. Brisbane has for the 40 years I’ve been here – been open to all people of good will.

    People in town are still wondering what the story is with this shooting. I’m guessing only one person knows – the shooter. I’m sure the police want to make sure the shooter’s story –
    whatever it is – is truthful.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email