Directories
Quick Searches
Find a Job
Quick Search
For Employers
Yahoo! HotJobs Local Search
Foley friend found guilty of assault
By: TERI FIGUEROA - Staff Writer | ∞
Lisa Maree Gaut at a press conference following her conviction of a felony assault with a deadly weapon and two misdemeanor drunken driving charges.
WALDO NILO Staff Photographer
Order a copy of this photo
Visit our Photo Gallery
SAN DIEGO -- A jury on Thursday found a San Diego woman guilty of assault with a deadly weapon for driving former San Diego Charger linebacker Steve Foley's car at an off-duty police officer in Poway.
But the jury acquitted the woman, Lisa Maree Gaut, on a separate charge of assault with a deadly weapon on an officer, a charge that alleged she knew that Aaron Mansker was a policeman during the Sept. 3 confrontation.
Juror Art Mills said Mansker's actions that night were "incredibly restrained," but the street-clothes clad officer's failure to show his badge to the duo created reasonable doubt that they knew he was a policeman.
"We decided that issue pretty quickly, about an hour's worth of debate," Mills said. "It would have been a different situation if he'd shown his badge."
Gaut was a passenger in Foley's car in the early morning hours when Mansker, who was dressed in a T-shirt and jeans and was driving his own car, tried to stop Foley on suspicion of drunken driving.
The ensuing confrontation between Mansker and Foley on Foley's quiet cul-de-sac left the 31-year-old linebacker with three .40-caliber bullet wounds that sidelined him for the season and appear to have ended his career. The Chargers cut Foley from the team last month, and Foley's agent said Thursday that Foley will never play professional football again.
In front of a packed courtroom, Gaut swallowed hard, exhaled and looked down as the clerk read the first guilty verdict. The jury also found Gaut guilty on two misdemeanor counts of drunken driving.
The woman will be back in court for sentencing on June 22. The assault conviction could land 26-year-old Gaut in prison for up to five years. Her attorney said they will ask the judge to consider a sentence of probation.
Gaut was a passenger in Foley's 1971 Oldsmobile Cutlass until the final moments of the confrontation.
When Foley got out of his car and walked up the street to confront Mansker, Gaut jumped behind the wheel of Foley's car and followed closely behind him.
Mansker said that after he shot the approaching Foley, he thought Gaut was trying to run him down. Gaut testified that she was only trying to reach and rescue the wounded football player.
Mills said Mansker was "credible" in his testimony and that Gaut's was "confusing."
Both the jury foreman, Roy Martinez, and juror Debby Dreischmeyer said they found Mansker's actions to have been "professional."
"He wasn't a rogue person at all, wasn't an emotional, hyped-up cop," Martinez said.
After the verdict, Gaut, her eyes moist and red, stood behind her attorney as he spoke to a crowd of reporters. Gaut declined to make a statement.
"We are obviously disappointed with the verdict. We intend to appeal, of course," Gaut's defense attorney, Raymond Vecchio said. "We have some questions as to how they could come to guilty on count one, but not guilty on count two."
Vecchio rebuked Foley and said the player did not come to Gaut's defense.
"Shame on Mr. Foley," Vecchio said. "He disappeared. He wouldn't talk to us from the very beginning, and I think that he had an effect on the case.
The NFL veteran did not testify at the trial.
Foley's agent, David Levine, said he would not discuss what his client may or may not have done with regard to Gaut's defense. He also said that "no defense attorney would ever allow their client to testify while they are facing criminal charges themselves."
Foley faces two misdemeanor counts of drunken driving in the incident; he has pleaded not guilty and his trial is set for May 7. Foley had a blood alcohol content of 0.16 percent, twice the legal limit in California.
Jordan Cohen, who is representing Foley in a related civil case, has previously said that Foley was not served a subpoena ordering him to testify, but that Foley would have invoked his right against self-incrimination if he had been called to court.
Levine, reached on his cell phone in western Florida on Thursday night, said he had not talked with Foley since the verdicts were announced, but expressed disappointment in the guilty finding.
"There was plenty of evidence that there was reasonable doubt that she was trying to go to Steve's aid, period," Levine said.
Mills, one of the jurors, said the panel would have liked to have heard from Foley during the trial, but that his testimony may have had no effect on their decision.
Deputy District Attorney Jim Koerber, who prosecuted the case, said he was "absolutely" pleased with the verdict.
"Clearly, they believed the police officer, because they convicted her on the assault count," Koerber said. "I believe he did identify himself, but I guess the jury had a question as to whether he could have done more."
During the two-week trial, jurors listened to a tape of the radio conversation Mansker had with police dispatchers when he spotted Foley allegedly weaving and driving erratically on northbound Highway 163.
Mansker called for backup and followed Foley on the freeways and then on surface roads leading to Foley's home. As Mansker followed Foley, police dispatchers told Mansker that uniformed officers were on their way, but were miles from the scene.
Once they were on surface streets in Poway, the NFL linebacker allegedly rebuffed Mansker's attempts to get him to pull over.
Mansker, who had been an officer with the city of Coronado for a little more than a year at the time of the shooting, testified that he repeatedly told the couple he was a police officer but did not show them a badge.
As Foley drove toward his home, he stopped the car a few times in the middle of the road and got out to confront Mansker.
Mansker said he pulled his gun on Foley and then on Gaut during the early confrontations in the streets leading to Foley's home. At one point, Foley allegedly uttered, "that's a BB gun," then walked back to his car and drove off.
The final clash came when the two cars reached Foley's street. Foley again got out and confronted Mansker, who then decided to give up the pursuit and head out -- but found himself trapped in a cul-de-sac.
As Foley walked up the street toward Mansker, Gaut jumped behind the wheel of Foley's souped-up muscle car and followed him.
Mansker has said he fired off a shot into a berm and warned Foley to stop. But Foley kept coming and, Mansker testified, reached for his waistband. Mansker pulled the trigger, shooting Foley.
With Gaut in the car and approaching him, Mansker fired at her, hitting each of the front tires. She veered the car away and into bushes.
Gaut testified that she was trying to reach and rescue Foley.
Whether Gaut intended to run over Mansker is a "moot point" under the law, juror Mills noted, and said the panel decided that the evidence showed Gaut had driven in Mansker's direction.
Juror Martinez said he found it very important that, on the recording of Mansker's conversations with police dispatchers as the incident progressed, Mansker reported that Gaut was trying to run him down.
Mills said the jury rejected Gaut's argument that she only jumped behind the wheel out of fear for their lives, that she had no other legal alternative.
"All they (Foley and Gaut) had to do was go down the hill and go away," Mills said. "Why didn't they call 911?"
Prosecutor Koerber argued that Foley's conduct in confronting Mansker was "drunk and defiant" and continued through the end of the event. He also contended that Gaut had a motive to get away from Mansker: an outstanding arrest warrant from a Northern California county.
In that 2004 case, which is not yet resolved, Gaut is accused of auto theft and receipt of stolen property. Vecchio said Gaut had borrowed a car from a friend, and did not know it was stolen.
-- Contact staff writer Teri Figueroa at (760) 631-6624 or tfigueroa@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Concerned-1 wrote on Apr 26, 2007 9:49 AM:I have to assume this is about the same incident, although the story does not make that clear. And were the two misdemanor DUI counts separate?
Absolutely Incredible wrote on Apr 26, 2007 9:50 AM:While I work hard to make sure I don't get into trouble I know that, if I did, I certainly don't want this group to be the one's to judge me!
This is a breath of fresh air! wrote on Apr 26, 2007 10:14 AM:Finally justice for the thugs in the world. She goes home with Foley after meeting him once. They are both drunk, and then probably at the direction of that thug tries to ram the police officer. Finally some sanity in the courts. Good job Jury! This was justice served!
Reseponse to: Absolutely Incredible wrote on April 26, 2007 9:50 AM:" wrote on Apr 26, 2007 10:16 AM:You sound like you probably do get into trouble or hang out with that type. This group a criminal in jail. Good job jury!
Finally a good judgement! wrote on Apr 26, 2007 10:18 AM:She deserves to go to prison! Trying to kill a police officer. Driving Drunk! Anyone who supports this, must think driving drunk is OK! She was breaking the law! Also, it isn't like she has got a record anyway! This is business as usual for this lady! Drunk and and violent!
This was the same incident, alright! wrote on Apr 26, 2007 10:27 AM:The same incident that almost killed a police officer, who was brave enough to try and stop a drunk driver, even when the on duty police didn't respond. The real story is what were those lazy deputies doing! Sleeping! Where was the big CHP. They are never around when you need them. But the tax us! Good Job Officer Mansker! One done and one to go! He was also charging Mansker, whether he was a police officer or not! Why did this Foley guy not go into his house and call the police? Why did he continue past after first stopping in his yarda and then pursue the police officer? I'll tell you one theory! He was drunk, he knew if he got caught, bye bye big football contract! He also couldn't stand being told that he could drive drunk and was all embarrassed in front of the one night girl friend he had just picked up! Come on this Foley guy is a bully and things the law if above him. He is also a Giant and clearly a violent person. He charges me, I am going to use whatever force available to stop him. His girlfirend is just as bad with the car as a weapon and being drunk! Again, where were the San Diego Deputies and CHP Flunkies as this guy was calling out for cover and assistance? Sleeping?
New Rules wrote on Apr 26, 2007 10:42 AM:If someone follows you home and starts shooting at you, your duty is to die, right?
To Response wrote on Apr 26, 2007 10:45 AM:Boy you couldn't be more off ... Your ability to jump to the wrong conclusions so quickly would you also remove you from the list of propective jurors should I ever need one. The fact is that I'm a self-employed white female in my mid-30s who has never had so much as a parking ticket let alone been arrested. I wouldn't have been out driving drunk at any time and certainly know there are better ways to handle being followed than confronting the situation, but there is absolutely no way I would have believed that guy was a cop. Foley & Mansker are the one's who displayed the bad behavior here and those are the one's who should be held accountable for their actions.
Fan Maybe wrote on Apr 26, 2007 10:46 AM:I am glad the jury reached the right verdict here now I hope the judge gives the right level of punishment. I am not sure she deserves to go to prison BUT she is guilty! Foley is the bad guy here and everybody has been tyring to defend him! The guy is and has been a thug throughout his career and has gotten away with bad behavior for years by intimidation! Hopefully, the next step will be that he is convicted of the charges against him.
What??? wrote on Apr 26, 2007 10:47 AM:So now can we get the CA to FINALLY charge Mansker with abuse of power under color of authority?
Response to : New Rules wrote on April 26, 2007 10:42 AM wrote on Apr 26, 2007 11:00 AM:That is a very dramatic response. It also makes no sense. The real thing to do is not be driving drunk. Not go toward people in cul de sacs, if you "...think they are dangerous!" Go inside your home and call the police. Take a place of safety. This Foley guy and his one night girlfriend wanted to say "how dare you stop me! I am a big football player!" You know what he is a big football player, big enough for a man of average stature to be very concerned that he would hurt him. Not to mention that Foley is drunk and has a past for aggresive behavior! This was a good call by the jury! And know you are not suppose to die. You are suppose to go away from the so called danger! But Foley didn't, he charged the officer! Foley caused this!
Response to: What??? wrote on April 26, 2007 10:47 AM:" wrote on Apr 26, 2007 11:07 AM:Are you kidding! You clearly do not know the law. Mansker had all the authority he needed. He was doing his duty. Just bececasue most police officer may choose to turn a blind eye to a drunk drivers and this guy Foley is a violent , doesn't mean he was wrong or not within his authority. He was clearly within his authority. A togh call to make and if this Foley couldn't throw a pig skin around, he would like the rest of us who dare to test the law. He is a nobody who pushes his weight around literally! ...Good Job Officer Mansker! You are in our prayers. The law abiding public is behind you and grateful for the sacrifices you have made and continue to make! Be Safe!
Response to : Fan Maybe wrote on April 26, 2007 10:46 AM:" wrote on Apr 26, 2007 11:10 AM:I agree with you. If everyone would read the papers or check this guy Foley history, it shows a pattern of violence in his past teams. He is out of control. You don't act like your gangsta, and when a police officer takes you serious, start crying foul! Foley is no one special. Plain and Simple!
To: What??? wrote on April 26, 2007 10:47 AM wrote on Apr 26, 2007 11:12 AM:You are outta your mind. If a guy comes directly toward you and you are giving him commands to stop. The guy is a monster football player. I would shoot too! A police officer or not! Plus, we can't have people thinking they can not do what the police say! Fley was clearly wrong. As much as you maky not like the polcie officer, he was doing his job. While you were all snug in your bed. ...
michelle wrote on Apr 26, 2007 11:33 AM:I feel sorry for Ms. Gaut. If a man followed my husband and I home and shot him, I would have done the same thing. I hope her sentence gets suspended. Best of luck.
Ok calm down... wrote on Apr 26, 2007 11:50 AM:Most of you don't hold an advanced P.O.S.T. certificate like I do or have been a Sergeant in a Metropolitan police Dept. for 11 years like I have. In both respects they were both wrong the Criminal and the Officer. This case exemplifies why young officers should be watched very closely ,even after their probationary period, which this officer was not with Coronado PD. Miles from his city, no backup immediately present. Having seen the driver and witnessed the events he should have followed at a safe distance, taken the information from the license plate and WAITED!!! Wait AND ONLY intervene if human life is immediately at threat. After locating the driver AFTER finding the car with the local authorities could he proceed with the arrest. Remember an Officer can still arrest for a misdemeanor committed not in his presence This is not monday morning quarterbacking THIS IS PROCEDURE. Not pushing a bad situation and being "John Wayne". Remember this officer's previous experience was being from Palomar College "Police" i.e. security guards. It may say Police yet being a cop is something else. You can't compare being with a Line officer with the L.A.P.D. and being a community college GUARD "Police". College dept's have the loosest idea of what being a cop is about. Hence the Virgina Tech Police example. Only REAL experience with a major Metro Dept can help. Colleges and Coronado is where one goes to End their career in peace or where they start because they knew someone or couldn't pass the stringent requirements of a Metro Police Dept. Nuff' Said.
O'side wrote on Apr 26, 2007 11:57 AM:Imagine you have been out for an evening of dinner, drinking, dancing, you meet someone and even though you know better you drive home. On the way you notice that a car is following you, you pull into your street and the car is still behind you. You're a big guy, a professional football player, you decide to get out of the car and confront the person following you. The person reacts by shooting at you. With the world the way it is today, drive by shootings, car jackings, road rage, would you think that the person was a police officer (in an unmarked car) who was concerned that you were driving under the influence or would you think it was someone up to no good? I think this police officer should be under investigation for his "over zealous" actions. I usually back the police 100%, but this case has so many strange twists and turns, why was he so far out of his jurisdiction? Why did he fail to identify himself as a police officer? Why didn't he try to get backup before the confrontation? Even if he suspected someone was driving under the influence, why didn't he call in "on duty" officers? I am sad that they found this girl guilty when she was trying to protect herself and her friend.
The question remains still......... wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:00 PM:Why didn't Mansker just wait for back up? He knew where Foley went; he could have waited for back-up. Not one person has the right to make injuries to others. I had a neighbor whom passed out in his car and was playing music at 3 am, I phoned the local police and they came to his residence, and arrested him for a DUI, even towed his car. I was a witness, not a suspect of that crime. I am in no way saying that DUI's are ok, all I am saying is that, it is not ok to go around not showing your badge and shooting someone whom is under the influence and not comprehending the situation. It would have been different if Mansker was in uniform, and a badge and a marked car; I believe Foley would have stopped then. It is obvious that Foley didn't know what to make of the situation, could have been some deranged fan, following him...She deserves the conviction of the DUI, but not the assault. The charges contradict each other, guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, but not guilty of assault on the officer, ok what was she trying to run over Foley, does not make sense? Everyone does things wrong in their lives, but it is God we answer to not a police officer thinking it's ok to take me out. I have been convicted of a DUI, I did my time, and I wouldn't do it again, so call me a thug too. There are countless number of people out there in this world that have DUI's, guess we all are thugs, you wouldn't know it if you saw me. I hope Mansker gets what he deserves...You can not trust anyone, anywhere, anytime!
Shoot First? wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:08 PM:I also feel sorry for Ms. Gaut. Both Foley and Gaut were unarmed and had made no threats to Mansker who was armed and eager to shoot. Mansker should not be praised by anyone!
CC wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:08 PM:Why should her alcohol lever be suspect, she was only trying to help the guy that was shot. How come the guy who is supposed to be an officer has no charges filed against him. Come on now, what was he doing out at 3:45AM but looking for trouble. Or was it to up hold and serve his country? I think the guy is a thrill seeker trying to get himself glorified or be made a hero. He has a long way to go on that road.
Foley Not The Issue Today wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:09 PM:Foley will stand trial for his role in this fiasco shortly. Maybe we can save the "It's Foley's fault" parade until his trial. We all know he used incredibly bad judgment and displayed absolutely ridiculous behavior. He should be appropriately punished and, if I had any faith left in the judicial system (which I don't), I might be able to believe he will be. Gaut, on the other hand, should not have been tried and certainly should not have been convicted. This jury was way off the mark here.
agree with michelle wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:10 PM:I'd have no problem getting behind the wheel of a car and running someone over if they were shooting the person I was with. The cop was out of line. He didn't see a gun. He shouldn't have shot.
Response to Michelle wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:11 PM:I fell sorry for this police officer. Oh !Aslo your husband! Ha!
to: Ok calm down wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:15 PM:I looked on the City of San Diego website to confirm what I learned in law school, "a police officer can arrest a person for a misdemeanor only if the crime is committed or attempted in his or her presence". I otherwise agree with your post.
If Foley were white ... wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:18 PM:Nobody would be defending Mansker, who testified at trial he never showed his badge nor state ID card. ANYONE can claim to be an officer - properly trained officers know this and clearly identify themselves to suspects when off-duty. No citizen is required to submit just because someone CLAIMS to be an officer, particularly someone who is not in uniform nor in an unmarked vehicle. Care to wager on how soon Coronado fires Mansker? Or how long it takes the appeals court to overrule this asinine verdict?
Response to: O'side wrote on April 26, 2007 11:57 AM wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:20 PM:Ok! I'll "...imagine you have been out for an evening of dinner, drinking, dancing, you meet someone and even though you know better you drive home. On the way you notice that a car is following you, you pull into your street and the car is still behind you. You're a big guy, a professional football player, you decide to get out of the car and confront the person following you. " AT THIS POINT YOU GO HOME AND CALL THE POLICE. YOU DON'T WALK A GREAT DISTANCE AWAY FROM YOUR HOME AND TOWARD THE GUY WITHY THE GUN. HE IS STILL TELLING YOU HE IS A POLICE OFFICER AND TO STOP. HE SHOOTS ONCE INTO THE BUSHES AFTER YOU TELL HIM IT ISN'T A REAL GUN! he person reacts by shooting at you. With the world the way it is today, drive by shootings, car jackings, road rage, would you think that the person was a police officer (in an unmarked car) who was concerned that you were driving under the influence or would you think it was someone up to no good? I think this police officer should be under investigation for his "over zealous" actions. I usually back the police 100%, but this case has so many strange twists and turns, why was he so far out of his jurisdiction? Why did he fail to identify himself as a police officer? Why didn't he try to get backup before the confrontation? Even if he suspected someone was driving under the influence, why didn't he call in "on duty" officers? I am sad that they found this girl guilty when she was trying to protect herself and her friend."
Response to: O'side wrote on April 26, 2007 11:57 AM wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:25 PM:Ok! I'll "...imagine you have been out for an evening of dinner, drinking, dancing, you meet someone and even though you know better you drive home. On the way you notice that a car is following you, you pull into your street and the car is still behind you. You're a big guy, a professional football player, you decide to get out of the car and confront the person following you. " AT THIS POINT YOU GO HOME AND CALL THE POLICE. YOU DON'T WALK A GREAT DISTANCE AWAY FROM YOUR HOME AND TOWARD THE GUY WITHY THE GUN. HE IS STILL TELLING YOU HE IS A POLICE OFFICER AND TO STOP. HE SHOOTS ONCE INTO THE BUSHES AFTER YOU TELL HIM IT ISN'T A REAL GUN! Do you still keep charging at him? Do you still threaten him. Or do you walk away toward your house, becuase you are such a law abiding citizen! By the way the this police officer is under investigation, Everytime, there is a complaint, from a ticket to a shooting, there is an investigations. Plus you don't usually back the police 100%, because if you did, you would be bad mouthing him here! The strange twists and turns, why was he so far out of his jurisdiction, etc is the news paper making money! The real story is why isn't evrybody up in arms about Foley, this football thug, who has a record of this stiff and supporting the police? Good Job Officer Mansker!
Response to ::Shoot First? wrote on April 26, 2007 12:08 PM wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:26 PM:Did you even read any of the stories? Read the newspaper and keep up. They attcjed the police officer!
please... wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:26 PM:Drunk drivings as American as apple pie! Maybe we should think twice about our social norms and the consequences associated with drinking in general. Its all about the pursuit of happiness. God forbide if the alcohol industry was ever held responsible. They're a big money making enterprise that pays much in the way of taxes so dont plan on that happening anytime soon! Its ok to push the stuff by any means necessary as long as they remember to say "Drink Responsibly" at the end of every advertisement, commercial etc.
Response to : If Foley were white ... wrote on April 26, 2007 12:18 PM: wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:28 PM:Ok here it comes. The whitey card! Please how long will the spin masters keep up at that old stanby? He is better than white. He is a black football player! He can never be wrong and if he is, Blame the white man! Come on! That is so 60s! Foley has it all. This white cop doesn't have a chance!
Response to : to: Ok calm down wrote on April 26, 2007 12:15 PM wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:30 PM:Go back to law school. There many excetion to the misdemeanor rule. One is DUI, another is Domestic Violence. Plus none of that is relavant, because the DUI was committed infront of Officer Mansker! Please, where did you go to Law School. Did you even finish?
Response to : CC wrote on April 26, 2007 12:08 PM:" wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:32 PM:Why was her DUI status an issue? Are you kidding! That is why this thing started. She is guilty. End of story! ... You are all such blind fans. Do you have any self esteem. To follow the law. Or is the man out to get you! Good Job Officer Mansker!
To Response to O'Side wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:33 PM:Without addressing to totality of your response (I am not that poster), I do have to say that your suggestion of appropriately handling the situation by going home and calling the police is just STUPID!!! Call the police for sure, but what moron is going to lead a complete stranger that is following them in the middle of the night to their house!? The first step would be to call the police from your cell phone. If a cell phone is not available, then the correct response would be to either drive to the nearest police station (if you know where it is) or drive to a very public & populated area (theory of safety in numbers) where you could then find a phone to call the police.
Respons to : Please wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:36 PM:Drunk Driving is not American! It is ghetto and slefish crime. My daughter was killed by a criminal who was driving drunk like ... his so called girlfriend!
Andy wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:38 PM:It's a sad day for San Diego when we have Barney Fife protecting us.
Vista Jury selection is corrupt wrote on Apr 26, 2007 12:52 PM:The only people that get selected for jury in the Vista Court House are white, old, REPUBLICAN, and many walk around with their bible on their hand in the jury rooms. This should be appealed immediate to the 4th appellate. Someone needs to look into the practices at the Vista Court House. To start of with a grand jury investigation. (ups wait it is the same people that sit on the grand jury) How about the California Attorney General Jerry Brown?
GML TEACHER wrote on Apr 26, 2007 1:00 PM:what a travesty of justice!!! I would not have stopped for that sucker either. Dark, middle of the night, crazy fans... I would have done the same... Glad its not me!!!
Floyd wrote on Apr 26, 2007 1:16 PM:How could they attack Mansker when neither Foley nor Gaut had a gun? Mansker needs to be charged with impersonating a police officer.
Concerned-1 wrote on Apr 26, 2007 1:18 PM:Well at least a few of the posts got it right. The fact is Munsker did not follow SOP...for anyone. When you see a crime, you should report it to the authorities and let them do their job. As I recall, Munsker didn't call 9-1-1. He called the Coronado dispatch. That's either dumb, or he wanted to do a little background check. I'm guessing it was the latter. When he found out who Foley was, he went for it. Probably seeking publicity. Well, he got it.
Re: Response to : CC wrote on Apr 26, 2007 1:44 PM:Correction ... Gaut's DUI has nothing whatsoever to do with why this thing started. In fact, it was a complete afterthought. It was, instead, Foley's[alleged] DUI that got this whole thing started.
Not a fan wrote on Apr 26, 2007 1:46 PM:but if it is dark outside, and you give me any kind of orders you best be in uniform, in a marked car, have a badge, identify yourself and be very patient when I state, "I am in fear for my safety and will wait for you to call for back up." Otherwise, I am not following your orders, will be calling for backup and driving to the nearest police station where we can get to the bottom of the situation. I think Ms. Gault is definitely guilty of a DUI but Mansker failed to identify himself as an officer of the law. If he is allowed, I think the judge should overturn the assault with a deadly weapon conviction. She was probably in severe fear for her life. You aren't thinking straight when fear is involved. Mansker needs more training before he can go out to 'Protect and Serve'. The police have a tough time as it is to be hindered by poorly trained fellow policemen.
Outraged wrote on Apr 26, 2007 1:49 PM: While finding that the officer did not properly identify himself (thus the finding of not guilty of assaulting a peace officer) they find Gaut guilty of DUI. She would not have been driving if her driver had not been shot by an attacker. In fact, if they find that she did not know Munsker was an officer how could her "Assualt with a deadly weapon" be anything but self defense? This is a complete injustice!
JM wrote on Apr 26, 2007 1:50 PM:Response to Calm down.....You sound like a nice paper COP....Advanced POST II whoopie! You might want to sign up for a basic writing course...your post was difficult to read. Your sentences all ran together.
JD wrote on Apr 26, 2007 2:24 PM:It is about time....I am really surprised that she didn't get off scott-free....Hopefully she will receive some jail time...otherwise this verdict is meaningless.
All Wrong wrote on Apr 26, 2007 2:40 PM:This is all wrong. I am one who works with police officers on a regular basis. The concensus among them is that Mansker was at fault. He provoked the incident with Foley and Gaut. Using the car as a shield should have been justified as self defence, not assault. The only legal thing she should have been guilty of is driving under the influence. Even that should have been thrown out because the two were under diress and thought they were fighting for their lives. Had Mansker identified himself with his badge as he is supposed to, they final outcome may very well not happened at all. All you that are praising Mansker better hope he is not following you home some night.
to OK calm down... wrote on Apr 26, 2007 2:59 PM:Thank you for adding some reason here. Why is it that the Foley is a thug crowd have to cheerlead for a cop who clearly ... up? Hard to believe this woman got convicted. If she shot the cop and got convicted I bet the NRA would be all over it.
Concerned-1 wrote on Apr 26, 2007 3:27 PM:One thing is for sure, this is not the last we'll hear of it. Foley lost a lucrative career and he is going to sue big time. I wouldn't be surprised if the City of Coronado comes into play. My take again...all three made bad mistakes, Musker's was the worst.
JR wrote on Apr 26, 2007 3:54 PM:Thank you ok calm down for a dose of sanity. There was more than enough stupidity to go around that night.
SWIZZLE STICK wrote on Apr 26, 2007 4:06 PM:"If you are unsure whether the car is a police car or not, drive slowly and pull over to a public place with good lighting and stop." From a Florida Public Defender website. I believe that is now the law in California since a CHP officer stopped a woman, raped her and killed her. If signaled by a police officer to pull over you have a right to proceed to a public, lit place so that witnesses are present. Then you must stop.
To michelle - wrote on Apr 26, 2007 4:07 PM:If your husband chooses to confront an armed man that is yelling at him ... and if this individual doing the yelling and holding the gun is anything other than a peace officer, You husband will probably get shot. And, if you decide to drive at him, you probably will get shot too.
Not amused wrote on Apr 26, 2007 4:44 PM:Wow, I wish the jury had all of the opinions and alleged facts that some of you are are privy to. All the jury had was evidence to base their opinions on. Imagine that.
TIM wrote on Apr 26, 2007 4:45 PM:I THINK MANKER SHOULD BE ON TRIAL. HE DID SHOT A PERSON DESROYED HIS LIFE.
To Not Amused wrote on Apr 26, 2007 5:01 PM:Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the numerous "headline catching" trials that have been taking place for different crimes in different places throughout the country. Evidence is no longer required to convict someone. All you need now is speculation and a group of 12 people dumb enough to buy into it.
To not amused 4:44 wrote on Apr 26, 2007 5:23 PM:You are so right! The jury based their opinion on evidence. Since she was AQUITTED on the charge of assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer, the evidence showed that officer Mansker failed to properly identify himself. I think he is, or should be, in BIG trouble, dispite the loyal "cops can do no wrong" group posting here.
Me wrote on Apr 26, 2007 5:24 PM:Wow, can't believe she is looking at prison time, when you see child molesters running free on probation. What is this country coming to. I would be scared out of my pants if I saw guy playing cop shooting at me-and I say playing cop because at that hour of the night in plain clothes that is what he would look like to me. SCARY!!!!!
RE to not amused 5:01 wrote on Apr 26, 2007 5:41 PM:Sit on a jury and find out what it is like. I have been on 12 juries in my lifetime. I have seen black jurors harder on their own kind than the white folks on the same jury panel. I have seen jurors vomit over the evidence that was presented. All this for our duty as citizens.
anne wrote on Apr 26, 2007 5:56 PM:Lisa Gaut and her aunt and friends met a famous person, be it an athlete or moviestar, who invited everyone to his house,who wouldn't go? lisa slept all the way up to the exit so she didn't see the person who was trying to pull Foley over,all she knew was some weirdO was trying to get an autograph, or rob them,if I was Lisa I would have ran the guy over so he wouldn't rob or rape or kill me, Foley was down he wouldn't be able to help me.The cop should be fired,Foley a DUI, and Lisa a medal, she's the only one who used good judgement.Good luck on your appeal Lisa.
To: RE to not amused 5:01 wrote on Apr 26, 2007 6:48 PM:I have sat on a jury and it only made me even more disgusted with the process. If it works for you great ... If I ever needed it send me to arbitration PLEASE!! These so-called peers are not qualified!
vlgemini wrote on Apr 26, 2007 7:07 PM:I am outraged that Lisa Marie Gaut has been convicted! She had no idea that Mansker was a cop. If the same thing had happened to me I would have reacted to defend myself from this unknown assailant just as she did. Why didn't Mansker call for an ON DUTY officer to handle the situation correctly. Cops have for the most part become judge, jury, and executioner on the streets of CA. Just for your info, I am a disabled woman on oxygen, but was formerly a para legal and I've never been arrested, but I have been hassled by cops on a power trip many times. I've also learned through my paralegal work that most juries have at least one police officer on them and can be very influential with their apparent knowledge of the system. Anyway you cut it, the "justice" system is rarely about justice, it's about power.
Brad wrote on Apr 26, 2007 7:20 PM:Hey Vlgemini - You know not about what you speak. Police Officers are "PROHIBITED" in California from serving on criminal jury trials. Try fooling someone else!
to Brad wrote on Apr 26, 2007 8:00 PM:They can't serve on juries in the district from which they currently are working, but retired cops, former cops, cops from other districts "serve" on juries regularly.
To Andy: wrote on Apr 26, 2007 8:23 PM:And we would rather have you protecting San Diego? I'd rather have Barney fife.
Western World wrote on Apr 26, 2007 9:13 PM:Why all the noise...This is after all the wild wild west. Victims are, after all, criminals in sheeps clothing. Couch the BS, the young rookie officer saw a chance to make a name for himself, and took it. Bad Bad Idea! The courts will favor police stories over the accounts of others always...you know, all animals are equal, its just that some animals are more equal than others....In America's finest city.
Brad wrote on Apr 26, 2007 9:14 PM:HEY VLGEMINI: Try reading, if you can, CA Code of Civil Procedure #219. You might learn something! Police Officers CANNOT serve on any CIVIL or CRIMINAL juries. Try fooling someone else. 219. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the jury commissioner shall randomly select jurors for jury panels to be sent to courtrooms for voir dire. (b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), no peace officer, as defined in Section 830.1, subdivision (a) of Section 830.2, and subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, of the Penal Code, shall be selected for voir dire in civil or criminal matters. (2) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), no peace officer, as defined in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 830.2 of the Penal Code, shall be selected for voir dire in criminal matters.
To everyone else wrote on Apr 26, 2007 9:34 PM:Take it from someone who worked in the CA court system - cops do all kinds of things they're not supposed to, as well as those things that they arrest others for. Many of them (especially the young ones) are on a power trip. The justice system is all about who has the power. period!
vlgemini wrote on Apr 26, 2007 10:04 PM:Take it from someone who worked in the CA court system - cops do all kinds of things they're not supposed to, as well as those things that they arrest others for. Many of them (especially the young ones) are on a power trip. The justice system is all about who has the power. period! So Brad is a big bad cop who's on a power trip and is more concerned with tearing me down than with discussing the injustice to Ms Gaut.
Rob wrote on Apr 26, 2007 10:58 PM:The jury really screwed this one up. They rightfully voted right away that she did not know he was a cop because he never even showed his badge. That being said, how could they not give her the right to try to defend herself and Foley against someone whom she thought was attacking them? It is totally contradictory and nonsensical.
the outlaw wrote on Apr 27, 2007 12:36 AM:you see ...Ms gault, your only crime was that you were riding in a car with a Balck amn. You were stalked by a White Man. he brandished his gun and followed you to Mr Foley's house at 3 oclock in the morning. He , meaning the Almighty white Man--SHOT Mr Foley , and then Shot at YOU. But at 3 oclock you were supposed to make Rational, logical, intellligent decisions, you see the Almighty White JURY would have done so. they have faced angry white men at 3 oclock in the morning and they deeply understand what you were up against. so from now on, try never to be in a situation where the Almighty WHITE JURY's can, ahem understand !!!! i wonder if Foley were White would those buffoons on WHITE JURY would have seen then!!!!!!
Curious wrote on Apr 27, 2007 1:24 AM:It seems like there were three people making bad decisions that night. There was only one, though, that intentionally hurt someone else that evening. I also find it interesting that the car was supposed to be driving the car at the officer to assault him, yet in the footage we see, the back of the car is practically in the driveway and the officer's car is about half a block away. How far did she lunge... 1 foot?
David wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:27 AM:This 23 year old cop never showed a badge. NEVER...He should lose his badge. If this cop follows me home drun or sober I hope my wife does the same thing to try to save my life. He was an "EAGER BEAVER",and I hope that the next time that you all "Eager Beaver" supporters leave Qualcom or the Gaslamp and you have a burned out tail light and this "Eager Beaver" pulls you over and ruins your day you thank him for such! Arron Mansker is a disgrace to the badge. He got scared and he almost killed someone. Do you feel better now?
What can I say wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:29 AM:This jury got it wrong. I believe the girl. She was trying to save a live from a duranged nut job with a gun...Oh he's a cop? He never showed a badge.
Dan wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:35 AM:This Mansaker guy should turn in the badge that he never showed before he shot a man for drunk driving. Think about it...shot a man for drunk driving! You don't get death for manslaughter. Shot for drunk driving. Now I don't think you should drive drunk but for him to be shot. His career taken away, what is more senseless the act or the action? How drunk could he have been Mansaker? He made it home until you shot him. Things that really make you go HMMM!
Andy from Mayberry wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:46 AM:But that thing away Mansker before you hurt yourself!!! Seriously I am glad I don't live in Coronado. I may have to go out and get another dog to protect me from crime. This verdict sucks. Appeal appeal appeal. Since when does a cop have the right to follow you home shot your companion and neve reveal a badge. What is the world coming to. War without cause shooting without justice.
Randy wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:50 AM:This shooting was totally unjustified. The real problem with this verdict is that it was the first to be tried. If it had been tried last after the shooting was cleared. Thaen she would have never been convicted. Rememeber folks if you are ever a passenger of a vehicle andf an under qualified over zealous cop pulls you over and attempts to play judge and jury... Don't try to save your friends life...you may be held and charged with a cime and face years in prison. The jury got this one wrong!
Chief wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:52 AM:Take his Badge since he didn't want to show it anyway. He is just another insecure fool that gets to carry a gun.
To Vista Jury wrote on Apr 27, 2007 3:00 AM:The only ones on a Vista jury are not smart enough to get out of it. If that is the white republicans so be it. They are the only ones that believe in Georege W.and this "War" that we are going to "fight" for the next thousand years, or until we get a democrat to pull out of. I am a democrat I don't do jury duty I don't believe in this verdict and i don't agree with the war...SO SHOOT ME.
Johnny wrote on Apr 27, 2007 3:03 AM:I just drove drunk and didn't get shot..Count your blessings name them one by one...Count you blessings...
Ford wrote on Apr 27, 2007 3:07 AM:I cannot believe that they got twelve people to agee with this nonsense. Everyone knows that the first thing they teach a cop in the academy is how to lie. The second thing they teach is how to lie on the witness stand.
Ford again wrote on Apr 27, 2007 3:12 AM:You need proof? How many times has a cop shot someone, anyone in San Diego and the cop was held accountable? It doesn't happen. Time and time again the cops shoot the cops kill. They keep getting away with it. The next time a cop is held accountable for a shooing. It will be the first. Its the mentality of the cops shoot first....
Hung jury wrote on Apr 27, 2007 3:19 AM:That is what the out come would have been if I we in the jury room. Sorry folks but. I beleive that she moved the car to save a mans live. Not calling 911. You are thinking for her. You were not there. Did she move that car to save a life or to run someone over. I believe she was trying to save a life. The cell phone nonse sense is purely speculation.
BUCK wrote on Apr 27, 2007 3:27 AM:WOW! She got jobbed. Hope the judge sees this and gives her probation.
Teri wrote on Apr 27, 2007 4:31 AM:The tragic chain of events was precipitated by the acts of an overzealous police officer. Had the off-duty peace officer driven straight home, none of this would have happened.
Ha Ha Ha wrote on Apr 27, 2007 4:55 AM:All of you oh so rational Charger fans... Guess what Foley and Gaut were drunk. Guess what your hero Foley didn't have the courage to stand up for his convictions and testify for his friend. Guess what the jury who heard all the facts made the right decision and convicted her! And last guess what if all is right with the world Foley will be the next one convicted! ...
Luke wrote on Apr 27, 2007 5:08 AM:This woman collects convictions like a military man collects campaign ribbons.
Peter wrote on Apr 27, 2007 6:59 AM:So if someone walks up with a gun and says he's a cop you have to believe them? If someone pulls a gun on me and doesn't prove they are a cop right away, I'm running them over/Self defense! Way too many people out their impersonating cops for what this cop did to be okay. I don't think she did anything wrong. ... Foley was stupid for confronting him ...
JK wrote on Apr 27, 2007 7:46 AM:The jury in this trial confirms in my mind that their is a huge number of innocent people doing time in this country for crimes they did not commit. Our legal system, including overzealous law enforcement and prosecution, scares the hell out of me. The true meaning of justice disappeared when "zero tolerance" became law enforcements slogan.
Not amused wrote on Apr 27, 2007 8:20 AM:To the critics of the jury system, yes it is true. It is not perfect. But unlike some of you, I know that headlines and the news is even farther from being perfect or even believable. And to you pen pals who cry about race being the issue, you are right. DUI should be a free pass for the "oppressed". PS the officer could have used better judgement to be sure, as Foley could have. I know, walking towards an armed man who just fired a warning shot demonstrates good judgement as well, right?
esteban wrote on Apr 27, 2007 8:49 AM:Wow...sure are a LOT of uninformed know it alls here. Will you folks please shut up now that she's been rightly convicted? YOur arguments are weak and moot. YOu lost!!!! Get over it!!!
Floyd wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:40 AM:Foley was able to drive all the way home without hurting anyone. Mansker stalked him, pulled a gun, shot him, and ended Foley's football career. It's not Foley that poses a danger to us all -- it's Mansker! And for attempting to protect Foley, Gaut is a hero!!
TIM wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:58 AM:ESTERBAN YOU SOUND LIKE A NO IT ALL.DONT BE TELLING PEOPLE TO SHUT ITS NOT NICE. FREE SPEECH IS STILL ALIVE.
COP WRONG wrote on Apr 27, 2007 10:04 AM:This is wrong. This woman was obviously doing the only thing shecould think of after her friend was shot three times by someone who didn't look like or act like a police officer and could have been a deranged fan or crazy which is something famous people have to deal with all the time. Let's give this officer the benefit of the doubt and say this very young, very green officer did the wrong thing for the right reasons, he was trying to keep people from being hurt by what he thought ... was a drunken driver BUT he didn't show a badge, he wasn't in uniform, he wasn't driving a police cruiser- did anyone check HIS alcohol level? He's now ruined two people's lives forever with no consequences- when is he coming up on charges?
Hero? wrote on Apr 27, 2007 10:16 AM:I definitely believe the jury messed up big time. She shouldn't have been on trial let alone convicted. But a hero? That's a word that's clearly getting thrown around a bit too much these days!
Where Waldo wrote on Apr 27, 2007 10:19 AM:Foley, Foley, Foley, Foley! Where Foley? How come Foley never testied to help her defense?
David wrote on Apr 27, 2007 10:26 AM:The off duty cop, far away from his jurisdiction, could have easily stayed down the road and called the on duty cops who serve Poway. What was the emergency that, once they reached home and were going to go inside, that he had to confront them and shoot Foley? Answer: None, he is a rogue cop.
Go Chargers!! NOT wrote on Apr 27, 2007 10:54 AM:I'm surprised that there aren't more knuckleheaded Charger fans on here complaining that the team needed Foley, that he was a good player, great career cut short, etc. If that dude was NOT a pro football player this case barely would have registered with the public. But since he's a big tough "duhhh, footbawl" player, the story gets all kids of play in the media.
Dirtbags wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:01 AM:These two individuals ruined their own lives. Why can't people just take responsibility for their own actions...I am sure that if Foley had arrived home safely, the first thing he would have done is call the police to come arrest him for driving under the influence. He has a history of run ins with uniformed police...now he has lost his career as a has been 3rd string professional footbrawl player....live with it
Ellen wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:16 AM:Response to Outlaw, I for one am tired of the "race card". Everytime it's a black man who commits the crime and is convicted, it's because of the color of his skin. Next time you are in trouble or need help, don't call a cop. I think that Mansker did exactly the right thing and I hope he has a long career. We need more Officers like him.
Sad wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:19 AM:Foley is the only one who should be going to trial for DUI and nothing else. Gault did nothing wrong. When you got some guy claiming to be a cop,(not proving it) drunk or sober you have to do something to protect your self & others. If this was some crazed fan would she still have gotten charged? I doubt it, but since it was a crazed cop she got busted.
Floyd wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:22 AM:The dictionary defines "hero" as a person who shows great courage. That would be an unarmed Foley attempting to deal with a stalker and an unarmed Gaut attempting to prevent Foley's death when Mansker started shooting. Yes, hero is the right word for both Foley and Gaut.
To Ellen wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:30 AM:I too hate the race card as it serves no purpose other than to justify/excuse bad behavior. That said, Mansker's behavior was far from acceptable and to condone in any way is a major disservice to any civilized society. Foley will stand trial and will also not likely be significantly punished because he's an athlete. Mansker won't even face charges for his reckless behavior because he's a cop. Neither scenario is acceptable to me. The biggest problem here is that Gaut got the shaft while everyone else will probably walk.
In over his head wrote on Apr 27, 2007 12:05 PM:I can never remember receiving training in the police academy that said it was alright to get into a pursuit in my personal vehical and then shoot the dude when I realized how big he was. This whole incident was a result of an escalation of force that was not called for. Gault should walk, Foley should be convicted of a DUI, and the officer should be fired.
To In over his head 12:05 PM wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:00 PM:Yep, you have it right! The real injustice in this whole mess will be if Mansker isn't held responsible for his terrible lack of common sense. One poster called him a "hero" and one even said "we need more like him". We most certainly do NOT need more of his type. We already have more than enough road-rage, and there are lots of opportunities for the police to get drunks off the street without shooting them.
to the above expects wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:03 PM:How many of you sat in the court room and listened to ALL THE EVIDENCE? Thats what I thought-none. To the police Sgt., you have a serious problem, and every cop out there knows it.
Resposes to inover ur head wrote on Apr 27, 2007 3:27 PM:I agree with u 100%. Mansker Should be fired!
to hung jury... wrote on Apr 27, 2007 6:29 PM:Obviously that is exactly why you would not sit on the jury. Rant and rave all you want, this {woman} deserves all that she has coming to her for trying to run someone over in a fit of drunken stupor. As far as the cop, we need more like him for sure.
esteban wrote on Apr 27, 2007 6:53 PM:Wow....the sgt from a metro area sounds like a real hero....supercop!!!! I hope he saves me when I need help. He's dreamy...
Me wrote on Apr 27, 2007 7:11 PM:Even if she had called 911-she would have been on "hold"--------------- till the Cows came home!!!!!
to Brad and Esteban wrote on Apr 27, 2007 7:18 PM:You guys please take a deep breath count 10 and then stop the personal attacks, discuss facts and opinions not name calling
To swizzle stick wrote on Apr 27, 2007 8:28 PM:Not stopping for an emergency vehicle (immediatley yielding to the right when directed to do so) is a violation of law, and will get you in trouble, ie, arrested, chased, shot. If the vehicle is NOT a marked vehicle, public place is good choice. If it is a MARKED vehicle, you better pull over vice getting your butt thrown in jail for fleeing.
Hopefully the city of Coronado will be sued big time wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:39 PM:These are the types of police officers they hire? Foley will lose out on tens of miilions of dollars because an officer that never showed proof he was an officer decided to shoot. He could have locked his doors and stayed in the car, he could have driven off, he could have done many other things than shoot his gun.
Mansker would have kept firing if not for the women driving wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:45 PM:This was a crazed individual feeling he had the right to follow anyone he decides to and if he gets into trouble he pulls out his gun and starts firing. Seems to me Mansker broke many rules of being a police officer. I hope he doesn't drive around my town.
COPPER wrote on Apr 30, 2007 12:45 PM:All you people who think the cop did wrong, know nothing about police procedure. Could have he handled it differently? Sure, he could have turned a blind eye when a crime is being committed like the rest of you would. He chose to act, and Foley tried his hand, and got shot. He did nothing wrong. He, as any reasonable person would have, felt threatened so he defended himself. We're allowed to do that you know. We don't have to die, or wait to see if we are going to doe.
Real Charger Fan wrote on May 2, 2007 9:43 PM:Two misdemeanor counts as in 23152 (a) and 23152 (b) CVC. Look them up stupid.
- ESCONDIDO: Man shot dead at Fourth of July party (9990)
- TEMECULA: Protesters line intersection (6096)
- ESCONDIDO: 3 DUI arrests, 46 impounds at checkpoint (4934)
- ESCONDIDO: City's dreams of an 'upscale' downtown may be dying (4635)
- ESCONDIDO: Victim's roommate recalls July 4 shooting, friends gather for vigil (4429)
Advertisement