Directories
Quick Searches
Find a Job
Quick Search
For Employers
Yahoo! HotJobs Local Search
Self-defense or excessive force?
By: JOHN HALL - Staff Writer
In the wake of Old Town Temecula shooting, experts talk about legal self-defense | ∞
TEMECULA -- After an off-duty Costa Mesa police officer shot and killed a Temecula man during a fight in Old Town earlier this month, he told homicide investigators he believed his life was in danger and was acting in self-defense.
But some people question if the shooting was necessary. On a busy street in Old Town Temecula on a Saturday night with numerous people not far away, did the off-duty officer have reason to fear for his life? The man who was fatally shot wasn't carrying a weapon, so did the officer really need to fire shots to protect himself?
Those are the types of questions investigators are trying to find answers to before they make a recommendation to prosecutors on whether charges should be filed.
Riverside County Assistant District Attorney Sara Danville says a key element of determining whether any killing was an act of self-defense revolves around whether the victim believed he or she was in imminent danger.
"Peril must exist," Danville said. "It has to be a situation in which the person believes, 'With what I know right now, if I don't act, I'm going to die or suffer great bodily injury.'"
State law makes it clear that a person can't use more force than is reasonably necessary to defend against imminent danger. So Danville said prosecutors also analyze the level of force that was used.
"We look at all the circumstances surrounding the event to help us determine the reasonableness of the killer and the killer's actions," she said.
Homicide investigators say that witnesses who were not involved in the March 8 fight in Old Town told them the off-duty officer was sitting in a chair on Main Street when, unprovoked, he was suddenly hit from behind with a metal chair and then attacked.
According to investigators, witnesses also said the off-duty officer identified himself as a police officer, but the attack continued. It was then that he pulled his weapon and fired five shots.
Shaun Adam Vilan, 30, died after being shot in the chest and arm. A man with Vilan that night, Taylor Willis, 22, of Temecula, was shot in the thigh and survived.
The off-duty officer, whose identity has not been released by Costa Mesa police, was hospitalized and received about a half-dozen staples in his head, authorities said.
Vilan's family has previously said they believe Vilan was "executed" and call homicide investigators' account of what happened "lies" that his mother has attributed to police officers covering for one of their own.
Investigators will draw their own conclusions as to whether the off-duty officer used excessive force or if he truly had reason to fear for his life -- which would make the shooting justifiable in the eyes of the law.
In short, state law boils it down to whether a "reasonable person" would have reacted the same way if faced with the same threat.
"It's not just this officer's thought process that must be considered, but what would a reasonable person have done in that situation," said Professor Charles Whitebread of University of Southern California's Gould School of Law.
In order to be justified in the use of deadly force, Whitebread said, a person must believe that "the degree of the threat" against him or her could be fatal.
Investigators have said the off-duty officer told them that, after being hit with the metal chair, he felt dazed and had blood flowing onto his face. His attackers then surrounded and continued to beat him, he told investigators.
"Did he reasonably think that deadly force was being used against him?" Whitebread asked. "The use of that metal chair could certainly be a deadly weapon."
Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and now a professor of law at Loyola Law School, agreed.
"It seems like that initial attack could be construed as deadly force," she said.
Levenson said that if the alleged attackers had simply started with a slap or even punching the off-duty officer in the stomach, that in itself would not have been enough to justify the use of deadly force.
While the investigation by the Riverside County sheriff's Central Homicide Unit is still under way, statements from uninvolved witnesses at this point appear to support the officer's self-defense contention.
Homicide Lt. John Schultz said Tuesday that investigators have interviewed about two dozen witnesses, including about 18 people who were not with either the off-duty officer or Vilan.
There has been some question about whether the off-duty officer was intoxicated when the fight broke out and he fired his weapon.
Schultz said several independent witnesses interviewed, including a bartender and a bouncer, told investigators they had no reason to believe the off-duty officer was intoxicated.
Authorities have previously confirmed that a blood sample was taken from the officer after the shooting, which presumably would be tested to see how much, if any, alcohol was in his system. Whether that test has been performed could not be confirmed because Costa Mesa police did not return telephone calls this week.
Investigators were told the confrontation started when the off-duty officer smacked the buttocks of a woman inside The Bank of Mexican Food restaurant. Investigators say independent witnesses told them the officer immediately apologized, saying he believed the woman was part of the group with him at the restaurant.
Later, the officer went outside to get some air because he wasn't feeling well, investigators have said. It was then that the situation became violent.
Investigators have not determined who hit the off-duty officer with the chair, Schultz said.
Two people who were at the restaurant with the officer walked outside as the fight started, investigators said. One of them was hit during the fight and both ran for safety before the shots were fired, investigators say.
There were at least four or five others with Vilan during the attack, Schultz said.
"(The officer) was hit by at least three people and, by all witness accounts, the aggressor was Vilan," Schultz said.
Once homicide investigators complete their investigation, they will forward their report to the district attorney's office with a recommendation on whether criminal charges should be filed against anyone involved. At that point, prosecutors will decide what, if any, charges are appropriate.
-- Contact staff writer John Hall at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2628, or jhall@californian.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Jay wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:09 AM:The only person that KNOWS if someone is in fear of their life, is that person. Lesson here is not to attack people. If more law abiding citizens were armed society would be a lot more polite.
Paul wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:57 AM:Someone was carrying a chair which was used to strike the off-duty officer. Is that not a weapon? He was also attacked per the article by 3 people. The statement "so did the officer really need to fire shots to protect himself?" is not valid.
If I have a copy of the wrote on Mar 20, 2008 6:27 AM:NCT in my briefcase and roll it into a tight tube and strike someone in the throat, that too could be considered a deadly weapon?
Frank wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:29 AM:yes a rolled up newspaper is a deadly weapon if you struck someones throat with it. Is it possible to roll up newspaper and fashion it into a spear and stab a corrections officer...of course it is.
Newspaper, ball point pens, wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:39 AM:rulers, telephone, then we are already walking among deadly weapons, why a permit to carry another type of deadly weapon?
Ron wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:50 AM:Are we all oblivious to the above the law attitude the law enforcement has. Get a clue. If anyone not affiliated with law enforcement was in this situation it would be murder. If you kill someone with a vehical while intoxicated it is murder. This is our law enforcement at it's finest, cover up anything that involves incriminating a law enforcement accociate. THIS IS MURDER 1st DEGREE.
TickTock wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:59 AM:Not true Ron. If you had a permit for your weapon and you were not a cop it would be self-defense.
Temeculan wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:00 AM:Ron, in response to your question, no, it's just you that is oblivious. You are guilty of ignorance in the first degree.
to Ron wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:03 AM:Ron, you are sadly mistaken and would be a great member of a lynch mob, as it appears you already have a verdict? Educate yourself before showering us with your slanted and wrong opinions or slanted "facts". No, not everyone is arrested on scene during an investigation, that is a fact. And BTW, read the elements of 1st degree murder. It may educate you a bit more, and PS...check your attitude...it stinks.
Craig wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:06 AM:To all the paranoid people out there, why is every police shooting a cover-up? This article seems pretty factual, I can see how the cop could have feared for his life. He needed 11 staples to the head and was up against a "gang" of thugs. Plus he only fired 5 shots, he didn't unload everything he had, seems like he was being reasonable to me.
Shelly wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:10 AM:I agree with Ron, this news article would be construed completely different had this been the average Joe Blow off the street and they would not be justifying his actions as "Self Defense". I think this is absolutely a unnecessary loss. My heart goes out to Shaun's family and friends.
My question is wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:27 AM:why with crime all around and police saying they can't protect us 24/7, then why is it so hard for the Sheriff's Department to hand out CWPs? If it was any citizen in the same circumstance, I am afraid the citizen would be dead.
Ummm wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:30 AM:If you kill someone with a chair and by kicking them in the head, is that not also MURDER????????
Concerned wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:45 AM:Ron and Shelly, There's a clue shop at 4TH/Main, I suggest you pay it a visit.
Soos wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:49 AM:Could someone clarify? I went to The Bank and there are no metal chairs, booths inside and wood chairs outside.
No one is saying "cover up", Craig. It just appears that an off duty cop should not be firing his weapon around a crowd of innocents. It seems to be a bad situation all around (butt-slapping, drinking, shoving) but let's face it, a man is dead because a cop from another city brought a gun out to dinner with his family on his day off. Did he really think he would run into one of his "ex parolees" or maybe he's just a bit arrogant and self-entitled? I don't know and since we don't even know the name or anything about this officer, we'll probably never know for sure.
To Ummmm wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:51 AM:Interesting scenario - what if officer injured citizen in bar brawl and citizen with CWP shot him? They would lock that citizen up and throw away the key! You know it.
Soos wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:14 AM:Would someone clarify? I was at The Bank and did not see any metal chairs - booths inside and wood chairs outside.
To "To Ummmm" wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:41 AM:That IS interesting! According to many bloggers, you would be correct only if said citizen had a beer prior to the brawl. If he was drinking a Sprite, he would be clearly justified to fire at will.
Steven C. wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:42 AM:To Ron, Shelly and Ummmm,
Did you not read the article? It finally appears pretty factual to me.
Let me quote a section for you, "state law boils it down to whether a "reasonable person" would have reacted the same way if faced with the same threat."
That statement does not say just and "Officer".
And Ummm, there have been a number of law enforcement officers who have been prosecuted for attacking civilians. People in the law enforcement community despise those people and do not cover up for them. They give all the good law enforcement personnel a bad name and it is hard to recover from.
If the Supreme Court Justices wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:04 AM:ruled the right of Americans to own guns, then who is telling Americans you don't have the right to carry a loaded weapon in public?
That is right your wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:07 AM:honor, I was just sitting there in my chair minding my own business when WHAP, they hit me for no reason. Honest!
tk wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:20 AM:I think a "reasonable person", after getting hit with a metal chair and attacked by multiple men, would fear for his life, and do anything to protect himself. I would. And The cop did, too. I'd probably still be in the hospital, or even dead. The cop was fortunate enough to be able to defend himself.
Flip Flop wrote on Mar 20, 2008 11:44 AM:You can imagine all you want as to what the outcome would have been "the other way around" but it doesn't change the facts in this case and that the guy...cop or not...was justified in defending himself.
Oh and ,Soos...of duty cops are often rquired to carry while off duty in case they can prevent a crime...like someone being beat to death by a gang.
Rasta Man wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:05 PM:so from now on if you are getting a ...whippin for touching someone elese inappropriatly it's OK to shoot
I guess chivalry is dead.
WOW wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:10 PM:I think somebody has friends and relatives on this space that won't post my estimation of Shaun.
Appropriate Response wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:14 PM:AMAZING that you people think that hitting somebody over the head with a chair and team kicking him in the head is the appropriate response to a butt slap...AN APOLOGIZED BUTT SLAP, and yet shooting when you are outnumbered and being beat to death is NOT? Interesting mentality. The same mentality that got Shaun where he is.
Mentality wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:28 PM:Is this where the mentality of Temecula is headed? We have fights constantly at school. The attitude seems to be if you don't like something, start a fight. Forget accepting apologies or setting an example to others by taking the high road. Just fight. If you meet your match, then I guess it's the other guy's fault.
To Sooos wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:43 PM:The chair was taken for DNA testing...or maybe that's part of the cover up!!!!!
GOHS wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:51 PM:We have a dead 15 year old who was punched and died from head trauma. A "typical" teenage fight. What was the officer supposed to imgaine would happen to himself?????????
Family Member wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:04 PM:Let's reverse the story...
Shaun slap the police officers girlfriend butt (hard WITHOUT apologizing.. you can believe news reports or an eye witness) and just laugh about it.
So, the police officer punches Shaun in the face (there was no chair involved at all the whole incident was over within 5 seconds) and as he turns around Shaun shoots the police officer in "self defense" and kills him and for kicks decides to shoot the police officers friend twice who is trying to run away, severely wounding him.
Would investigators take Shauns statement and let him go home and back to work? No, they wouldn't. Would they immeadiately arrest him, book him, and keep him in jail? Yes, they definitely would.
I'm not saying Shaun didn't provoke any thing and that he didn't punch him and even through the first punch. He did do those things. And, his friends verbally provoked the officer and no Shaun and his friends weren't completely innocent but did they deserve to be shot and killed. No, they absolutely did not.
I'd like to say justice will be served, but in all likelyhood, it unfortunately won't.
To WOW wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:10 PM:I think you're right...I wrote a response over two hours ago regarding Shaun's well-documented past with this type of thing and it still hasn't posted. Be surprised if this one makes it...
To me wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:49 PM:The metal chair was there because of the Rod Run. That corner was packed with people around 4:00 PM because that was were the raffle and awards were being done at.
To Family Member wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:40 PM:Interesting how your lengthy response of a fictional account gets in yet recounts of 18 INDEPENDENT EYE WITNESSES did not. Hmmm....All a conspiracy.
Let's Not Reverse wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:42 PM:Let's stick to the facts and the situation that DID happen. Karma people...karma.
the chair wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:52 PM:you are looking in the wrong place for the chair. The cop was sitting on a metal folding chair down main street about 1/2 block from the bank. For a very long time there have been 2 metal folding chairs sitting there.
Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:54 PM:I have to admit, I've made up my mind about this based on the reports I've read. Vilan and his partners were at fault. What is hard to belive for me is the mentality of his friends, especially here on the blogosphere. They don't think that this guy and his gang did anything wrong. Even going so far as coming up with a whole different story of events. Not too smart considering there were a lot of people around to tell what really happened. Of course, that mentality is not to smart to begin with.
I BELIEVE wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:55 PM:The 18 eyewitnesses that have nothing to gain over the account of people that stand to gain $$$$$$$$$$$$$.
To Family Member wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:57 PM:I don't follow your logic, it makes absolutely no sense. If I lost a family member in this type of situation, right or wrong I probably wouldn't make any sense either.
Please don't follow the blogs. It doesn't matter who is speaking the truth, it will only worsen your current emotional state.
Blogs are impersonal, judgmental, and meant for generalities and venting. They are no place for family members to hang out.
Michele wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:58 PM:If my husband started something like this in the presence of our children over a guy slapping my butt I would seriously tell him to grow up and divorce him. My kids come first. A real man knows his priorities.
torchie wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:09 PM:Off duty cop slaps a butt of someone he thinks he knows and appologizes RIGHT away. Simple mistake. Why is the boyfriend so mad about that? Insecure maybe? Why did he need his friends to help? Weak? Be a man and stand up for yourself..and if you can't then i suggest doing the right thing and just leave it be. That's the smartest thing to do if you can't fight. Don't get your friends to fight your battles.
Chris wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:15 PM:Ummm...police carry weapons off duty because they may cross paths with an angry motorist they ticketed earlier, or a dangerous parolee with a felony warrant that recognizes the officer while the officer is with his/her family. It's not a warm feeling when an officer gets spotted by a mope that he arrested earlier when he's with his family. If somebody threatened my life or my family's life with physical harm that would result in great bodily harm or death, I would use deadly force myself. This is a perfectly justified shooting.
TVHS Dad wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:36 PM:TO Family Member
Maybe Shaun's friends and family can learn from this. It is obvious that Shaun did not learn from his stint in prison. You cannot hit someone in the head with a chair and expect the other person to not protect themself. And, yes even using dealy force.somebody carring a gun or someone who knows black belt. Shaun made a terrible mistake and his family must leave with this forever.
I pray for all involved
Peter wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:37 PM:The man who was fatally shot wasn't carrying a weapon, so did the officer really need to fire shots to protect himself?
Then how did the off duty officer get those injuries needing staples to his head? A blunt object can kill you just as a bullet coming from a gun.
Temecula resident wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:54 PM:A tragic situation at best. Both individuals lost a lot that evening, one just has to live with it for the rest of his life. Lets not forget people, cops are cops 24/7. They are entitled to carry on and off-duty 24/7, not only for their personnel protection, but for the safety of the public for which they serve. Had a cop not been carrying his weapon while off-duty and out to dinner with is wife in Salt Lake City, more people may have been killed or hurt in that mall. Not every officer involved shooting (on or off duty) is a cover-up as some narrow minded individuals would have you believe. The issue with limiting public information is whether or not witness accounts become distorted as time passes and "rumors" begin to mill about. Remember when this story 1st broke - all attention was on the cop. Then attention turned to Shaun and his colored past. Those are not the issues. The issue is what happened at that moment and what was the mindset of each involved party at that time. Unfortunately for Shaun - his mindset will never be heard and that was a chance he took when taking an incident that had already been settled to the next level.
To WOW Too wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:59 PM:Take a number and stand in line. I submitted one about 8am that still hasn't shown up. Fortunately, I'm sure they'll post this because it's there little way of 'proving' they don't hide posts.
CPD Retired wrote on Mar 20, 2008 5:39 PM:Been there. January. Chicago. Had a bad case of the flu that day. It was about 9pm. I was taking a shortcut thru an downtown alley to get to my car. I got hit in the lower back with a pipe from behind. I saw a white flash and then felt pain in my stomach. I felt as tho I would pass out. I feared my weapon would be taken from me while I was unconscious. I don't remember reaching for my concealed or firing, but the the report details read that 6 rounds were fired from my weapon, and 3 hit the assailant, a 15 year old boy, who died the next day.
Nick wrote on Mar 20, 2008 5:40 PM:The guy was a violent human being. Just Google "People vs Vilan" and read the reports for yourself. The man has assaulted others on numerous occasions and broken a beer bottle over a persons head(unprovoked) at least 3 seperate times. A violent life lead to a violent death. ...
Doug C wrote on Mar 20, 2008 6:09 PM:Any violent loss of life is sad but by all accounts Mr. Vilan was no saint no matter what his family says. Anyone has a right to defend themselves from a violent attack and if the news papers printed all of the times John Q. Citizen was found not a fault due to self-defense this case would not be so divisive. Something else to think of: If the officer had been ON DUTY would his actions (given the same facts, chair, kicking, multiple suspects) been justified? For those of you condemning the cops you should know that they can be totally right within the law and still lose their job. So don't be so quick to judge the system until all the investigations are done. No one wins in incidents like these, that officer has to live with what happened.
Lisa wrote on Mar 20, 2008 6:15 PM:The CPD Retired brings about a point in which off-duty officers should NOT carry weapons. If someone knows you are a cop carrying a weapon they could easily render you unconscious and take your gun and use it for numerous other crimes, including shooting the ODO.
I am glad that this officer had his gun and did get one of these lowlifes off the street.
I guess it really comes down to the cops attitude if he thinks he is Johnny Super Law then he will more than likely get himself in trouble.
Jim wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:25 PM:Google shooter's dept for clue. Involved in many suspicious shootings. Some sort of cop gang.
chivalry wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:22 PM:IF, and I say again, IF the officer slapped the butt of this lady and Shaun, for whatever reason, felt the need to defend this young lady's honor and started the fight with the officer, and, now this is the important part, the fight was ONE on ONE, MAN to MAN, no weapons, no Chairs, no FRIENDS to help him...If this was the case, the Officer just has to take his licks and move on. No gun would've been used, the worst thing would have probably been an arrest for simple battery (PC 242).
Unfortunately, this officer has to carry Shaun's memory with him everyday for the rest of his life. I was involved in an on-duty shooting where I took someone's life who was trying to take mine...I'll remember the look in his eyes until the day I meet the lord.
To Shaun's family, I empathize with your loss. Anytime a loved one is taken, it is a horrible experience. Please use this experience the rest of the members of your family who may have gang or criminal ties and try to help them in order to prevent this from happening again.
self defense wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:50 PM:legal concealed weapons can save lives.
Church shooting in Colorado last December. Shooter brought down by woman with concealed weapon.
July 1999 citizen in San Mateo kills hostage taker in stand off.
Apalachian School of Law, shooter stopped by citizens with guns.
The argument that private citizens would have been in jail for this is just wrong. This guy has a ton of independant witnesses that state he acted in self defense. Please, do some research before you make rash statements. Lots of private citizens use guns to defend themselves. There are plenty of stories about "unarmed" criminals being shot by a private citizen in self defense and NO charges being brought. Please, think and do some research before speaking irrationally.
Markus wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:45 PM:What on earth is happening with the field sobriety test. A non-cop would have a FST on the spot and have the results in seconds. This CMPD's test was reported to have been taken and the results are, what, unknown? Pending? That's either special treatment by fellow cops or a cover up. Which is the same thing. Something stinks.
To Markus wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:21 PM:A field sobriety test is not the same as a blood test. The blood goes to a lab, that takes time. It doesn't happen instantly. Also, the blood is taken by a phlebotomist (blood nurse) not the arresting officer.
RSO Deputy wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:29 PM:A lot of people have a problem with the cop firing near a crowd. Two other situations could have occurred. A suicide bomber could have walked into the bank of mexico with a bomb strapped to his/her chest. Or a hostage taker on the run from the police could have taken your child or family member hostage. Hostage by holding a gun to their head... Now, I'm the off-duty cop sitting there. My gun is coming out and I would put a bullet through the suspect's eye socket of my choice. The suicide bomber and the hostage taker are about to kill someone. A suicide bomber or hostage taker is no different than someone attempting to murder by chair.
It has to be done. It's what taxpayers for decades have paid us to do. Write tickets and protect the innocent. The two above situations could happen anywhere, at any time. If you disagree, watch an hour of CNN.
By the way, the off-duty officer wasn't too intoxicated, because he ACTUALLY HIT HIS TARGET!!! Many of you have never had the frightening task of having to use deadly force to defend your life or somebody else. It's a lot different shooting a paper bullseye target, as apposed to a 3-D moving human, who is trying to kill you, and a thing called adrenaline is flowing. I'm glad there is one less person out there that is going to attack someone with a chair for simply not liking somebody.
Off-duty Costa Mesa Officer.... stay safe, and I'm happy you are still with us. You helped make Temecula safer.
To Markus wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:43 AM:A field sobriety test isn't (generally) conducted on someone who has taken a steel chair to the back of the head. Medical attention is a higher priority, as that kind of wound can be fatal without anyone realizing the severity of it.
To RSO Deputy wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:44 AM:Thank you! It is about time the voice of reason and logic interjected here. Bad guys don't work 9 to 5 and our officers don't either. There are so many documented cases of private citizens and off duty officers saving lives when a criminal or crazy person is trying to hurt someone.
It is sign of a good society when we can exercise our freedom of speech against our government and their agents (the police, in this case).
Unfortunately those that claim cover up and excessive force have not done their homework before jumping into the discussion. Please people, many of you are making uninformed comments regards police tactics, the law and public safety. You all have access to google and the public library. Take a minute and find some facts before blurting an uninformed opinion.
I know that Vilan's family is in pain right now and don't want to believe that there friend/relative could harm someone but based SOLEY on the facts as presented in this newspaper, it appears that Vilan was the aggressor and the officer acted in self defense. Many witnesses who did NOT know either man back the officer's version of events.
To Markus wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:55 AM:Cover up huh? Reporters from around the country are investigating this story. Just search Yahoo and you will see this in many papers. Not all of them can agents of our (corrupt) government. We live in an open society where every citizen can have a voice. Vilan's family has hired a lawyer and the lawyer probably hired a private investigator.
If the officer was drunk and beligerant in a crowded restuarant, don't you think the other witnesses would have noticed? I worked in a bar in college and EVERYONE in the place could spot the really drunk guy. This place had a bouncer and it was crowded. If this officer was acting in a way that was obnoxious and hurting business, they would have made him leave.
I do believe that the government covers up lots of stuff. Mostly alien autopsies and the murder of Elvis (not really dead, abducted by aliens and living in Area 51) but I digress.
This case has too much meadia coverage and the family stands to make millions of dollars if the officer acted inappropriately. This families lawyers will do thier homework and if the officer did something wrong, he will be held accountable. Please read the other stories about officer involved shootings while off duty. They all can't be rogue cops with a taste for blood, can they?
Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 9:05 AM:I'll go one step further in my opinion on this. I think the woman who got slapped on the butt, made a big deal about it after the officer apologized. For some reason, this sort of gang mentality that exists in young people today makes it okay to gang up on someone. In my day, they would be considered cowards.
To Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 12:05 PM:In your day or TODAY they are still cowards.
To RSO Deputy, you are right on. Hitting a moving target is not the same as a paper target. This only happens in the movies. Stay safe and thanks for your service.
Mike wrote on Mar 21, 2008 12:19 PM:"To RSO Deputy" @ 7:44 AM quips: "Take a minute and find some facts before blurting an uninformed opinion." What's up with this?
FACTS? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' FACTS!
Marine wrote on Mar 21, 2008 1:03 PM:I was in a simluar situation without a firearm and was placed in the hospital after being beaten by several people in a gang. I never found out why they did what they did but I assure you I am lucky to be alive. If I had had my side arm that day. I would have made the news. He did what I wish I had the opertunity to do! Defend myself!
to Bob wrote on Mar 21, 2008 1:42 PM:Bob - you made the claim that there is more here. Well, what is it? It's easy to make a flipant claim but tougher to back it up with facts. Are up to the challenge? If there is more to this, please enlighten us with your words of wisdom.
to Mike.... wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:44 PM:...who replied to "RSO Deputy". Shut up!! The facts are in. Justified shooting!! Now go back to your camp fire and get together with the other mopes on here questioning the officer's actions and buy some reality...you need it.
To the off-duty Costa Mesa Officer and to the RSO Deputy, THANK YOU for your continued and committed excellence in doing your job.
To Editor wrote on Mar 21, 2008 3:01 PM:Why are you only posting some of the comments? I have submitted 2 (neither of which were abusive).
Mike wrote on Mar 21, 2008 3:11 PM:I will not shut up! Everybody is entitled to my misinformed opinion!
To RSO Officer wrote on Mar 21, 2008 3:13 PM:It actually is hard to hit a person who is attacking you...
except when both of their backs are turned from you and you're only about a foot away from them.
Please don't comment if you weren't there and actually saw what happened.
to to RSO officer wrote on Mar 21, 2008 4:21 PM:How did the cop manage to shoot Vilan in the chest if his back was turned? I think you have been hanging around with the X-files, conspiracy types a little too much. Vilan was shot it in the chest. Please go back and read the article again.
to Bob wrote on Mar 21, 2008 4:36 PM:I did read the article about the officer's department. The latest one was when the suspect tried to ram the officers with an SUV. There was only one shooting by an officer in Costa Mesa last year. The suspect ran from the cops, then turned his vehicle on them. I only found one incident involving a Costa Mesa officer involved shooting. Your post implies that the department is running around gunning down folks at will. Please, do so research before posting.
To TOP? wrote on Mar 21, 2008 9:01 PM:What story do you want us to read? I don't get it. It does not seem to be relevant to the story at hand.
Gary wrote on Mar 21, 2008 9:01 PM:"In short, state law boils it down to whether a "reasonable person" would have reacted the same way if faced with the same threat."... is what is stated in the article. Yes, is the answer and it would have been justified if a "reasonable person", who was permitted to carry a weapon, to act in the same manner. Regardless if the person(s) shot was unarmed, there were multiple attackers. Therefore the use of deadly force "to protect your life, or the life of another" could be within the law and justified as excusable homicide.
to try this wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:15 AM:Well, I did try it. It does not have anything relevant this story or anything similar. I still don't get your point.
I saw an article how some punk bands were upset that that the police were watching them to see if there was trouble at their shows, but that just seems like a public safety issue. You get rowdy teens and young adults together with aggressive music, the cops and business owners have to be very careful. Most fans and bands are just out to have a good time but there is always someone who is looking to start a fight or cause trouble.
Seriously, what is your point?
Scott wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:26 PM:Check out the article in the American Chronicl dated 03/13/08 (Google search). It has a lot of background on Shaun Vilans life and past criminal activity. You can also search Riverside County Superior Court's website to authenticate some of the facts. It appears he had a past of ganging up on people and this was not an isolated incident. This is a horrible event for all involved and and a sad day for the families.
ES wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:01 PM:Does anybody know when they will release the bac content of the shooter? In an article last week they said it would be released later that day. Makes me kind of think the officer was indeed possibly intoxicated and they do not want to release that info until they absolutley have to. I could see it causing an uproar if he was intoxicated. I bet they hold that info until its brought in front of a jury.
intoxicated or not wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:44 AM:If he was jumped by a group of guys, what does it matter if he had drinks or not?
Let me put it to you hypothethically.
What if your sister or mom was leaving a restuarant and two guys pulled her into an alley to rape her and she shot them before they could harm her. Should she be in trouble because she had alcohol in her system? It sounds like blaming the victim, if you ask me.
To intoxicated or not wrote on Mar 24, 2008 8:50 AM:Thanks for pointing that out. Some people still just don't get it.
LANEY wrote on Mar 24, 2008 3:23 PM:Yeah, there are a lot of ignorant people out there. People just don't get it and the people who are on Vilan's side in this comment section are probably ... family and friends of Mr Vilan. The Costa Mesa Officer did the right thing and I want to thank him for his services and hope he returns to work soon.
Reasonable people wrote on Mar 26, 2008 12:54 PM:Reasonable people fight back when attacked.... but... they are not carrying guns... when reasonable people lose a fight they run or go into survival instinct... curl up, crawl away, scream for help, bite, kick etc... police officers are cross sections of society, if it is possibly reasonable for them to carry a firearm and drink... then should not the rest of society be allowed to do the same?
esteban wrote on Mar 26, 2008 7:42 PM:To reasonable people...you are one of those who just don't get it....and you probably never will.
I dont get it either... wrote on Mar 27, 2008 10:32 AM:Whats to get about guns and alcohol?... every reasonable person knows they dont mix.... that was the question.... Esteban has a fixation.
Gary wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:17 AM:It's not like the cop was waving his gun around so the crowd could see it. He was attacked from behind and he reacted to the attack. He would easily be badly maimed or dead had he not stopped the attack. If he had alcohol in his system or not it really doesn't make a difference, he hit his targets and ended the altercation.
esteban wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:34 PM:By all accounts, the cop was not impaired. He may have not even been drinking. So there, you still don't get it. You are not smart enough to understand these things.
Excessive force? Yes wrote on Mar 27, 2008 6:46 PM:i would say Vilan used excessive force against the officer. Even if the officer slap the girlfriend' butt with malice, it didn't warrant the use of a chair
get real esteban wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:04 PM:Question was not about this cop. If cops can drink (no department has said they can't) and carry guns.... why can't the public?.... YOU dont get it. Would you not agree that cops should not drink and carry guns? 3 weeks and no word, why is that? Why no moral outrage from ANY law enforcement department stating that officers are not allowed to drink and carry guns?
To all of you who don't get it wrote on Mar 29, 2008 12:29 PM:Let's simplify this even more...
You've just had dinner and a couple of beers. You walk outside and sit down in a chair. In front of the chair, there is a brick. You pick it up. A few minutes later, someone smacks you upside the head with a metal chair. You tell them to stop and they don't. In order to save your own life, you use the brick to defend yourself by hitting the attackers with it, which resulted in one of their deaths.
Now, here's the question...is this any different than what happened that night? I don't think so. The brick is a deadly weapon just like the gun. In both scenarios, the weapons were being carried LEGALLY!
Furthermore, I've been drinking socially for 25 years and can honestly tell you just because I have a few drinks doesn't mean I all of the sudden go crazy. There has never been one instance where I had drinks and went and got the gun and started shooting it. I know better (and yes, even if I've had a couple of drinks). But I can tell you that if I had a couple of drinks and someone attacked me like that, I would absolutely use it. Bottom line is not everyone who drinks is an irresponsible idiot.
If you don't like the idea of people carrying concealed weapons while drinking, then start a petition to have the law changed. Until then, the officer was justified in his actions.
to all of us... wrote on Apr 1, 2008 9:18 AM:Drinkng and carrying a gun is okay... as long as YOU think you are not an irresponsible idiot... but if you drink and drive you are automatically a criminal.... real good logic there Einstein.... Now give me the State and/or Fedral law making it okay to carry a gun while drinking.... smart guy.
To all of you who don't get it wrote on Apr 1, 2008 7:10 PM:Based on the Costa Mesa Police Department's policy, it is NOT ILLEGAL for an off-duty officer of their department to carry a firearm and consume alcohol. My point wasn't whether or not I agreed with it; I was merely pointing out the current law associated to THIS situation. So "Einstein," why don't you show me the law that states this officer was carrying his gun illegally. When you come up empty-handed, you'll see that his act of self-defense was not illegal (whether he was drinking or not). Get your facts straight BEFORE opening your big mouth..."smart guy!"
To: To all of you wrote on Apr 2, 2008 8:24 PM:Department policy is not law... my company has policies but that does not make them a LAW... so again... show me law that makes it legal... the Feds do have a law against carry conceal that California adopted for off duty cops, it has been hashed that it is for retired or visting gunslingers... but it is a federal law....a good lawyer is gonna make someone rich with the policies of these departments....
I WAS THERE! wrote on Apr 3, 2008 4:16 PM:This is a cover up and the story is NOT getting out there! I would wright it, but I know that it won't post. All I have to say is any of the articles are not portraying the whole truth. Yes, there was an altercation, but are you sure it was provoked by Shaun? Well, it wasn't. The only time a metal chair was involved was when the officer had already fired off 4 rounds and it was only meant to stop the maniac. No one knew he was an officer until after he unloaded ALL rounds. Yes, Shaun did have a past; however that was over 12 years ago and since then has not been in any trouble. I'm sure all of you have a past of some sort that you're not proud of. All I know is they have put serious spin on this and for whatever reason the story is not coming across correctly.
- ESCONDIDO: Man shot dead at Fourth of July party (10858)
- TEMECULA: Protesters line intersection (6838)
- ESCONDIDO: Border Patrol employee in custody after hatchet attack (5711)
- ESCONDIDO: 3 DUI arrests, 46 impounds at checkpoint (5613)
- ESCONDIDO: City's dreams of an 'upscale' downtown may be dying (5140)
- HOUSING: Local median price up for third straight month (45)
- ESCONDIDO: Man shot dead at Fourth of July party (44)
- ESCONDIDO: Border Patrol employee in custody after hatchet attack (34)
- FALLBROOK: Peruvian chocolatier living sweet American dream (29)
- ESCONDIDO: Victim's roommate recalls July 4 shooting, friends gather for vigil (27)
Advertisement