Light Sentence in Revenge Shootings Sparks Controversy

Bruce Ward Atwell was angry the night of Sept. 21 when a brick smashed a window of his girlfriend’s car as they drove down a Huntington Beach street. He was so angry, in fact, that he had her drive to his house nearby, where he grabbed a roommate’s .25-caliber gun and went looking for his two teen-age assailants.

When Atwell found them, he ordered both to the ground, then kicked one of them repeatedly, according to police reports. When one of the young men tried to escape, Atwell shot him in the back. When the other teen-ager got up, Atwell shot him, too, in the ankle, though he later maintained that the second shooting was an accident. Neither teen-ager was seriously injured.

Atwell’s case has attracted attention because of some media reports comparing him to Bernhard Goetz, the New York subway rider who shot four teen-agers who allegedly tried to rob him. Both Atwell and Goetz got back at their assailants by meting out their own vigilante justice, though officials involved in the Atwell case say that’s where the similarities end. Goetz was indicted on attempted murder counts and is expected to stand trial next year.

Atwell, 22, a production supervisor at an Irvine chemical company, turned himself in a week later after learning that police investigating the incident were looking for him.

To the Orange County district attorney’s office, the charges against Atwell were routine: felony assault with a deadly weapon. He was jailed on $50,000 bond. Misdemeanor charges were eventually filed against the two teen-agers, Brian S. Gonzales, 18, and Edward Johnson, 17.

But Superior Court Judge Luis A. Cardenas last week, over the prosecutors’ objections, allowed Atwell to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges, placed him on three years’ informal probation and set him free. Atwell could have gone to state prison for up to 11 years if convicted of the felonies.

The judge said in an interview at his West Court chambers in Westminster last week that he reduced the charges because he thought the district attorney’s handling of Atwell was too severe “when you look at all the circumstances.”

Cardenas’ decision stirred up support among some people. The judge has received numerous letters and telephone calls, some from his colleagues on the bench, calling his decision courageous.

Prosecutors involved strongly disagree with his ruling. But they don’t see it affecting future cases. In fact, prosecutors warn that people who seek revenge against assailants should not expect any leniency in prosecution just because Judge Cardenas gave Atwell a break.

“To me, it wasn’t even a close call,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. John Conley, administrator for the district attorney’s West Court office. “We could have had a double murder on our hands.”

Judge Cardenas claims that some people have misinterpreted his decision to reduce Atwell’s charges.

“I’m not advocating vigilante justice,” Cardenas said. The judge added that he was not trying to place Atwell in the same category as Goetz. The cases are different, Cardenas said, because Goetz was armed in preparation for an attack; Atwell armed himself after an attack had ended.

“But in this case, I thought the district attorney’s focus should have been a little more balanced.

“The prosecutors came down heavy on Atwell, but not on the two guys who attacked him and his girlfriend,” the judge said.

The two teen-agers were definitely in danger when Atwell shot at them, Cardenas said, but added that Atwell and his girlfriend were also in danger when the brick smashed their window.

Prosecutors should have taken into consideration what Atwell had faced, he said.

“He had just been attacked by two thugs, and he reacted in his own fashion. His adrenaline was flowing, his anger carried him away. I think the system should show some flexibility and understanding in this situation. I think it is unfair for us to expect him to react like a trained police officer,” the judge said.

Cardenas also emphasizes that Atwell did not get off free.

Atwell ended up with nine days in jail. A consideration in setting bail at a relatively high $50,000 was Atwell’s failure to appear on previous warrants for traffic violations. Also, his probation can be revoked and he can be sentenced to jail if he violates any laws in the next three years.

But Deputy Dist. Atty. Conley questions whether the punishment was adequate.

“I’ve personally chosen not to file charges against two different individuals who shot assailants, but those were in burglary cases,” Conley said. “This was a pure case of revenge. Once Mr. Atwell and his girlfriend drove away, the danger to them ceased. If those fellows had been killed, we could easily have filed first-degree murder charges against Atwell.”

Prosecutors were also not impressed with Cardenas’ theory that the teen-agers and Atwell should have faced similar charges.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Arnie Westra, who made the decision to charge Atwell with a felony, said there was a big difference between Atwell’s offense and what the teen-agers had done.

There was also a legal issue, Westra said: If Atwell had gone to trial, Westra needed cooperation from the two teen-agers in testifying against him. It’s common for prosecutors to give special consideration to cooperative witnesses.

Westra added that his office probably would not have sought the maximum penalty for the felony charges against Atwell. The judge could have sent Atwell to the Orange County Jail for up to one year on the misdemeanors. In fact, Westra said he might have agreed with the reduction to a misdemeanor had Cardenas made Atwell’s penalty greater.

One person who is a little more irate about it is one of Atwell’s victims. Edward Johnson, who turned 17 in October, called the judge’s ruling “a dumb decision.”

“The judge didn’t hear our side of it at all; I don’t think it’s fair,” Johnson said.

But one man who shows some understanding of the prosecutors’ position is Atwell himself. In an interview Monday, Atwell said that if one of the teen-agers had been killed in the incident, “I should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There’s no excuse for murder.”

But Atwell believes he was adequately punished, considering that the teen-agers were not seriously hurt.

Atwell said he also lost his job over the incident. But a spokesman for his former employer, Shipley Co., an Irvine chemical manufacturer, said Atwell had already been suspended from his job for an incident that took place before the Sept. 21 events. Atwell exacerbated his problem at work, the spokesman said, by lying to his superiors about why he was in jail.

“I’m sure Shipley isn’t going to say, ‘Sure, we fired him because of this,’ ” Atwell said Monday. “They are also going to say I resigned. I had a choice: ‘Either you resign today or I fire you today.’ ”

“I spent nine days in jail,” he said. “I imagine that had a lot to do with it.”

A spokesman for Shipley said Monday that Atwell resigned.

Atwell’s roommate, Brad Masterson, 26, owned the gun used in the shootings. Masterson told The Times that he had not given Atwell permission to use it. Masterson said he was furious when he learned on the night of the shooting that Atwell had used the gun. “The only reason I was mad was because he stole my gun,” Masterson said. “In general he’s not the criminal type.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. Westra said the judge’s decision has not created much of a furor in the district attorney’s office.

“We’re in the judge’s courtroom every day; he deals with hundreds of cases,” Westra said. “Sometimes we agree with him, sometimes we don’t. We disagreed with him on this one.”

Dist. Atty. Cecil Hicks concurred. Prosecutors were more upset, Hicks said, with some of the comments attributed to Cardenas in the media.

Atwell, meanwhile, said he regrets the way he responded to the teen-agers’ attack.

“This is not something that I would advise people to do. I don’t think people should be taking the law into their own hands.”

Atwell’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Brian Ducker, added, “I don’t think anybody thinks he’s a hero.”