Merchant’s Rising Death Toll Raises Questions : Shooting: With the killing of two more gunmen at The Watch Co., police, neighbors and legal experts are scrutinizing store owner’s self-defense claims.

When the first sharp cracks of gunfire erupted across the street from the West Los Angeles balloon store where he works, Monet Delapaz figured it was just a car backfiring on Santa Monica Boulevard. But when the blasts continued in a furious burst--from five to 10 to somewhere around 15--he knew what had happened.

“Another one bites the dust,” he thought to himself. “The watch store again.”

Delapaz was correct. What he heard Thursday afternoon was yet another gunfight at The Watch Co., where store owner Lance E. Thomas and an employee shot two would-be robbers to death, bringing the number of slain intruders to five in just over two years.

The tally, which also includes one wounded, undoubtedly makes The Watch Co. one of the most dangerous places in the city for armed robbers. But it has also sparked questions in the minds of legal experts, merchants and the mother of two men killed in Thomas’ shop about whether a store owner who fires his weapon with such unnerving frequency--and deadly accuracy--can be justified every time.

“When you have somebody who repeatedly acts in self-defense, you’ve got to ask yourself: ‘Are they really reasonably in fear?’ ” said Laura Levenson, who teaches criminal law at Loyola Law School. “(The question is) whether they’re actually in fear or are just saying: ‘Make my day.’ ”

Although police say they have no reason to believe that the shootings Thursday were not justified, they acknowledge that they are giving the most recent incident greater scrutiny than if this had been the first time Thomas killed an attacker. A decision will be made next week on whether to file criminal charges, although prosecution is unlikely, said Lt. Ron Hall of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Meanwhile, the mother of two of Thomas’ victims said the Thursday shootings are evidence that Thomas should be prosecuted. Ruth McNair, who has filed a wrongful death suit against Thomas and the city in connection the deaths of her sons, also finds fault with authorities, saying that their failure to prosecute Thomas has encouraged him to shoot other people.

“I just feel that someone needs to do something to stop him because he’s a danger,” said McNair, a free-lance paralegal who said she is representing herself because no lawyer will take the case. “The police need to investigate this man instead of just patting him on the back and saying, ‘Good job, continue the work.’ ”

Thomas--who has been wounded twice during previous robbery attempts--was not at his store Friday. Neither he nor his lawyer could be reached for comment.

The 51-year-old store owner has earned a reputation as one of the city’s best-known dealers in vintage timepieces, as well as expensive Rolex watches that police say are magnets for thieves. He is also known as a sure shot; a merchant once described Thomas as “the fastest gun alive.”

Thomas disdains security guards, stating publicly that he does not hire them so that he can keep his prices low.

“Basically, he acts as his own security,” said Mike Schmitt, a sales clerk at Wanna Buy a Watch on Melrose Avenue. “He looks like an easy hit, but he’s packing and he’s waiting.”

In the neighborhood around The Watch Co., Thomas inspires a mixture of awe and fear. “It’s like having a private security guard across the street,” Edmond Hakimi, owner of a nearby yogurt shop, said Friday. “It sends a message: ‘Don’t mess around.’ ”

Lea Elepano, manager of the balloon store across the street, said she has Thomas’ phone number posted on the bulletin board in the store. “If we ever need any help,” she said, “we’ll definitely call him.”

But the frequency of Thomas’ shootouts with robbers has also rattled nearby merchants. In the wake of Thursday’s incident, some have dropped the heroic rhetoric of the past. Although they support Thomas’ right to defend himself, they are torn over the mounting body count.

Delapaz said that after Thursday’s shooting, he watched Thomas walk out of the store and raise his fist in the air, “like he was saying: ‘Yeah, I’m alive again.’ . . . He’s defending himself, but I think he’s getting used to it.”

According to legal experts, California law says that a citizen who uses deadly force against an intruder must be in honest and reasonable fear of losing his life. The law also says citizens must not provoke the attack and may only use “resistance sufficient to prevent the offense”--that is, the force used by the citizen must match that of the intruder. If there is an opportunity for retreat, the citizen must do so.

“The whole idea of self-defense is one of necessity,” said Sam Pillsbury, a law professor at Loyola University Law School. “One of the things you can’t claim self-defense for is if you get into a situation that you otherwise could have avoided.”

There have been several notable cases in which citizens have been prosecuted for use of deadly force. Perhaps the best known is the Bernhard Goetz case in New York, in which Goetz was tried for murder in the 1984 shooting of four black teen-agers on a Manhattan subway. The case sparked a nationwide debate about vigilantism. Goetz was acquitted of all but a minor charge of illegally possessing a weapon.

More recently in Los Angeles, Korean-born grocer Soon Ja Du was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in a highly publicized and controversial case, in which she shot a black teen-age girl after a scuffle over a bottle of orange juice. The girl was unarmed, and the incident was captured on videotape.

The circumstances were far different in Thursday’s shooting at The Watch Co. According to police, two young men armed with semiautomatic pistols entered the store shortly after 4 p.m. and announced a holdup. One fired a shot at an employee, and both the employee and Thomas returned fire, killing the gunmen. A passerby standing across the street also suffered superficial gunshot wounds to the buttocks. Police said at least a dozen shots were fired.

Police identified one gunman as 19-year-old Tremichael Garrett of Los Angeles. The name of the other, a 17-year-old, was not released.

Although there were no independent witnesses to the shooting, Hall said an examination of the evidence--including the trajectory of the bullets and the position of the bodies--is consistent with Thomas’ account that the gunmen fired first.

During a robbery attempt in August, 1989, Thomas wounded a gunman just below the nose. Three months later, he killed would-be robbers Tony L. Currie and Char-Ru Currie--the sons of the woman who is suing Thomas--after they wounded him in the neck and shoulder. Last December, Thomas killed another intruder after the intruder shot him in the neck.

All the previous shootings have been ruled justifiable, and police and prosecutors have said it is likely that Thursday’s incident will be ruled the same.

“Obviously we don’t want situations where store owners execute people,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. R. H. (Mike) Carroll, who will review the case once the police investigation is completed. “But at the same time, you certainly have a right not to be robbed and you have a right to use deadly force to stop a person who is using deadly force to rob you.”