More Shots Fired in Slain Tagger Debate

J. C. Willis of Sun Valley writes:

. . . I agree with Mr. Masters on this point: If I’m in danger, it will be me who decides if I live or die, not some punk with a gun who may shoot you (or stab you with a screwdriver) if you don’t have enough money in your wallet. You can do what you want to do in that situation. I would never shoot anyone over a crime of property but if you demanded so much as a quote from me under the threat of bodily harm (and I’ll decide if it’s ‘great ‘ bodily harm or not), you would not be giving press conferences on the next or any other day.

Rest assured that when I called to chat with Mr. Willis, I did not threaten him with bodily harm, great or otherwise. We have a saying in this business: Dead reporters tell no tales.

In fact, I tried to be as friendly as possible, because sometimes when I just ask a simple question some people think I’m demanding a quote (and I’m sure Mr. Willis would decide whether it was a “demand” or not).

To my relief, Mr. Willis was friendly and seemed pleased that I might quote his correspondence. In nearly two years of writing this column, no topic has generated as much reaction--positive, negative and otherwise--as that post-midnight encounter on Jan. 31 that claimed the life of a graffiti vandal who signed himself “Insta.”

The murkiness of what happened that night is now official. With the decision Thursday not to press felony charges against 20-year-old David Hillo, the district attorney’s office has closed its books on the confrontation in which William A. Masters II, a man with a penchant for violating weapons laws, killed Hillo’s friend Cesar Rene Arce with one bullet and wounded Hillo with another.

The D.A. might have said: Go figure. Do you believe Masters or Hillo? Both or neither? The D.A. concluded that Masters felt sufficiently threatened to act in self-defense (albeit with a gun he was carrying without a permit). And the D.A. concluded there was no way to prove that the actions of Hillo and Arce had, as Masters claims, escalated beyond vandalism to armed robbery--a finding that would have left Hillo legally culpable for his friend’s death. (Hillo admitted to having a screwdriver, but denied brandishing it as a weapon.) Now the question is whether the city attorney will bother to file misdemeanor charges against the survivors.

Mr. Willis and other members of my unofficial gun lobby have prompted me to revisit this incident because of an obvious dilemma, as elucidated below.

Sinclair Buckstaff of Northridge writes:

Mr. Masters was not breaking any law when he fired his weapon at a time when he had reason to believe that his well-being, indeed his life, were in danger. But he WAS in violation of the law which said that he did not really have the right to protect himself because it was illegal for him to carry the MEANS by which to protect himself. What kind of stupid lawmaking is that?

Mr. Buckstaff, like William Masters, likes to go out for late night strolls. He’s told me he’s chatted with young people who look like they’re up to no good. Once, he says, one young person asked him if he wasn’t afraid to encounter persons such as himself. Mr. Buckstaff warned the youth that he might not be as vulnerable as he appears.

“I’m carrying pepper spray, which I have a license for,” he says. “Beyond that, I’d rather not say.”

(Believe me, I made sure I had Mr. Buckstaff’s permission to use that quote. I’d hate for even the kindest, gentlest gun enthusiast to ever think of me as demanding.)

How might we reconcile the right to self-defense with current gun laws? Like many gun rights advocates, Mr. Buckstaff urges less stringent regulations that would make it easier for law-abiding citizens to lawfully carry firearms.

This is a basic dilemma: individual rights versus the rights of society. Many people who seek such concealed weapons permits may indeed behave responsibly. Perhaps there’s a way to achieve Mr. Buckstaff’s goals--but it sure would be nice to figure out how.

Gun advocates seem to forget that those of us who do not feel the desire to arm ourselves--and we are, by far, a vast majority--have a right to self-protection as well. Alas, not all gun laws are effective, and some may have unintended consequences. But we seek to limit the supply and the popularity of guns, because of the striking tendency for them to wind up in the hands of irresponsible people, such as juveniles, criminals and psychos-in-waiting.

Or they may wind up in the hands of well-meaning people who are unduly frightened and, therefore, shoot a relative or a roommate they mistake for a burglar. (By the way, if you happen to have a gun at home, make sure it’s not loaded or, if it is, it’s someplace your kids can’t possibly get to. I’ve written a couple of those sad stories.)

Some gun rights advocates (and, of course, gun manufacturers) argue that firearms control efforts are naive--that the genie is out of the bottle, and the only way to fight the well-armed bad guys is to arm the good guys.

Of course, that assumes it’s easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

“(Angry) in the Valley” writes:

More of these (expletive deleted) little scum need to be blown away. . . . What he (Masters) did needs to be done 1,000 times a day just in L.A. . . .

P.S. -- I am not a member of the NRA, nor a radical right Republican . . . . However, your column is making myself and many other moderates run the other way.

Goodness knows what the extremists are thinking. Oh, and speaking of the difficulty in telling the good guys from the bad guys . . .

There was a funeral last week for a 30-year-old Roseville, Calif., police officer named Mark White. He was out of uniform and about to head home when a man named Shawn Brackin, 25, walked into the police station lobby Feb. 10, pulled out a gun and aimed it at a clerk and another person. Six officers, including White, rushed to the lobby. Brackin was wounded in the abdomen. White, approaching in a crouch with his gun drawn, was fired at by two officers who mistook him for a second gunman.

Would well-armed but well-meaning citizens fare better than trained police officers? Some gun advocates think so. Indeed, some gun advocates have little patience for law enforcement officials, most of whom favor stronger gun control. As the D.A. might say: Go figure.

With all those good guys and moderates out there, most of us just hope to avoid the cross-fire.

*

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write to Harris at the Times Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth, Calif. 91311. Please include a phone number. Address TimesLink or Prodigy e-mail to YQTU59A ( via the Internet: YQTU59A@prodigy.com).