Montgomery County shooting, test of Castle Doctrine, ruled self defense

[Chip W]

http://mobile.mcall.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp...3D0%26DPL%3D10


By Scott Kraus , Of The Morning Call
Fri Mar 23 2012 10:11 AM
A Montgomery County man who fatally shot one of two men who came after him with baseball bats in December was trying to protect himself and will not be charged with homicide, District Attorney Risa Ferman announced today.

The case was seen as one of the first tests of the "stand your ground" provision of the state's recently enacted Castle Doctrine law.

The shooter, identified as Angel Gonzalez, acted reasonably and with proper justification in shooting Zachary Levin, 19, a senior at Boyertown Area High School, and his father Joshua Levin, 34, both of Berks County on Dec. 17 in the driveway of a home in Upper Frederick Township. Ferman determined.

Zachary Levin was killed, his father Joshua wounded in the arm.

"We find the use of deadly force by Gonzalez was justified and proper under the attendant circumstances," Ferman said in a statement issued this morning by her office.

Under the "stand your ground" provision of the Castle Doctrine, a person has the legal right to use deadly force if he believes it is necessary to protect himself from death or serious bodily injury, she said.

Ferman said the shooter tried repeatedly to retreat, but Zachary and Joshua Levin continued to chase him, threatening to kill him with baseball bats.

Under the new law, a shooter has no duty to retreat in such circumstances.

Florida's "stand your ground" law is one of the issues at the center of the controversy surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford.

Scott.kraus@mcall.com

610-820-6745

[brownman]

Good for him, I remember when this happened a little bit ago.

Pretty lame how they mention the Florida thing. It doesnt have a damn thing to do with Angel Gonzalez. Its not even the same state.

[Hawk]

Glad to hear he was vindicated. Anyone have a link to the back story thread?

[brownman]

Glad to hear he was vindicated. Anyone have a link to the back story thread?

Heres an old article about the incident, having trouble finding the thread

http://articles.philly.com/2011-12-2...-gunshot-wound

Investigators try to determine if a fatal Montgomery County shooting was justified
December 20, 2011|By Bonnie L. Cook, Inquirer Staff Writer

Prosecutors and state police are trying to determine whether the fatal shooting Saturday of a 19-year-old man was justified.

Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman would not identify the shooter, who told police he pulled the trigger after the two men attacked him with baseball bats and refused to back down.

"We will identify him only if he is charged," Ferman wrote in an e-mail. Police questioned the man and released him.

The man shot and killed one of two assailants who came after him with baseball bats outside his house. The other man was wounded in the arm.

Ferman issued the following account of the Dec. 17 shooting at 1705 Snyder Rd. in Upper Frederick Township:

Ferman said a woman living with her boyfriend contacted her husband to pick her up after she and the boyfriend argued.

Her husband, Joshua Levin, and son, Zachary Levin, 19, both of Barto, arrived at her boyfriend's home wielding baseball bats, one a full-size aluminum bat, the other a small wooden replica.

Ferman said the man retreated to the rear of the property, where his truck was parked. Joshua and Zachary Levin followed and threatened to kill him.

The resident retrieved a Ruger .40 caliber semiautomatic handgun from under the front seat of his truck, Ferman said. The gun was legally owned and registered to the resident, who has a valid license to carry firearms.

Zachary Levin struck the man with his bat, and the man fired a single shot. Joshua Levin approached with his bat, poised to strike, and the man fired again.

State police found Zachary Levin with a fatal gunshot wound to the chest. Joshua Levin had been shot in the arm.

The Montgomery County Coroner's Office conducted an autopsy and ruled Zachary Levin's death a homicide.

Whether the homicide was justifiable will turn on the reading of a law enacted in August.

Under the Castle Doctrine, a person may use deadly force to protect himself or herself from death or serious injury when an assailant displays a deadly weapon as long as the person is not committing a crime.

The investigation is continuing, and the results of ballistics and toxicology results are pending, Ferman said.

*

Contact staff writer Bonnie L. Cook at 610-313-8232 or bcook@phillynews.com.

[brownman]

having trouble finding the thread

found it- \/

http://forum.pafoa.org/lounge-108/15...rmed-bats.html

[Metz]

Zachary Levin, 19, ... and his father Joshua Levin, 34

[30Glock]

Excellent, this is how it should be, the day of beating the crap outta people are gone, bat wielding idiots you have been put on notice….

[Chip W]

"The resident retrieved a Ruger .40 caliber semiautomatic handgun from under the front seat of his truck, Ferman said. The gun was legally owned and registered to the resident, who has a valid license to carry firearms."

Good job it was "registered" to him.

[Enfielder]

I better get my guns "registered"!

[GunLawyer001]

. . . . .
The case was seen as one of the first tests of the "stand your ground" provision of the state's recently enacted Castle Doctrine law.

. . . .

Under the "stand your ground" provision of the Castle Doctrine, a person has the legal right to use deadly force if he believes it is necessary to protect himself from death or serious bodily injury, she said.

Ferman said the shooter tried repeatedly to retreat, but Zachary and Joshua Levin continued to chase him, threatening to kill him with baseball bats.

Under the new law, a shooter has no duty to retreat in such circumstances.

Florida's "stand your ground" law is one of the issues at the center of the controversy surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford.
. . . . .

Is the world being run by people with attention deficit disorder?

How is this in any sense a test of the new law, if he tried to retreat but it was not possible? That would have satisfied the old laws, under which you also had the right to defend yourself.

What the Hell is wrong when the reporters and the DA and all the "experts" don't understand the material that they're informing the readers about?

This is like saying that I must not have a peanut allergy because I just drank some water. Where retreat is impossible, your duty to retreat is moot, with or without any Stand Your Ground law or "Castle Doctrine" (which is also an absurd and incorrect label to apply to the law applicable to you while standing on the sidewalk 100 miles from your home.)