• Resisting an Officer by Force or Violence
• California Penal Code 69(a)

Resisting an Officer by Force or Violence May Include Pointing an Unloaded Firearm at an Officer (69(a) P.C.).   

There are seven pages in this case of detailing the events facing a CHP officer and Sonoma County Sheriffs Office deputies back over an extended period of time. For brevity purposes, here is a summary of the key facts:  

A CHP officer was on patrol in eastern Sonoma County near the outskirts of county park. The officer observed two individuals in a confrontation, one (the defendant) holding a knife with the blade pointed upward “in an athletic combative stance”, the other holding a rock. They “appeared to be in a standoff”. The officer parked and exited his vehicle, approached within 8-10 feet of the subjects, drew his duty weapon and ordered them to drop their weapons and get on the ground. The man with the rock complied. Defendant dropped to the ground, but then got up without the knife and walked towards a parked, red Subaru, hands in the air and loudly and repeatedly yelling, “I just want to leave". He disregarded orders to stop.

The solo officer was still dealing with the second individual and was awaiting was awaiting backup. The defendant entered the vehicle and left the scene. An APB was broadcast to responding officers. Sonoma County Sheriffs deputies arrived. Defendant then returned to the scene. He exited the car holding a black handgun, took a “shooting stance”, racked the gun, and took aim directly at officers (one officer testified that he was “staring down the barrel and thought he was going to die)” and pulled the trigger. The gun did not not fire.

With the gun pointed at the ground, the defendant re-racked the gun and pulled the trigger several times. It still did not fire. The officer and deputies testified that they did not fire their duty weapons in self defense because of the belief the gun had malfunctioned or was unloaded; the defendant did not point the gun at them after the first attempt; or perhaps it was an Airsoft / facsimile weapon.

Defendant then reentered the car and after both a vehicle and foot pursuit, he was apprehended. The gun in-fact was unloaded. Defendant was convicted of 69(a) P.C. (amongst other charges) and sentenced to 7-years / 4-months in prison. 

Defendant appealed his conviction on grounds that since the gun was unloaded, he could not be guilty of assaulting the officer due to lack of present ability. Thus, he could not be convicted of the greater offense because he did not resist an officer through the use of force or violence. 

1DCA ruled, “In our view the dangerous situation that unfolded here comes well within the ambit of section 69(a) P.C. This section does not require a defendant to have actual physical contact with an officer. The corpus can be established by an attempt to deter an officer in the performance of his/her duties and includes both an immediate and future threats.  

“Defendant’s act created a frightening and dangerous scenario that impaired the officer in the performance of his duty and put not only the defendant, but innocent bystanders at risk of serious injuries or death from the officer’s use of deadly force to prevent what appeared to be their own imminent peril”. 

“The targeted person almost certainly will not know whether or not the gun is loaded or operable. A reasonable person confronted with the circumstances faced by the officers undoubtedly would consider the aggressor to have engaged in violent conduct” 

Undoubtedly the officers involved here showed exemplary restraint in not using deadly force. One deputy testified: “[I]t is certainly the closest I’ve ever come in my 14-year career to shooting somebody.” But he had “just a little sliver of doubt” that defendant was going to fire a fatal shot given “the lack of [defendant’s] gun directly pointing at [him] or another officer.”  

However, while this case was working its way up the appellate ladder, defendant was serving his time in prison. Seven years could be cut in half with “good time” and “work time” Defendant has a 2012 conviction for battery on a peace officer, two 2015 convictions for felony domestic violence, and a 2020 conviction for misdemeanor resisting arrest, and the time of this incident had a pending battery charge.  

When you read the case decision detailing the defendant’s rambling explanation for his conduct, there are some obvious mental health issues present.  The Defendant later stated,  “I really thought that people were chasing me, following me, and I believed that, like, I was talking to people through telepathy, even though I wasn’t, you know   But I believed that people were talking to me in my head and I was talking to people in their head.” 

Defendant retrieved his gun because he “got tired of being chased, harassed, bothered,” and so he “could get suicide by cop". 

Given his record, when he is inevitably released back into the community, he may likely continue to be a “bad guy” who poses a threat to public safety. 

Stay Safe, 

RH