Truth is stranger than fiction.
I guess there is a reason interviews are not open to anyone who comes off the street. The thought that someone intoxicated walks into an interview and gets mad when they are told to flag a lot of issues.
I would imagine these issues will be addressed by the prosecution.
The defense would be a self defense argument. Until all the facts are known we cannot determine the strength of the argument.
It is good El Cajon police found the guy. It will be interesting to hear how the case turns out.
A job candidate attacked and stabbed the man interviewing him in El Cajon Monday afternoon, police said.
The incident occurred at about 4 p.m. inside an office in the 200 block of South Sunshine Avenue. A sign on the door reads, “Interviews held here, please excuse the mess, just moving in.”
Police said the interviewer said something to the applicant about being drunk, and the applicant began fighting with the man.
The fight spilled out of the office, onto the sidewalk and then around the corner. Police said when the interviewer started to get the upper hand in the brawl, the job applicant stabbed him and then took off.
The interviewer was only slightly hurt. He was taken to the hospital, treated and released.
Police said the suspect had filled out an application with his address on it, so he was not hard to find. Officers went to the man’s home and arrested him on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon.
The interviewer came back to the office after he was released from the hospital, but he did not want to talk.
A Southern California man’s job prospects are not looking good after he allegedly stabbed the boss during an interview Monday afternoon.
El Cajon police say the applicant, Jose Lopez, showed up drunk to a job interview at 207 South Sunshine Avenue.
When the business owner smelled alcohol on Lopez’s breath, he confronted the interviewee about it.
In turn, Lopez became angry and then got physical, police say. A fight ensued, but when the boss got the upper hand and put the suspect in a headlock, Lopez stabbed him in the arm, according to investigators.
Lopez then ran off, leaving behind one very important piece of evidence: his job application.
When El Cajon police officers responded, the victim showed them the paper that listed the suspect’s name, which they used to find his address.
They arrested Lopez in his home later that day. He has since been booked into San Diego County Jail on charges of assault with a deadly weapon.
The victim was taken to Sharp Memorial Hospital for a minor stab wound.
The El Cajon business will undoubtedly be taking more applications.
The full article can be found here.
Hire a Proactive, affordable, and quality defense when you are facing San Diego DUI charges. Whether you have been charged of a San Diego DUI, Poway DUI, La Mesa DUI, Santee DUI, Mission Valley DUI, Clairemont DUI, Point Loma DUI, La Jolla DUI, Carmel Valley DUI, Mira Mesa DUI, Pacific Beach DUI, Del Mar DUI, Carmel Valley DUI, Encinitas DUI, Oceanside DUI, Ocean Beach DUI, Escondido DUI, Vista DUI, San Marcos DUI, Carlsbad DUI, El Cajon DUI it is vital you need to hire an attorney who knows how to defend your rights and can determine if the government can prove their case. Contact the Law Office of Mark Deniz now for a free case evaluation at (858) 751-4384 or send an email to [email protected]
A defense to certain criminal charges involving force (e.g. murder).
is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
The Right To Protect One’s Person And Property From Injury.
It will be proper to consider: 1. The extent of the right of self-defence. 2. By whom it may be exercised. 3. Against whom. 4. For what causes.
As to the extent of the right: First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack; for example, if by closing a door which was usually left open, one could prevent an attack, it would be prudent, and perhapsmight require, that it should be closed in order to preserve the peace, and the aggressor might in such case be held to bail for his good behaviour. Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him; he ought to be secured and delivered to the public authorities. But when an attack is made by a thief under such circumstances, and it is impossible to ascertain to what extent he may push it, the law does not requite assailed to weigh with great nicety the probable extent of the attack, and he may use the most violent means against his assailant, even to the taking of his life. For homicide may be excused where a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him while in the commission of a felony, or even on a sudden quarrel he beats him, so that he is reduced to this inevitable necessity. And the reason is that when so reduced, he cannot call to his aid the power of society or of the commonwealth, and being unprotected by law, he reassumes his natural rights which the law sanctions, of killing his adversary to protect himself.
The party attacked may undoubtedly defend himself, and the law further sanctions the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the near relations of hushand and wife, patent and child, andand servant. In these cases, if the party himself or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in their person or property, it is lawful for him force by force, for the law in these cases respects the passions of the human mind, and makes it lawful in him, when external violence is offered to himself, or to those to whom he bears so near a connexion, to do that immediate justice to which he is prompted , and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain.
The party making the attack may be resisted, and if several persons join in such attack they may all be resisted, and one may be killed although he may not himself have given the immediate cause for such killing, if by his presence and his acts he has aided the assailant.
The cases for which a man may defend himselftwo kinds; first, when a felony is attempted, and secondly, when no felony is attempted or apprehended.
1st. A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery,, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.
2d. A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or attempted: 1. When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no mutual combat, such as where one meets another and attempts to commit or does commit anand battery on him, the person attacked may defend himself, and; 2. An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near so that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is not required to wait until he has been struck.
When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least, unless the survivor can prove two things: 1st. That before the mortal stroke was given be had refused any further combat, and had retreated as far as he could with safety; and 2d. That he killed his adversary from necessity, tohis own destruction.
As a general rule no man is allowed to defend himself with force if he can apply to the law for redress, and the law gives him a complete