Blog

If you are one of those craving an unscripted Kamala moment, we got one last week.

Kamala Harris has a gun, as she said once again in public, this time on that Oprah TV campaign show.

And, of course, Harris knows what to do with it–the gun, that is. She’s a former California DA and AG, who still maintains a home in California, land of most of our nation’s Asian Americans.

Harris knows the state’s law, and what it allows her to do.

“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” Harris said.

She said it with a laugh, in a way to minimize the bold statement's impact, and then told Oprah, “I probably shouldn’t have said that, but my staff will deal with it later.”

You wanted the candid Kamala, you got it.

THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE

As a gun owner, Harris knows she is capable of being a cold-blooded killer, enabled by the Calif. Penal Code 198.5, which gives a gun owner the right to shoot to kill.

The California law reads: “Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family , or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.”

A lot of words that mean you won’t be charged if you are a gun-toting resident who shoots and kills an intruder.

No questions asked. You are “presumed” to be in fear, quaking in your boots, and that’s all it takes.

Like many homicide laws in the U.S., California’s law is based on the “Castle Doctrine,” a legal theory that suggests your home is your “castle.” You have no duty to retreat if you confront an intruder in your own home.

In California, the legal presumption is clear.

But what if the “intruder” turns out to be your hubby or sister or cousin, or someone other than a total stranger with no intent to harm. An innocent person who thought they were in the right place, but at the wrong time?

This is what happened when my cousin, Stephen Guillermo, entered the wrong apartment in San Francisco on May 3, 2014. The resident, a security guard, shot first and asked questions later.

Too late.

Stephen was shot and killed instantly.

STEPHEN’S CASE

As I go over all the posts these last 14 years on this site, my cousin’s story has become one of the recurring themes in this blog, whenever the issue of guns and gun violence comes up in America.

Last week, when Harris spoke of being a gun owner, she was probably just trying to appeal to Second Amendment types who see her as too liberal.

But for me, Harris’ exchange re-opened a wound about a law that lays out how a gun owner can take the law into his or her own hands and shoot to kill.

The law tips the scale in the gun owner’s favor. A threat may sound reasonable at first. But the law doesn’t address when a shooting is an overreaction, possibly resulting in 2nd or 3rd degree murder.

There is no rebuttal to a bullet.

Harris as a former local DA knows that. In fact, no self-respecting DA would touch a case like my cousin’s death. They’d just see the implications of Castle and dump it right away. That’s what George Gascon, the San Francisco DA at the time, did in my cousin’s case.The murderer was arrested, then released after three days.

As I found out, there is no political will to challenge or test the “presumption” given to an armed resident. If you have a gun in California and fear an intruder is in your home? Go ahead. You can’t make a mistake. Fire away.

Kamala has your back.

THE STEPHEN SAGA

Kamala’s statement had me going through this site and all the Stephen posts through the years.

There was the week of the shooting when I made an appeal to the Board of Supervisors that fell on deaf ears. https://www.aaldef.org/blog/in-san-francisco-the-murderer-of-stephen-guillermo-may-be-set-free-justiceforstephen/

The family did get a chance to meet with an assistant DA: https://www.aaldef.org/blog/meet-the-da-guillermo-family-confers-with-san-francisco-district-attorney-for-first-time/

But in the fall of 2014, I met with DA George Gascon and asked what he needed in order to prosecute. Of course, he said he had to have the facts and the legal analysis. But Gascon also added: “A prosecutor would be violating his ethical obligation if he didn’t believe he could prosecute successfully.”

In other words, since you only prosecute winnable cases, there was no desire to challenge the Castle doctrine. Gascon told me individual cases weren’t the place to take ethical, moral, or courageous stands.

As a proper example of when to take a stand, he pointed to his advocacy of California’s Prop. 47, which has re-codified California law in order to lower the high incarceration rates of people with mental health and substance abuse problems. Why? Because, as Gascon said, “It doesn’t work.”

Well, Castle really doesn’t work either. Not if you want to prevent innocent people from being killed.

Gascon’s response to me? “Your cousin is just one guy.”

One dead guy.

A year after Stephen's death, a vigil mass. https://www.aaldef.org/blog/emil-guillermo-do-asian-american-lives-matter/

Four years later: A wedding. Life goes on. https://www.aaldef.org/blog/emil-guillermo-a-good-immigration-story-and-a-sad-one-days-apart/

It’s been ten years since my family’s tragedy.

I no longer have hope for justice for Stephen, but I do hope for the day someone will challenge the presumption made in the California law so that no one has to go through what my family has been through.

Gascon said my cousin was just one guy. I guess we need thousands of mistakes to change the law. One Filipino American isn't enough.

But given the proliferation of guns in America, is there any doubt there will be a day when we see one too many deaths where a fearful shooter can only say, "Sorry"?

Fear can drive and excuse a lot of irrational actions, even murder.In 2014, aided by a trigger-happy law, it justified the killing of Stephen Guillermo.

###

NOTE: I will talk about this column and other matters on “Emil Amok’s Takeout,” my AAPI micro-talk show. Live @2p Pacific. Livestream on Facebook; my YouTube channel; and Twitter. Catch the recordings on www.amok.com.