http://paloaltoonline.com/square/print/2011/10/25/woman-shot-after-horsing-around-with-boyfriend


Town Square

Woman shot after 'horsing around' with boyfriend

Original post made on Oct 25, 2011

A man was arrested Monday for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for being in violation of his probation after allegedly accidentally shooting his girlfriend in her living room in East Palo Alto on Sunday night.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 8:20 AM

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by JustMe
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 25, 2011 at 9:48 am

Interesting case here, a little tragic perhaps. A felon in possession of a firearm is always bad news. Careless handling of a gun in your home, especially loaded, also bad news. (Has he not heard that people can be hurt by those things? Did he think himself immune to stupid mistakes?)

On the other hand, he is a young kid in love, with his girlfriend, (been there, done that,) and it sounds like he is VERY distressed that she was hurt. "Coleman, at the request of police, went to the department to meet with investigators Monday." So a little belatedly he is behaving responsibly, he is doing the right thing and taking his lumps. He is not running, hiding, trying to get away, he is staying in the vicinity of his girlfriend. I'll be he is VERY sorry this happened, and not just for himself. He sounds reachable to me. Intervention with compassion might be able to do some good.

I hope he is dealt with fairly, and that his now-exposed humanity can be fed. I hope his girlfriend recovers from her wound with no lifelong problems caused by it. It would be nice to see a happy ending to all this, right now it is just tragic.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 25, 2011 at 10:54 am

Sounds like 3 strikes to me ... ship him out so he never comes back. He, his girlfriend and the people of EPA and California were lucky this time, but who knows about the next time.

I have no sympathy, he should be gone, gone, gone and never come back. We have enough stupid losers in California that there is nothing special or important about this guy. There are now 7 billion people on the planet, we have to stop criminals from breeding ... and killing too accidentally or on purpose.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by NRA chick
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2011 at 11:09 am

Stupid, stupid, stupid on so many counts. I suspect there is more to the story. How did a felon get a handgun? Is it hers? Stolen? He certainly didn't walk into a gun store and buy it legitimately.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JustMe
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 25, 2011 at 11:09 am

Sorry, but I am not willing to be that harsh without knowing more about him and his situation. If a life can be salvaged, an attempt should be made. At this moment this guy, (without knowing more about him,) may be reachable and salvagable. You are willing to call three-strikes, but he may only have one at this point. We don't even know what that one is about. We don't know if he is a gang-banger or just a kid who thought guns are cool. (I was a kid who thought guns were cool, and I still do, I just don't do anything illegal with them, and I would like to think I am not stupid with them.)

We don't know anything about this guy, how can you write him off so casually?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by FG
a resident of another community
on Oct 25, 2011 at 12:18 pm

We know he is an ex felon. ex felons are normally bad people. Ex felons with guns will most likely hurt people.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 25, 2011 at 12:31 pm

Guns don't discharge negligently Negligent people discharge them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JustMe
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 25, 2011 at 12:32 pm

"We know he is an ex felon. ex felons are normally bad people. Ex felons with guns will most likely hurt people."

Yes, he is an ex-felon, I will give you that. But we give ex-felons a shot at redemption, which is why htey are let out of prison after they have served their sentance. Else, why let them out? Let's not assume there is no hope and deliver judgement accordingly.

The guy went to the police department to meet with investigators on his own, after being instructed to do so. He is showing signs of having a soul. I like him already, I could drink coffee with him.

Yeah, he was an ex-felon with a gun, and I would like to know more about how and why regarding that before I pass judgement.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 25, 2011 at 12:42 pm

As ridiculously dangerous as this was, I'm relieved to know that it wasn't some intentional gang shooting or planned murder.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JustMe
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 25, 2011 at 1:04 pm

Hypothetically, what if his reason for having a gun in his apartment was self-protection against his own past?

He is 20 years old, right? What was the felony he was convicted of? Obviously it was not one that sent him to prison for some years, so it was not murder or attempted murder. What are low-level felonies that would have him back on the street quickly, probably on instant parole? Gang involvement of some kind? What if, after his brush with the law, he had resolved to correct his ways and fly straight. Did he have a job? He had a girlfriend we know. What if he feared that his past associations would be coming to look for him demanding htat he return to criminal activities, and he feared that the police, mindful of his status, might not protect him well enough? I promise you this: If I were under a prohibition to own a firearm, but I felt fearful for my life, the prohibition would take a back seat to self-preservation. That is, if I truly believe that a firearm was a requirment for attack survival. Could that be why he had a gun? That would be a little more acceptable than owning with the intention of using it in a crime, right?

The point is, we don't know. There is a LOT we don't know. I believe that it is inappropriate to pass harsh judgement on something you know so little about.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 25, 2011 at 1:42 pm

@ JustMe:

Is he an "ex-felon" or a "convicted felon?"

Correct me if I am wrong (and I could be), but doesn't the term "ex-felon" indicate someone who had their conviction expunged. In that case, they are no longer a felon.

A person on "felony probation," on the other hand, is someone who is currently serving a felony sentence outside of a prison or jail. That is different from a "felony parole" -- which means that a person was released early from prison.

The rehabilitation doesn't take place WHILE they are serving a current felony sentence.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fact
a resident of another community
on Oct 25, 2011 at 2:29 pm

Justme, he cannot lawfully purchase a handgun due to his past and his age (21 in california) Since California has ass backwards laws on transferring firearms there is no way he could have been given a handgun (he would have had to have done paperwork and a background check) (this is only so the state government can complicate issues and double charge paperwork, on firearms for law abiding citizens.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JustYou.....
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm

@JustMe

I wonder if your kid or spouse lived in the apartment next door and
were hit by a stray bullet, from this ex-felon's gun, would your opinion be the same?

Hmmmm, just wondering!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2011 at 4:38 pm

This is a prime example of the dangers of gun possession. Guns are more likely to accidentally injure or kill a family member than used in personal protection.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 25, 2011 at 5:20 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I have owned firearms for over 60 years, and not once did one accidentally discharge.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Alvin York
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 25, 2011 at 6:35 pm

Lamont cannot legally posses a handgun since he is under 21. He cannot legally be sold a handgun by a FFL dealer or private party. He likes to carry it concealed on Saturday night. He is careless because he pointed the weapon at something he did not intend to shoot and put a finger on the trigger. Lamont didn't run because he knew he could not hide...Secret can't keep a secret.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 25, 2011 at 6:52 pm

Where was this guy last week when two women were robbed? Do you think this 20 year old kid likes to play Simon says? He could call it Lamont says. Lamont says give me your wallet. Or Lamont says give me your car keys. Or Lamont says give me (you fill in the blanks).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JustMe
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 26, 2011 at 9:14 am

Alvin and Joe, either you know a whole lot more about Lamont and the crimes than the rest of us and the police, or you are reaching quite a bit.

Nayeli, Fact, and JustYou, (I question the names of Fact and JustYou as possibly variable in violation of the message board rules,) I am fully aware that Lamont cannot legally buy or posess a gun. My point, and I restate that it is just hypothetical, is that if he felt his life was in danger, and that his choice was to obtain a gun or be legal and dead, I could see the desire to defend himself. Yes, it would not be a bright choice, but his story here is littered with un-bright choices.

Nayeli, thank you for the clarification on convicted felon, ex-felon, and felony probation. I guess I have just not had enough exposure to those terms.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 26, 2011 at 11:11 am

>> My point, and I restate that it is just hypothetical, is that if he felt his life was in danger, and that his choice was to obtain a gun or be legal and dead, I could see the desire to defend himself.

I have to admit these speculative apologetic posts seeking excuses for this when the poster admittedly does not know about the circumstances seems aimed to rile up people on either side of the issue for fun.

I imagine the only fact that we can glean from this is that the person was an ex-felon, he had an illegal gun, and through negligence or maybe even on purpose he shot someone who is backing the story that it was an accident, perhaps out of emotional attachment or fear. That sounds like 3 strikes to me. That sounds like someone who should have no place living next to anyone else who actually wants to be a law-abiding citizen or even wants to live in a safe environment.

Having people like this among us is a threat to people. How would any of you like to have to deal with someone being shot, or living next to someone who has such a past and a history of bad judgement that could very well be fatal?

If we expect the people of EPA to work with the police and help rid their community of threats like this, maybe they need a little support like removing losers like this from their living space cleaning up the city so people actually care and have a chance.

In any case I don't get why the first post here would seek to frame this story in a sympathetic but fictional way to make it seem like the guy who just proved himself to be a very serious risk to life and limb to the public is some kind of misunderstood romantic.

It is foolishness like this that then allows the foolishness on the other side to cast it as Liberalism given anyone who is a real Liberal a bad name. Liberal, fair, open-minded does not mean gullible and stupid. Send this loser away under 3 strikes if at all possible and save everyone a lot of trouble.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JustMe
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 26, 2011 at 12:37 pm

Yeah, liberal iseas like "Let's get the facts before we pass judgement and prescribe punishment" are ruining America. Ideas like "There might be mitigating factors here that should be taken into account" or (here's a good liberal idea for you) "Let's let the police do their job and perform their investigation before we assign 3-strikes and lock him up for good".

I don't really consider myself to be a liberal, I just like being a little more careful and a little less reactionary when condeming someone for life.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 26, 2011 at 8:11 pm

The absolute best part of this whole, ridiculous, bloody mess is that name of the victim. Perhaps her parents were horsing around when they came up w/it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by what
a resident of Esther Clark Park
on Oct 26, 2011 at 8:28 pm

so,you saw it?are you her brother.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:46 am

JustMe ... are you saying there were no facts in the original post, or not enough to comment on, or that any comment should wait for months or years to get every single fact verified?

Obviously my comments are based on what was reported.

Maybe you have to wait to see how sorry you feel for this poor unfortunate ex-felon who shot his girlfriend with a gun he was not supposed to have, but from what was reported I feel comfortable in saying if there is an application of 3-strikes - so be it. I just do not care. I don't care about how much he loved his girlfriend as was offered in the first post, or care that he did the right thing a little belatedly ... just the few minor facts, if they are true, that were reported give me enough to go on to express an opinion.

I am OK if you want to disagree, but not when you get all dramatic and try to throw my comment back in face without even an explanation, just a sarcastic contempt that you cannot back up with facts. Tell me what you do when there are so many people who do not seem to be able to live in this world without causing problems and costs for all the rest of us. He very well might have shot his girlfriend dead - does that occur to you?

And yes, I think people who pride themselves on keeping too open of a mind are in danger of their brain falling out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JustMe
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 27, 2011 at 9:29 am

"He very well might have shot his girlfriend dead - does that occur to you?"

She might very well have shot herself, have you considered that? The article says he placed the gun in his lap and they were horsing around. She might have reached for something under it and bumped the trigger. You are still jumping to conclusions and assigning punishment based on your assumptions.

Yeah, he should not have had the gun, but "He shot her" is not necessarily true.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by da barber
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Nov 17, 2011 at 10:02 am

it seems u people are blind to the fact if the environment this young couple lives n. ex felon? so am i. but do u know epapd. put a case on me. n the state of California forced me n to a plea wit threats if prison if i didn't take the deal. young minority men r targets n this city. rather they r gang banging or gun to college. young men r shot around here all the time just fir who there brother is.or who there fam is. a gun is necessary in e.p.a. innocent people r shot all the time. the streets model is. "i rather b judged by twelve, then carried by six. know the situations before u case judgement on the kid....GOD. lamont is a good kid just had alot of bad breaks. get well soon Secret


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Mar 30, 2014 at 11:04 pm

Hmmm is a registered user.

Little did Lamont know that he only had 15 more months to live...Web Link

And that 14 months after his murder, there'd be major indictments on his killing and other crimes, in Operation Sunny Day: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 31, 2014 at 11:27 am

Anon of Crescent Park:
>> In any case I don't get why the first post here would seek to frame this story in a sympathetic but fictional way to make it seem like the guy who just proved himself to be a very serious risk to life and limb to the public is some kind of misunderstood romantic.

That!-^

Maybe it's all the idiotic crime glorifying movies that have been made and shown to people, but that fact struck me as well. What is this all about? Looking just at the facts and you see someone who for whatever reasons has fallen into a pattern of crime and irresponsibility who when this snapshot was taken was heading 100% in escalation of that pattern. Yes, he may live in a bad environment, but that is a discussion about the environment, not ignoring the threat to others that this thug represents. And yes, the greater society is as lax and irresponsible as Lamont Coleman for not treating these subjects as serious and worth of time and resources. As Walter Wallis said earlier, responsible people own guns and never accidentally discharge them ... or "horse around" with them.

And who knows what these story is on this. This could very well be as irresponsible and abusive relationship that the young woman thinks she needs for whatever reason and so is afraid to inform the police of the real story out of fear, in fact that would be the first thing that would occur to me ... but hey, I'm just thinking preventively of all the rest of us and the innocent people who would most likely be coming into contact with this man in the future.

Looking just as the facts and the realities that other people deserve to be protected from this kind of walking disaster, I hope when I read a followup on this it will be to hear that this young man going to be sent to prison for a very very long time.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 31, 2014 at 11:29 am

Guess great minds things alike! LOL! ;-)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by HUTCH 7.62
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 31, 2014 at 2:16 pm

[Post removed.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Mar 31, 2014 at 2:23 pm

@CPA, did you read the first link in Hmmm's preceding comment? Lamont is gone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Responsible Gun Owner™
a resident of Nixon School
on Mar 31, 2014 at 2:34 pm

Or maybe they got them where other Responsible Gun Owners™ get their guns.

You know, Responsible Gun Owners™, the type that try to sneak dozens of guns onto airplanes EVERY WEEK in their carry ons, only to be confiscated by the TSA.

A record week last year: "Airport security officers uncovered a record 65 firearms on passengers boarding planes last week, surpassing the previous record high of 50 guns.

The Transportation Security Administration reported 54 of the guns found at airport security checkpoints around the country were loaded and another 19 had rounds chambered."

Last week? "Of the 48 firearms, 39 were loaded and 16 had rounds chambered."

Here's the chart for last week - hey look! a chambered .38 at SFO! Four days ago!

Web Link

So damn RESPONSIBLE, those Responsible Gun Owners™!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by HUTCH 7.62
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 31, 2014 at 3:05 pm

@responsible gun owner


Maybe there ought to be a law.........oh wait. It's already illegal.


But you know that already because you are a responsible gun owner.