Orlosky Acquitted...

I don't know any more than what this article says – but this much is plain: “Bob” Orlosky is now cleared of all charges. He claimed that he killed Charles Crow justifiably, in defense of himself and his property – and a jury of his peers agreed with him.

This case is very troubling for residents out here, from both the perspective of those who champion the right of self-defense, and from those who believe that Orlosky either deliberately murdered Crow or grossly over-reacted to an imagined threat. The former have very clearly won the day...

Orlosky's Retrial Commences...

Via 10News:

Joseph Robert "Bob" Orlosky, 57, is charged with voluntary manslaughter, two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter and shooting into an occupied vehicle in connection with the Dec. 1, 2006, shooting that took the life of Charles "Chuck" Crowe.

If any of my readers are attending the trial, and would like to publish updates, I'd be happy to provide the service...

Many earlier posts on this subject are here.

Orlosky Case Progresses...

Bob Orlosky was acquitted of murder charges, and the jury deadlocked on manslaughter charges, after Orlosky was tried for fatally shooting Charles Crow, 23, and wounded Hector Monget, 28, on Dec. 1, 2006. A retrial on the manslaughter charges is scheduled for October. Meanwhile, prosecutors added a new charge (personally using a firearm causing great bodily injury or death), and Orlosky's attorney fought to have it removed.

Today, Orlosky won that fight:

The judge said that based on state Supreme Court rulings in similar cases, “there was no justification” for prosecutors to add an allegation after the trial that would have substantially increased Orlosky's possible prison sentence at a new trial. He said there was no evidence that prosecutors were out to get Orlosky or Pfingst because of the earlier acquittal, but that filing the allegation fit the legal definition of vindictive prosecution.

Agreeing with Pfingst's argument, Hanoian (the judge) said that under Supreme Court rulings, a new or stiffer charge cannot be added after a trial unless it's based on new evidence or information that wasn't available to prosecutors at the time of the initial trial.

A good day for Bob Orlosky, but this is just a skirmish – the main battle still lies in the future...

Orlosky Acquitted...

Joseph “Bob” Orlosky was acquitted today of murder and attempted murder charges. On several other charges, the jury reached no verdict, and the prosecutor stated his intention to retry. A roundup of all the news stories can be found here. From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

A jury acquitted a Jamul man of murder and attempted murder charges Tuesday in the fatal shooting of a man and the wounding of another in December 2006 as they fled his rural East County ranch.

However, Joseph R. “Bob” Orlosky will be retried on lesser charges the jury was unable to agree upon, including manslaughter and shooting into an occupied vehicle, said Deputy District Attorney Jeff Dusek.

I have posted on this case many times before, and this is one of those stories that has drawn many comments, some quite heated or heartfelt, especially from locals.

I still know very little about the facts of the case, as news reports have been stingy with details. People seem to be mostly drawn to one of two positions: either (a) Orlosky gunned down an innocent Crow in cold blood and should pay the price, or (b) Orlosky legitimately defended his property from thieves (or intended thieves), and Crow's death is regrettable but not criminal. The jury has decided (b).

This is one of those cases where I simply don't know how to react to the verdict. I am not privy to the same information the jury had, so I don't know if I'd agree with their verdict. Crow's family is understandably shocked by the result; his mother appears on some (highly insenstive) news video reacting in a way that I find completely understandable and forgiveable whatever the facts may be – she's lost her son to a violent and senseless death, and the jury just told her that she has no one to hold responsible. Bob Orlosky reportedly reacted very understandably as well, saying that this was a sad outcome for both sides (remember, he still has serious criminal charges standing against him). As a neighbor of Orlosky (I don't know him, but I live just a mile away from him), and as a citizen of Jamul, I'm disappointed that the jury could not make a decision on all the charges, for now we have to go through yet another cycle of justice (unless a plea bargain is reached, which may be the prosecutor's actual objective in announcing that Orlosky would be retried on the remaining charges).

Most of all, though, I'm left wishing that I knew what really happened a mile up the hill from me, on the night of December 1, 2006...

Orlosky Trial...

Just over a year ago (On December 1, 2006), Bob Orlosky shot and killed Charles Crow. Both men lived in Jamul. See these posts for more detailed information from the period immediately following the shooting. Yesterday his trial for murder began:

No one disputes that a heavy-construction contractor opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle on three men who drove onto his Jamul property in December 2006, killing one and wounding another.

In a trial that began Tuesday, a jury in El Cajon Superior Court must decide whether Joseph Robert “Bob” Orlosky shot the men for no real reason, as prosecutors contend, or if he was trying to stop copper thieves who nearly ran him down, as his lawyer maintains.

Just about everybody who's heard about this shooting has speculated on the motives. The speculations range from Bob Orlosky essentially killing for sport all the way to Charles Crow (and the two other men with him) trying to steal valuable scrap metal from Orlosky, and him acting purely in self-defense. Those two extremes are in fact the positions that the defense and prosecution (respectively) seem to have staked out.

From where I sit, the truth is unknowable – I simply don't have some very basic facts available to me. For instance, I still don't know for certain whether The jeep that Crow and his companions were riding in contained any metal stolen from Orlosky's property. So I'm just waiting for some facts to emerge from the trial…

This story has special significance for my wife and I: Bob Orlosky's property is less than a mile from our home, just a short drive away. If the prosecution's portrait of Orlosky is the true one, then we want this murderer safely (or permanently) put away. On the other hand, if the defense has the true story, then we're very concerned about our own rights to defend our life and property. So we're most interested in the outcome of this trial, and the facts that emerge from it…

Facts and Claims

Local folks will remember well that on the evening of this past December 1, a local man — Charles Crow — was shot dead on Wisecarver Truck Trail, just off Skyline Truck Trail. This happens to be just over a mile from where I live, so this particular incident struck close to home in both the figurative sense and in the literal sense. Ever since that day, we’ve been trying to figure out exactly what happened, as the meager information we received clearly didn’t tell the whole story.

Yesterday a hearing was held in El Cajon Superior Court, Judge Laura Palmer Hammes presiding, to determine if there was enough evidence to bind the suspect in the case (Jamul electrical contractor Bob Orlosky) over for trial on one charge of murder (of Charles Crow) and two charges of attempted murder (Hector Monget and David Hurley, Jr.), all local residents. The judge ruled that there was sufficient evidence, and has scheduled a hearing for Februrary 22nd to set a trial date. For those of you who do not understand how these proceedings work — this does not mean that the judge believes Orlosky is (or is probably) guilty. It simply means that she has determined that the prosecutor has a sufficient evidence to warrant allowing a jury to hear the case. This is a very low bar…
From the three articles I’ve found on the hearing (here, here, and here), I’ve gleaned these facts:

The three men in the Jeep that day were Charles Crow, David Hurley Jr., and Hector Monget.
The maximum sentence Orlosky faces, if convicted, is life in prison.
A week before the shooting, Orlosky and Grant Nunmaker caught copper thieves on Orlosky’s property and held them at gunpoint until sheriff’s deputies arrived to arrest them.
Crow and Hurley were suspected (by the sheriffs) of stealing copper in the past, but not from Orlosky’s property.
There was no copper in Hurley’s Jeep (the vehicle involved that evening), nor were there any tools that could be used to remove copper from electrical machinery.
Orlosky remains free on $2 million bail.
The defense attorney is Paul Pfingst (former San Diego District Attorney).
The prosecutor is Jeff Dusek, who used to work for Paul Pfingst.

The story alleged by the prosecution:

Hurley says that he and Crow were driving Monget to his home (in Rancho San Diego) on that night. He said that they saw a “For Sale” (real estate) sign as they drove past Wisecarver Road, and decided to check it out. He said they drove up Wisecarver Truck Trail, past a white pickup driving the other way, until they ran into a locked gate. At that point, he said, they turned around, and retraced their route toward Skyline Truck Trail. At some point he said they saw the white pickup parked by the side of the road, slowed down to see if the driver needed help, and at that point Orlosky stepped out from behind the white pickup and started shooting with his rifle held at his waist.

And some other unverifiable information:

Pfingst said that Hurley’s initial testimony to police was that he did not get a good look at the shooter’s face. Hurley said that his memory started coming back to him after the fact.
NBC News is reporting that the defense argument will be that the three men in the jeep were drunk, on drugs, and stealing.

This hearing was all about the prosecutor’s case, so we didn’t get to find out much about the defense’s side of things. From what was presented in the hearing, it sounds like the prosecutor is going to paint a picture of Orlosky as the outraged and out-of-control property owner, wronged in the past, and leaping to unwarranted conclusions in this instance. The fact that there was neither copper nor copper removal tools in the Jeep sounds damaging to Orlosky’s case to me; you’re not going to remove wire from motors or transformers with your bare hands. You might be able to make an argument that Orlosky believed they were on a scouting expedition, or something along those lines, but that would not be a reasonable justification for shooting.
One piece of Hurley’s testimony jumped out at me: that Orlosky held the rifle at his waist while shooting. Why would anyone shoot a rifle like that? If you know anything about guns, you know shooting “from the hip” is guaranteed to be wild, inaccurate fire. I don’t know why, as I wasn’t there, but that sounds to me like desperate, panicked shooting — not deliberate, calculated shooting. Of course, we don’t even know that’s really what happened; this is the just the testimony of one person.
It’s also interesting that Crow and Hurley were suspected in other copper thefts. I wonder if Orlosky knew that? Numerous commenters on previous posts have painted a glowing picture of Crow — they’ve called him a fine, upstanding young man who would never consider doing such a thing. The sheriffs obviously believed otherwise. I wonder what their suspicions were based on?
But to hear the other side, most likely we’re going to have to wait for the trial. We’ll know when that is on February 22nd.
If you’d like some history on this case, and a fair amount of commentary (much of it from local folks), check out my previous posts on the subject (in chronological order) here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Scrap Thieves

A fellow Jamulian wrote me last night with some interesting information. It seems that there has been a rash of thefts of two sorts in the area…

One sort is thefts of metal scrap (primarily copper, I think). In the recent case of Bob Orlosky and the murder of Charles Crow, one of the possibilities raised is that Charles Crow and the other two people in their vehicle were raiding Bob Orlosky’s scrap yard — or that Bob believed they were doing so, accurately or not. Several of my readers commented that there had been other thefts of scrap, including just a few days before the murder on Bob Orlosky’s property.
Now I’ve learned that Robby Ivy (a long-time resident of Lawson Valley, and the fellow who provided the land for the Lawson Valley fire station) was robbed of some scrap metal (copper wire) just this week. Sheriff’s Deputy Brown handled the case, and told Robby that such thefts have been occurring recently all over the Jamul area.
The other sort is thefts of oak wood (for firewood). This happens every winter as the demand for firewood increases; the prices of $200 or more for a cord of wood attracts a certain low class of people with a chain saw and a truck — apparently whether or not they have any rights to the wood. Recently the gate at the base of Hilary Road (a road on private land in Lawson Valley) was torn up so that a truck could get through. The oak thieves didn’t even take the down, dead wood — instead, they cut down some of our beautiful (and threatened) live oaks. These scum make my blood boil…and bring to mind a refrain from a fellow blogger, appropriately modified:

Oak tree. Rope. Oak thief.
Some assembly required.

The floor is open (in the comments) for good ideas about how to address this plague. Meanwhile, I’m cleaning and maintaining my weapons, making certain I have plenty of ammunition on hand, and thinking about how to turn our field spaniels into vicious thief-biters!

Self-Defense?

Today’s San Diego Union-Tribune has an article about the first hearing in the Charles Crow murder case. In this hearing, Orlosky’s attorney (Paul Pfingst — a former District Attorney himself) presented some elements of Orlosky’s side of the story, including a rough outline of his version of events. There were also some interesting comments by Orlosky’s friends and neighbors. The lead:

A Jamul electrical contractor charged with murder was defending himself against potential thieves who tried to run him down when he caught them, his lawyer told a judge yesterday.
Joseph “Bob” Orlosky “was being ripped off” when he fired on three men he found driving a Jeep on a dirt road that cuts through his rural East County property about 8:30 p.m. on Dec. 1, Orlosky’s lawyer, former District Attorney Paul Pfingst, told Superior Court Judge Charles W. Ervin.
“The victims tried to kill Mr. Orlosky and Mr. Orlosky defended himself,” Pfingst said.

This is pretty close to one of the scenarios that I and several commenters have speculated about in past posts on this event. It makes a lot more sense than the idea that Orlosky just randomly started shooting at the vehicle Crow was in, for no good reason.
Another excerpt:

Pfingst told the judge Orlosky never left Jamul during the time police were looking for him and was continuing his business and consulting with Pfingst about surrendering.

Several commentors on previous posts speculated that Orlosky was hiding out here in Jamul. It appears they were right. If it’s true that he was continuing his business affair, that seems pretty brazen — and I’m amazed that his contacts with other people didn’t lead to him being caught…
The police outlined their version of events:

Police in court documents said Crow, 23, and his two companions were traveling in a Jeep Cherokee north on Wisecarver Truck Trail in Jamul when they passed a white Ford truck.
After coming upon a locked gate across the road, they returned south on Wisecarver Truck Trail. Orlosky ran from behind his parked truck, stood in the road and fired a rifle at them, police said.
Orlosky again fired at the Jeep after it passed him, hitting Crow in the head and Monge in the elbow, police said. They said the Jeep stalled after turning onto Skyline Truck Trail, and Crow’s companions jumped out to hide in bushes, making several calls to 911. They remained hidden until sheriff’s deputies arrived.

This is more-or-less what we heard in the earliest reports. There’s no statement in here about Orlosky’s motivation for shooting. I infer from the absence of an expressed motive that the police (and the District Attorney) are uncertain of a motive, or that they believe a motive will detract from their murder charge. Or it could be that they just don’t want to make their theory about the motive public at this point.
Here’s Orlosky’s version of events:

Pfingst said Orlosky had been watching television in his living room when sensors he had installed along the road warned that intruders were on his property.
Fearing he was about to be robbed, Pfingst said, Orlosky went to investigate and was nearly run down. “The people who were on that property had no legitimate reason to be there at that time of night,” Pfingst said.

This jibes with some of the things asserted by commentors on earlier posts; things I had not been able to find any public information on. And in its rough outline, it matches one of the scenarios we have discussed in previous posts: that Orlosky’s motive for the shooting was to defend himself or his property, or both. This makes much more sense than a random, unmotivated shooting. It doesn’t necessarily justify Orlosky’s actions; we’d have to know a lot more about what happened to be able to determine that. One possible scenario is that the boys were on Orlosky’s property, Orlosky got angry — but wasn’t actually directly threatened in any way — and started shooting. That would be, in my opinion at least, an unjustified act. However, another possible scenario is that the boys were on Orlosky’s property, saw him on the road, interpreted his presence as a threat, and tried to run him down — at which point Orlosky started shooting. In that scenario, Orlosky’s actions might be justified.
Note to friends and family of Charles Crow: I am not asserting that either of the above scenarios is what actually occurred. I am simply outlining the range of possibilities I see in a case that this concerned Jamul citizen would like to understand. As a local resident, I have a vested interest in understanding why this murder occurred a mile or so from my home. I’d like to know whether we had a lunatic shooting people at random, or we had a homeowner defending himself and his property. Those are two very different versions of events…
The UT reporter managed to get some additional information that didn’t come from a press release or a transcript, the first time that’s occurred in their reporting on this story:

Outside the courtroom, Orlosky’s sister, Dana Ross of San Carlos, said that her brother had lost “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in copper wiring and equipment to thieves.
Pfingst said that just two weeks before the shooting, Orlosky had made a citizen’s arrest on three men he said he had caught stealing copper wiring on his property.
A former neighbor, Maggie Schweitzer, said Orlosky often came to her aid when trespassers approached her home. “He is a good man,” she said, “and we knew from the beginning he was protecting his family and his property.”

Again, this jibes with some of the information posted by commentors on previous posts; information that I could not corroborate at all. The statements paint a sketchy picture of a man who perhaps isn’t either a lunatic or the human manifestation of evil, as well as some context to understand how Orlosky was feeling on the night of the shooting.
This is more than I expected to have made public at this stage of affairs. It will be interesting — and comforting — to see the story unfold in more detail as the case progresses…

Orlosky Surrenders

From this morning’s San Diego Union-Tribune:

Suspect in rifle slaying of Jamul man surrenders

By Pauline Repard
December 16, 2006
A fugitive suspected of fatally shooting a passenger in a Jeep in Jamul two weeks ago turned himself in yesterday, sheriff’s officials said.
Joseph “Bob” Orlosky, 55, of Jamul surrendered at the Central Jail in downtown San Diego about 4:30 p.m. in the company of his attorney, sheriff’s Lt. Dennis Brugos said.
Orlosky was booked on suspicion of one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder. Bail was set at $2 million.
Last week, homicide investigators identified Orlosky as the suspect in the attack. Charles Crow, 23, of Jamul was shot and killed Dec. 1, and one of his two companions was wounded.
The three men were in a Jeep, driving along Wisecarver Truck Trail near Skyline Truck Trail about 8:30 p.m., when they passed a white pickup. They reportedly turned around and passed the truck again.
On the second pass, a man in camouflage pants and jacket allegedly climbed out of the pickup and opened fire on the Jeep with a high-powered rifle. Rounds hit Crow and the second passenger, who was slightly wounded. The driver was unhurt.
Public records showed that Orlosky lives on Wisecarver Truck Trail.
Brugos said Orlosky’s attorney called a homicide detective yesterday and arranged to meet a detective with the San Diego Regional Fugitive Task Force at the jail to surrender.

Well, that’s a big relief to know that Bob Orlosky is now behind bars, and not wandering around our hills with a rifle. I’d imagine that it’s some comfort to Chuck Crow’s family and friends as well, from a different perspective…
The news coverage of this tragedy has been very disappointing, and the story above continues that record of shallow coverage. Commenters on the several posts about this story have brought up far more details (which, I should note, I have no way to verify) than all the local media combined. I’ve searched extensively using Google, Google Images, and Google News, and have been unable to find references to several of the more interesting things that commenters have mentioned: photos of the jeep after the shooting on Wisecarver Truck Trail, copper scraps found in the jeep, or the glass and bullet casings allegedly found along Wisecarver. If these elements of the story are indeed true, and the media hasn’t dug deep enough to uncover things ordinary citizens know, then it’s one more piece of evidence about the ineffectiveness of our mainstream media.
As if we needed more evidence.
Bob Orlosky is behind bars. I look forward to more details of this story emerging, though I suspect that won’t happen until the trial…

Emotions Running High

I received this email this morning (I am not including the name, since I do not have the permission of the writer to use it):

Wow!! who are you to write a story defending a KILLER??? Why??? This man Orlowsky is obviously not in the right by any means. I dont think that it is right that you can write a public story making a defensive story for him, something that he should be doing if he had probable reasoning for fireing a rifle in the middle of the street. Mind you not on HIS property. Why would he have a rifle on him anyway? Who carries a rifle around? And if innocent why is he running? This really upsets our family reading your story defending this man. What are you crazy too? Do you think like a killer? Chuck was a very nice young man with NO enemies and never would he have had a confrontation that led to murder or any violent crime like has happened. He did not deserve this nor do we deserve to read some non sense story you have written defending the man that killed our loved one.

Several people, including (obviously) this writer, have read my posts and somehow concluded that I am defending Bob Orlosky.
So, for the record, let me make the following points:
1. I do not know Bob Orlosky; to my knowledge I have never met the man.
2. I do not hold any belief that Bob Orlosky is innocent. To the contrary, as I have pointed out several times in posts and comments, his behavior argues for his guilt.
3. I did not know Charles (Chuck) Crow; to my knowledge I have never met the man.
4. I do not hold any belief that Charles Crow is guilty of anything that could have justified his murder.
All four points above are true — but I (and anyone else who is thinking instead of feeling) can observe (not accuse) that the story as presented in the news doesn’t add up; it simply doesn’t make any sense. I and others on these posts have observed this fact, and speculated on what the facts might actually be. Amongst those speculations: (a) Bob Orlosky is a completely crazy homicidal maniac, (b) Charles Crow and his buddies did something to anger or otherwise provoke Bob Orlosky — and those actions might or might not have been enough to justify the shooting.
The writer above clearly is leaning towards (a). Personally, I find (b) more plausible. The only information I have of this incident is that which has been published in the news; my opinion is formed from that information and a general knowledge of human nature gained in over 50 years of experience. The writer above implies that he or she has personal knowledge of Charles Crow. Other commenters claim or imply personal knowledge of Charles Crow, Bob Orlosky, or others less directly involved. Their opinions obviously reflect that knowledge, and to some extent (as with the writer above) the bias such knowledge produces.
There’s nothing at all wrong with any of this.
It’s human nature. It’s human nature to wonder what the hell actually happened on that Friday night. It’s human nature to worry about the possible variations that represent more risk to ourselves and those we love. It’s human nature to doubt the purity of anyone’s motivations or actions, for such purity is rarely seen.
There’s nothing wrong with any of this, the above writer’s complaints notwithstanding.
There’s also nothing at all wrong with the above writer’s complaint. The writer’s pain is obvious, and one can’t help but sympathize with that. Equally obvious is the writer’s knowledge of, and admiration for, Charles Crow. This writer knew Charles Crow, and is angered by even speculation that he did anything at all to provoke this crime. I can (and do) sympathize with this, even while disagreeing — for it’s exactly the behavior that I would hope my friends would exhibit, should anyone ever speculate about my involvement in something like this. But while my friends were shocked and offended at the speculations (because they feel that they know me), I would still acknowledge that others who don’t know me might have different perspectives — and those perspectives would be less biased than those of my friends…
But to answer the writer’s specific questions, and to rebut some of his or her points:
1. “This man Orlowsky is obviously not in the right by any means": What is “obvious” to the writer is not at all obvious to me. I don’t know what happened that Friday night, and therefore I don’t know whether Bob Orlowsky was justified in his actions. For that matter, I don’t know that Bob Orlowsky even took any actions. His behavior — running away, going into hiding — certainly isn’t what we all expect of an innocent man. However, there are plenty of well-documented cases where innocent men or women fled, usually because they were afraid of being accused of (and convicted and sentenced for) some crime they were innocent of. I can hear people getting all twitchy on me just at that statement, so let me be clear: I am not saying that I believe Bob Orlosky is innocent. In fact, I think his behavior argues against his innocence. But I also do not believe his guilt is “obvious” — for the possibility exists that there were mitigating circumstances, or even that Bob Orlosky didn’t commit this crime at all. I simply don’t know enough facts to reach a judgment — I wasn’t there on that Friday night, I don’t know any of the parties involved, and I am not privy to the results of the Sheriff’s investigation.
2. “I dont think that it is right that you can write a public story making a defensive story for him": Sorry, but I disagree with that on two levels. First, I did not make a “defensive story", I simply speculated on what the possible scenarios would be. Second, I have every right to do so — this is America, and we have this thing called “freedom of speech” here.
3. “not on HIS property": The rifle wasn’t fired on his own property? How do you know that? I have not seen any information in the news or on the Sheriff’s site about exactly where the shooting took place. If that is accurate information, then it is a damning piece of information with respect to Bob Orlosky. I would like to know this information for certain.
4. “Why would he have a rifle on him anyway? Who carries a rifle around?” If someone were invading my property, and I felt threatened, then I would for darned certain get out my gun and defend myself. As with my earlier statement, I am not claiming that this is what happened, simply noting the possibility — something this writer is dismissing.
5. “And if innocent why is he running?” Actually, as I mentioned earlier, innocent people do sometimes run. Certainly in the majority of cases, runners are guilty. But innocent runners are more common than most people imagine — which is why running from a crime is not considered evidence by the justice system. It’s an indication, to be sure, and it’s often a correct indication — but not always.
6. “This really upsets our family reading your story defending this man. What are you crazy too?” I’m sorry if you’re upset by my story; that reaction was not my intention. But…you own that reaction, not me — it was your choice to be upset. And you don’t have to read my blog — if you don’t like what I have to say, you’re free to go elsewhere. And I have the right to “think out loud” here, just as you have the right to send me that email. We have a right in America to freedom of speech — but there is no right to be free from being offended. Now as to whether or not I’m crazy — well, I think you’d get different answers to that from different folks. More than a few would say that I was, in fact, a few beers short of a six-pack…

A Suspect!

The San Diego Sheriff’s Department has identified a suspect in the murder of Charles Crow — a local man named Joseph “Bob” Orlosky (mug shot at right), who owns or has an interest in property on Wisecarver Truck Trail, near where the crime occurred.

The press reports about this murder have been skimpy and inconsistent, as have the comments on this blog (see my earlier posts here and here). Of all the various speculations I’ve run across, the one that seems most plausible to me is that the three men in the truck were out “four wheeling", just for fun, on what they believed was a road they had a right to be on. In this hypothetical scenario, Bob Orlosky got angry about these four wheelers because (rightly or wrongly, as the case may be) he believed they didn’t have a right to be there.
The complete special bulletin is at right. Click on the picture to get a full-sized view, or click here to see the original.
The above scenario seems most plausible to me because I witnessed something very much like this (without, of course, the violent ending) on my neighbor’s property, just a few feet from my own property. What I saw was a couple of slightly-drunk guys (neither of whom was Charles Crow) in a four-wheel drive pickup driving off-road to get around a gate on my neighbor’s private road. In doing so, they caused considerable damage to my neighbor’s property — scarring a hillside, destroying several trees, and leaving the area just generally ugly. Furthermore, once they got around the gate, they were trespassing on my neighbor’s property. Now my neighbor didn’t react at all like (in the hypothetical scenario above) we’re speculating that Bob Orlosky did. Instead, he called in the Sheriff’s Department (who responded very quickly) and engaged in a little creative barrier-building to keep these jerks from violating his property again. The two jerks in question, by the way, insisted that they had every right to be on that road, because the road was public, not private. They were just plain wrong about that, but that didn’t keep them from asserting it.
The point of the preceding story is that there may be more to the Charles Crow/Bob Orlosky story that we haven’t heard yet. For instance, perhaps there were words exchanged, and perhaps the boys in the truck were on private land (I don’t know whether this is the case), and perhaps they refused to leave — and Bob Orlosky got angry. That certainly wouldn’t justify a murder, but at least it would make the incident easier to understand. Or (this is pure speculation, folks) perhaps Bob Orlosky was threatened by the truck in some way, and was defending himself — in which case his actions might be justifiable (though going into hiding afterwards certainly wouldn’t be, and by doing so he casts much doubt on that scenario). Just to continue my point that we don’t know everything yet, consider this: suppose Bob Orlosky shot at the truck because it was headed straight for him, at high speed, on a road that he owned? Wouldn’t that put a different color on things?
At least one commenter has interpreted my reaction as support for Bob Orlosky (whom I have never met, or even heard of, until this crime occurred). This same commenter even implied that I might be actively helping Bob Orlosky avoid capture. So, just to make things clear (if the above discussion didn’t): I want Bob Orlosky captured as badly as anyone does. I live a mile from the murder scene; if (as some commenters have speculated) Bob Orlosky is some kind of nutcase who perpetrated this crime for no good reason, then I want him locked up where he won’t hurt anyone else — like me or the people I care about! But at the same time, I note that there are many facts not yet in public evidence. The scenario that seems most unlikely to me is that Bob Orlosky murdered Charles Crow for absolutely no reason, with absolutely no provocation. If the full facts ever become public, my guess is that the crime will become more understandable, because we will then learn what the provocation was. And we can then make a judgment about whether the provocation justified the crime. Acknowledging that there was likely some kind of provocation is not the same thing as saying the crime was justified (because that depends entirely on the specifics of the provocation). I’m not saying that the murder was justified, or even that it was likely justified — simply that the possibility exists that it was, because of facts that we don’t know.

Crow Murder

As some of the comments on my previous post on this subject show, the victim (Charles “Chuck” Crow, seen at right) in last Friday’s murder was a local resident. His friends and relatives cannot imagine any motivation for a murderer to attack him, and they took some umbrage at my ponderings (and the comments) on the reasons for this crime. Their reaction is understandable (and forgivable), but off target: none of us were accusing or blaming the victim here, simply pointing out how difficult this crime is to understand. And apparently the police are having the same difficulty — it’s been five days since the crime, and there have been no arrests, no charges, and no announcements of import. All we can do is hope that the police are actually making progress…

The San Diego Union-Tribune’s story today:

Charles “Chuck” Crow was a new father working to buy a home when he was shot and killed in a bizarre attack by a gunman wearing camouflage who also wounded another man.
The father of a baby boy, Charles “Chuck” Crow, 23, loved riding his off-road vehicle in the desert on weekends. He was fatally shot Friday night outside Jamul.
The 23-year-old construction worker had been laboring long hours trying to save money to buy a house for his young family.
“And now he’s gone,” said Rose Moran, 22, the mother of their 5-month-old son, Evan.
Crow’s mother called her son’s slaying senseless.
“I just don’t understand why somebody would fire an assault rifle on a car full of innocent young men who were just driving by,” Teri Crow said yesterday.
“Why would somebody do this?”
Sheriff’s detectives have yet to establish a motive for the shooting, which occurred about 8:30 p.m. Friday near Skyline Truck Trail and Wisecarver Truck Trail northeast of Jamul.
Charles Crow and two friends were driving on Wisecarver Truck Trail near his home when they passed a white Ford pickup that was parked on the side of the road.
A short time later they turned around and were driving back toward Skyline Truck Trail when they again came upon the pickup. This time a man stepped out, went to the center of the road and fired several shots at them with a high-powered rifle.
Crow, who was a passenger, was killed and another passenger was wounded but not seriously.
Authorities are searching for the shooter, described as an unshaven white man with gray hair. He was wearing a green camouflage jacket, pants and a floppy brimmed hat.
Sheriff’s Lt. Dennis Brugos said yesterday that investigators issued a search warrant on a vehicle that matched the description given by witnesses.
He declined to say whether the vehicle’s owner had been found or interviewed, saying he didn’t want to jeopardize the investigation.
Crow’s family and friends said they want to see his killer brought to justice.
“He had so much to live for. He had so much to offer,” said Katie Castellanos, Charles Crow’s cousin.
The youngest of three children, Crow loved fixing cars and riding his off-road vehicle in the Imperial Valley desert on the weekend.
He lived with his family at his parents' home in Jamul but was planning to a buy a house nearby and wanted to help his future wife set up a day-care center there.
This year he began working for a waterproofing company co-owned by a boyhood friend, Ely Leeyer.
“He was stoked to be working for us,” Leeyer said. “He had his own crew. He was doing a good job.
“This was real unfortunate.”
A viewing is scheduled at 10 a.m. Sunday at Glenn Abbey Memorial Park and Mortuary, 3838 Bonita Road, Bonita. Funeral services will follow at 1:30 p.m.

Local Murder

On Friday night, about a mile from our house (as the crow flies), one man was murdered and another man was injured. The San Diego Union-Tribune’s story, by Michael Stetz:

The 23-year-old man shot to death in a bizarre attack Friday night has been identified as Charles Crow of Jamul.
A San Diego sheriff’s SWAT team was called in yesterday in the search for the shooter, who, while dressed in camouflage and carrying a rifle, opened fire at the SUV in which Crow was a passenger.
The Sheriff’s Department said the SWAT team had left the area late last night and that no arrest had been made.
Another passenger was wounded, but not seriously, in the shooting, which took place near Skyline Truck Trail and Wisecarver Truck Trail in Jamul.
At the time of the attack, Crow and two others were looking for a piece of property that was for sale, authorities said.
They passed a Ford pickup while driving. After turning around, they again came upon the truck.
This time, a man got out of the truck and went to the center of the highway. He raised a rifle and fired several shots, killing Crow.
According to the Sheriff’s Department, the suspect is a white man with gray hair and an unshaven face. He is about 5 feet 6 inches tall and weighs between 140 and 160 pounds. He was wearing a green camouflage jacket, pants and a floppy brimmed hat.
The truck is believed to be a white Ford F-250 pickup.
Authorities have no motive for the killing.

This is rather bizarre, wouldn’t you say? Every possible explanation I can think of is odd. It could be a completely random crazed shooter with a very weird modus operandi. Or, it could be that the surviving occupants of the vehicle are lying through their teeth, and there actually is some connection to the victim, there is an identifiable motive for the killing, and the murderer chased them down into the cul-de-sac that Wisecarver Road forms. Or it could be that the killer was actually after someone else, and shot Charles Crow by mistake. But all of these possibilities seem quite unlikely!
I sure hope the police can get a handle on this one sometime soon. It’s been over 24 hours now, and there have been no announcements of progress…