Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Story Tools

Email this story | Print this story

Indexes

May 11th, 2008
May 10th, 2008
May 9th, 2008
May 8th, 2008
May 7th, 2008
May 6th, 2008
May 5th, 2008
ADVERTISEMENT

Homeowner shoots, wounds man

Lodi police: Resident thought man was breaking into house

By Layla Bohm
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Updated: Thursday, November 2, 2006 6:42 AM PST

A homeowner shot and wounded a drunken man early Wednesday because she thought he was trying to break into her house in southwest Lodi, police said.

Benjamin Ortega, who turned 21 the same day, was hit twice in the 300 block of Finch Run Drive around 1:45 a.m. and hospitalized with what police said were not life-threatening injuries to the leg and abdomen.

The resident, Noelle Fabrizio, 38, fired a total of four shots with her .380-caliber handgun, Officer Dale Eubanks said.

Police found no damage to the home, but they did find a wet spot on the side fence and believe Ortega had entered her property to urinate, Eubanks said.

It was the second time in less than four months that Ortega was arrested after allegedly urinating in public, and the previous incident resulted in a court order that he not consume alcohol until October 2007.

Tests Wednesday showed he had a blood-alcohol content level of 0.27 percent when he was hospitalized after the shooting, Eubanks said. In comparison, that is more than triple California's legal driving limit.

Ortega was shot with a small handgun that was registered to a friend of Fabrizio's, Eubanks said. Fabrizio was not arrested and the case remains under investigation. Fabrizio said Wednesday night that she shot Ortega to protect her children.

Neighbors were still talking about the shooting hours later, recounting how the generally quiet street of tidy houses had turned into a sea of flashing emergency lights.

"At 1:50, I just jumped out of my bed," said Kim Seibel, who lives next door to Fabrizio. "I heard four booms and then I heard a guy moaning."

Seibel had first thought someone was pounding on her front door, then realized she must have heard gun shots. Before long, medics and police were on scene, tending to the man in Fabrizio's front yard.

An ambulance took Ortega to Lodi Memorial Hospital, where he was listed in fair condition Wednesday, a hospital spokeswoman said.

By 9:30 a.m., the yellow police tape had been removed from Fabrizio's front yard, and her Halloween decorations remained. Orange lights lined the eaves of the cream-colored two-story, three-bedroom house.

Seibel said Fabrizio has two young children.

Police had initially been called at 1:43 a.m. to the 300 block of Almond Drive, where a man said someone was trying to break into his home. As officers were on their way, police dispatchers received a call that someone had been shot on Finch Run Drive, which runs parallel to Almond Drive.

There they found Ortega, who remains hospitalized and has not been arrested, Eubanks said.

Ortega had previous contact with police on July 16, when he was arrested after allegedly urinating in the road, then lunging at an elderly man whose daughter had told Ortega to stop. Robert Ross, 81, recounted how Ortega took off his shirt, cussed, then charged across the street and into Ross' Mason Street yard.

"We tripped, stumbled, fell and I landed on top," Ross said Wednesday.

Ross had served in the U.S. Marine Corps during World War II and used his training to hold Ortega, telling him he'd let the young man up if he agreed to stay out of trouble.

Ortega was arrested, and he pleaded guilty Oct. 19 to misdemeanor elder abuse, according to San Joaquin County Superior Court records. He was sentenced to 45 days in jail with seven days of credit and is scheduled to begin serving that sentence Nov. 16.

Ortega was also placed on probation and ordered not to consume any alcohol for a year. No other court cases were listed for him in San Joaquin County.

A friend of his, Jerald Geer, said Ortega was born and raised in Lodi but doesn't have a permanent home. Geer said he hadn't seen Ortega in at least a couple weeks. He wondered if there would be any arrests, but that remains under investigation.

"(Detectives) are going to put everything together and give it to the District Attorney," Eubanks said.

Gun ownership doesn't necessarily matter, he said, because the gun was registered and no permit is required to keep a gun inside a home. Some factors investigators and prosecutors will consider include whether Fabrizio's life was in "immediate danger," Eubanks added.

Neighbors said Fabrizio had moved in two months earlier, but they knew little else about her. They said she had regular company and one said she is a hair stylist and nail technician.

As late as spring 2005, she had worked at the county's Family Resource and Referral Center, which helps single or needy parents with child care. Fabrizio is no longer employed there.

City records show that Fabrizio purchased the home Aug. 18.

Police are still investigating, and neighbors remain shaken. Wilma Bianchi, who lives across the street from Fabrizio, said Almond Drive had recently been the target of gang graffiti — the stop sign at Stockton Street still bears telltale white paint — and an attempted burglary and shooting don't help.

"It makes me feel like maybe we need to move," she said.

Contact reporter Layla Bohm at layla@lodinews.com.

First published: Thursday, November 2, 2006

Reader Feedback

Lodian wrote on Nov 17, 2006 11:13 AM:

" WY: That is exactly what the imposter wanted to achieve, the halt of the momentum regarding a topic they didn't like. They certainly didn't like the direction this was going. Perhaps the imposter was involved in the shooting. It's really too bad that the LNS/webmaster cannot control this kind of derailment of a blog. The LNS stopped simple gossip on a blog about a "coffee shop" yet let this blog go wildly off track due to these idiots and their childish use of other poster's blog names. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 16, 2006 9:26 AM:

" Alas, we see that the "imposter" is not a paying customer to these archives and probably not the Lodi News Sentinel (Ya hear that LNS/Webmaster?....they do not pay you!) "

Lodian wrote on Nov 15, 2006 9:22 PM:

" WY: I'd try posting in rainbow colors if that would get rid of the annoyance, but they would just "copy" that too. Oh well, I'm not going to let the distracters take us off topic, which was surely the plan. Besides, I am confident that the "normal" people that post here often know exactly which "Lodian" I am. ;-) "

WY wrote on Nov 15, 2006 1:55 PM:

" Oh... nice one! you Lodians chaced everyone off . To the second Lodian... you're mean spirited.Pick a different name! Your BS reminds me of my kids right in the middle of a good movie! Now we lost momentum. that's just perfect! Could one of you type in blue and the other in red? "

Lodian wrote on Nov 15, 2006 10:58 AM:

" Leonard: I wonder what the neighbors think of this whole thing. We know a couple of them, from this story, that are not too thrilled with Noelle's shooting. I would be interested to know if the neighborhood watch meeting has this on the agenda. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 15, 2006 10:19 AM:

" I hope Noelle Fabrizio and this shooting incident are fully investigated...and to the letter. There is an investigation when the police fire their gun, so I hope at the very least Noelle is completely and thoroughly investigated. Maybe she will be prosecuted for her wild outdoor shootings in the middle of the night in a family residential neighborhood. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 15, 2006 10:15 AM:

" It's unfortunate that some posters take away from the topic by trying create problems with specific other posters (ATTENTION WEBMASTER:Please keep people on topic!). I guess "someone" (wonder who?) had a really big problem with my views about Noelle and her wild shooting at strangers outside her home. When is the court date? Anyone know? "

Lodian wrote on Nov 15, 2006 7:54 AM:

" I will, but you are the imposter. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 14, 2006 11:32 PM:

" Lodian imposter: Enjoy yourself. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 14, 2006 3:30 PM:

" I'm just saying, Get Over Yourself! "

Lodian wrote on Nov 14, 2006 3:30 PM:

" "You are very petty, childish, and low class." (Whatever!) It takes one to know one. It's funny how you will still stoop to the level of namecalling yourself. And who are you calling an imposter? I've posted with the name "Lodian" for the last 6 months, just not everyday like yourself. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 14, 2006 12:22 PM:

" I'll be looking up Noelle Fabrizio's court date. I'd like to see this one. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 14, 2006 12:20 PM:

" Lodian imposter: If you don't like what I have to say or disagree with me, then either state your views like a mature person, or don't read my posts. It's really very simple. Only cowards, like you, attack/stalk others by using their blog name. Do you need help with selecting a blog name? You are very petty, childish and low class. Please re-read this again so you can understand the instructions. Good luck. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 14, 2006 12:13 PM:

" Lodian imposter: Meet me at Noelle's house at about 1:45am. (LOL!) "

Lodian wrote on Nov 14, 2006 12:12 PM:

" Noelle needs some lessons at the shooting range. Almond Drive residents: Be careful out there. Better stay away from Noelle's house. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 13, 2006 8:03 PM:

" I meant yard. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 13, 2006 8:03 PM:

" Lodian, heaven forbid if you and your dog were in someone's dog in the middle of the night. Your big mouth alone would have done you in! "

Lodian wrote on Nov 13, 2006 7:53 PM:

" What are you talking about? Why do you keep using my blog name? "

To Lodian (The Original) ...and imposter wrote on Nov 13, 2006 6:54 PM:

" Are you enjoying your little game? Are the voices in your head telling you what to do? --Lodian "

WY wrote on Nov 13, 2006 4:25 PM:

" Ralph... We think of them all the time and we never stop. But, this is a good "who dune it"... we surely think of our Vets and Soldiers every day. Every day my heart and prayers go out to our Soldiers. Sometimes, things like this Blog helps get us through the fear of having our loved ones over seas. I never stop thinking of our Soldiers. So do many of these bloggers.God Bless America. "

Lodian (The Original) wrote on Nov 13, 2006 3:38 PM:

" Does anyone seem to notice how "Lodian" addresses a comment to the Webmaster, calling people on here "losers?" She wants to be respected (maybe) but resorts to name calling because she's too immature when somebody doesn't agree with her. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 13, 2006 9:45 AM:

" MHRC: Perhaps you could follow the dialogue before deciding to bash me. My "dog" comment evolved from an earlier post when enchanged in conversation with another poster. Geez, so many people just flying off the handle right and left. LOL! "

Leonard wrote on Nov 13, 2006 7:39 AM:

" MHRC: The Shooter took the law into her own hands and shot someone twice for peeing on her lawn. How is that not vigilantism? "

MHRC wrote on Nov 12, 2006 11:37 PM:

" I find it extremely distasteful that lodian and leonard are equating what she did to shooting a dog for peeing in her yard, she may have screwed up but making her out to be a vigilante is over the line "

Leonard wrote on Nov 12, 2006 6:36 PM:

" Lodian: Noelle would put 2 shots in your dog and four into the neighbor's dinner party. That woman is a loose cannon, so to speak. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 12, 2006 3:11 PM:

" godhelplodi: So, will Noelle shoot my dog since I can't enter her yard to retrieve him? "

Lodian wrote on Nov 12, 2006 3:10 PM:

" webmaster: What's the scoop on the blog name deal? Any help with these losers that love to impersonate others? I know you have their ISP numbers so can we blast them off the blog or what?? LOL! ;-) "

Lodian wrote on Nov 12, 2006 3:06 PM:

" godhelplodi: I guess I must live in a more evolved neighborhood full of intelligent people then as Fido has gotten into many a yard, to undoubtedly visit with K9 neighbors, and no one has ever been shot retrieving the ol' mutt. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 12, 2006 12:42 PM:

" I think I'd like to sit in on this court session. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 12, 2006 12:07 PM:

" Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah! Everyone is using my blog name. Boo Hoo! I'm going to file a complaint because I can't figure out how to pick a new name! "

godhelplodi wrote on Nov 12, 2006 9:45 AM:

" To Lodian, you should not be in anybody's back yard without their conscent, especially late at night, you could be shot by any home owner, not just Noel. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 11, 2006 11:18 PM:

" "internet junkies" ???? How dare she! LOL! "

Leonard wrote on Nov 11, 2006 3:19 PM:

" I wonder whether it was Frankie's gun that was used to shoot the Urinator. "

Re-post by Noelle (roommate) wrote on Nov 11, 2006 1:30 PM:

" From the Stockton Record blogs(wonder why she didn't post on the Lodi blog):"I will make this short and sweet, My name is Frankie Lopez and my nationality happens to be Hispanic.I am Noelle's roommate,who happened to be here on the night of the shooting and will shed light on all the allegations,hearsay and comments IN COURT!! You have all been influenced via the media and internet junkies who have nothing better to do except asssume the events of October31st on our property. Good night.(Edited 3:27 AM by Recordnet) "

Lodian wrote on Nov 10, 2006 11:21 PM:

" My point in all of this has always been safety.Would it have been alright for Noelle to have shot me if I went into her side/back-yard late at night?I'm just seeing this as if it were me in the yard or some other innocent person. Our beloved dog,Fido(the-wonder-dog),has a bad habit of getting away from us.If he were to venture over to Noelle's house,should I call her and tell her we need to fetch Fido?Most folks wouldn't enjoy a call that late. What would you do?And please,don't say that you wouldn't find yourself in this situation.It happens. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 10, 2006 11:09 PM:

" ralph: Did I miss a comment here somewhere (quite possible)? Did someone say something bad about our soldiers in Iraq? "

S&W 500 wrote on Nov 10, 2006 6:26 PM:

" Buy a bigger gun! If you are prosecuted people will come out of the woodwork to support you! To the liberal democrats, did she violate his civil rights? He is a turd. Turds should be flushed down the toilet. Stay off of people's property, don't steal, don't rape, don't perform incest, and do not use our government as a way to supplement your income (food stamps), and we will get along a lot better. "

ralph wrote on Nov 10, 2006 4:21 PM:

" why are lodi people getting so worked up soldiers are dieing each day in Iraq but no one even acknowledges there deaths. "

Aimee wrote on Nov 10, 2006 2:41 PM:

" Lodian: Nah, it's all smoke and mirrors..heh... :) "

Lodian wrote on Nov 10, 2006 1:03 PM:

" Aimee: That's funny! I see you as getting your nose outta joint a lot! LOL! :-) Post on... o calm one. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 10, 2006 1:01 PM:

" It's so annoying when posters want everyone to stop posting and move on from a topic. If you want to move on then please, by all means, do so. Stop asking us all to do the same acting as if we are idiots, drooling on the computer desperately looking for entertainment for discussing an article in the paper. If you are leaving...bye bye! If you have an opinion....post on! "

Mom wrote on Nov 10, 2006 8:59 AM:

" Well the bottom line is, we can go on posting our personal opinion about this situation, reaching 1,000 posts, and getting nowhere. Or, we can all move on now and just let the authorities deal with this. I'm sure we all have a life.....Enjoy the weekend everyone!!! "

Aimee wrote on Nov 9, 2006 8:53 PM:

" I do have a question for all of the dissenters out there: do any of you have any background or training in law? There have been a lot of "the law is/says..." comments floating around, so I was curious. "

Aimee wrote on Nov 9, 2006 8:51 PM:

" Lodian: Unlike other persons on here, I don't get my nose out of joint when someone doesn't share my POV or opinion. This may be some bloggers' only form of entertainment and social interaction and the goings-on here may concern them greatly, but I really just consider this to be a minor diversion and don't really get too excited when someone doesn't share my same ideas. "

Aimee wrote on Nov 9, 2006 8:42 PM:

" No, we don't agree. I only said that there is no right to shoot where the "only provocation" is trespassing. You don't know all of the facts and neither do I. Neither of us know what happened that night because we aren't Noelle. Don't get so excited, I don't agree with you on anything else other than what I mentioned above. "

cmd wrote on Nov 9, 2006 12:05 PM:

" i love the word smarmy. i use it to tease my boy friend from time to time :o) "

cmd wrote on Nov 9, 2006 12:04 PM:

" lodian: exactly... it appears she went out expecting to confront the guy rathter than being in fear for her life. many states require that you retreat (as mentioned before). although not required here, it points to the fact that she was not scared for her life enought to refrain from going out there . . . if she knew he was out there and went out anyways, rather than locking the door. please re-read my previous posts if you thought i was saying otherwise. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 9, 2006 11:29 AM:

" WY: Ya got that right! Party on... "

Lodian wrote on Nov 9, 2006 11:27 AM:

" CMD: How can you be "in fear for your life" if you go outside looking for the guy so as to load him with lead? "

WY wrote on Nov 9, 2006 9:36 AM:

" LOL... This is like Knotts Landing!!! What the hell does Smarmy mean? I am a beauty school drop out and i speak one only American, Smarmy? What a good read,I have laughed all the way through this! We really need to learn from this. Lodian.. I have partied with you in another life. You have to be a friend of mine...lol And Leonard, I can't believe it... I don't have to post "

CMD wrote on Nov 9, 2006 9:25 AM:

" Zoro: there are two types of law: laws on the books, i.e. statutes, ordinances and the like, & laws that are termed "judge made" laws. rules are pulled out of cases and become law. "

CMD wrote on Nov 9, 2006 9:25 AM:

" cont... just because there is not a statute that says that it is illegal to shoot an unarmed man that is tresspassing, does not mean that it is not a law. situations vary, this guy could be 100 lbs and this woman could be 250 lbs and 6 feet tall. this guy could also be 300 and 6'5", unarmed and threatening her. if she is reasonably in fear for her life, then she can shoot... but in this situation, that does not appear to be the case. "

Looks like Noelle has been in Stockton... wrote on Nov 9, 2006 8:19 AM:

" Is she now the trespasser shooter? Did that Stockton girl trespass on someone's lawn to pee? "

Leonard wrote on Nov 9, 2006 5:09 AM:

" From today's Record: "Residents on Plantation Place in north Stockton said the girl was visiting a friend and was among several people standing outside at 5:30 p.m. when a group of four or five men seen in the neighborhood earlier began firing at a fleeing car. About 100 yards separated the place where the girl was hit and the spot where police marked out seven .38-caliber shell casings." "

Leonard-o wrote on Nov 9, 2006 4:49 AM:

" Good Lord! All of that just to find out that the woman agrees with me! "

Leonard-o wrote on Nov 9, 2006 4:43 AM:

" Amy: So after all this bluster and verbage, do we agree that, BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW NOW, there is no evidence that the Shooter had the right to shoot the Urinator? "

Lodian wrote on Nov 8, 2006 10:43 PM:

" aimee: Wow, so many posts. So much to say. You're on a roll. Do you know Noelle Fabrizio or are you just irritated that other bloggers have a point and you don't like it? LOL! A little too "smarmy"? :-) "

Lodian wrote on Nov 8, 2006 10:36 PM:

" aimee: Sometimes a very intelligent person, such as a law professor, can have almost no common sense. So, don't be too flattered. Let me ask you a question. Would you go outside, walking out of your home, looking for an intruder to shoot? You probably won't answer my question as you haven't answered the last one yet. Oh well, I'll try to survive without your response. "

Aimee wrote on Nov 8, 2006 6:24 PM:

" I have no idea who Zoro is, but I am impressed with both his and "A Reader" posts since they show more than a rudimentary knowledge of the law. "

Aimee wrote on Nov 8, 2006 6:23 PM:

" "Aimee is Bilingual": I am "barely intelligent" yet I sound like a law professor? Okaaay... You DO know that these two statements directly contradict each other? But I won't take offense..thanks for the compliment..law professors are very smart individuals. "

Aimee wrote on Nov 8, 2006 6:17 PM:

" But that's not the case, Leo, is it? There are ambiguities and uncertainties as to whether or not trespass was the "only provocation" or more. So, with this in mind (are you still with me?) my discussion of whether deadly force is appropriate when a person is trespassing is indeed relevant..because of the facts of this particular case, they are relevant. "

Aimee wrote on Nov 8, 2006 6:13 PM:

" If he was doing something really bad, like trying to rape her (no evidence of this) or trying to knife her (again, he was unarmed according to the article), then we wouldn't be arguing abou this, would we? We'd find something else to argue about because that's what we do on here: argue the issue over and over again until even I am sick of it. "

Aimee wrote on Nov 8, 2006 6:11 PM:

" Now, bear with me, because this is where you might get lost...the issue in this case, indeed, on this blog, is whether or not Noelle had the privilege to shoot the trespassor. That's what we've all been discussing, isn't it?--whether Noelle should have shot the man in her yard and whether she should be charged with a crime for doing so. Did she have a right to shoot him? "

Aimee wrote on Nov 8, 2006 6:09 PM:

" You have now qualified your earlier statements with the two words, "only provocation". In that case, yes, if that was the only thing that the attacker was doing, trespassing, and nothing more, a person can't just get out a gun and shoot them for being a trespassor. But is that the case here? Is Ortega simply a trespassor or did he do more? "

Aimee wrote on Nov 8, 2006 6:07 PM:

" Leonard-o: In all of your earlier posts you stated that it is a crime to shoot an unarmed trespassor. For you, the concern was that responsible gun owners don't go around shooting first and asking questions later. Now, you say; "what I meant was, 'the fact that he is trespassing is your only provacation'. Okay, let's go with that scenario because that little addittion changes the rules a bit. "

MHRC wrote on Nov 8, 2006 3:54 PM:

" noelle has to deal with these consequences and so does bennie other than that all of this bickering over who was right and who was wrong is chicken bleep GET A LIFE PEOPLE "

If you use Aimee's logic... wrote on Nov 8, 2006 12:29 PM:

" Then when the pizza man accidentally comes to my house instead of the other side of my duplex I can shoot him for trespassing. I mean for all I know he could be weilding a large pepperoni. "

Noelle should be in jail. wrote on Nov 8, 2006 11:51 AM:

" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227896,00.html Read the link above and see a REAL reason to attack someone and defend yourself. Noelle's is child's play in comparison. Noelle you should be ASHAMED OF YOURSELF. "

Leonard wrote on Nov 8, 2006 11:11 AM:

" Aimee: If you shoot a trespasser who is trying to assualt you, it is a good shooting solely on the grounds of the attempted assualt. With regards to the use of deadly force, the fact that he was trespassing is irrelevant. "

Leonard wrote on Nov 8, 2006 11:09 AM:

" So, am I the only one who gets the feeling that Amy and Zoro are the same poster? "

Leonard wrote on Nov 8, 2006 11:08 AM:

" Aim-e: What I said was that it is a crime to shoot an unarmed trespasser if the fact that he is trespassing is your only provocation. I don't know what motivates you to attack strawmen (of your own creation) but I don't think it is helping your case. "

Aimee wrote on Nov 8, 2006 10:51 AM:

" While you are correct in saying that one should not go shooting trespassors whenever one feels like it, you also need to recognize that NOT ALL shootings of trespassors are a crime. Your statements were blanket statements of the law and incorrect. I was simply trying to educate you, nothing more. While you show great knowledge in other subjects, you lack a bit in your knowledge of the law. It's not an insult; the law can be a difficult thing to grasp, even for judges and attorneys. "

Aimee is bilingual... wrote on Nov 8, 2006 10:45 AM:

" Because all I see is her speaking gibberish. I myself don't know what the law is but from her words which are barely intelligent you would think she is a law professor, or thinks she is. "

Aimee wrote on Nov 8, 2006 10:39 AM:

" continued......... 3. You yourself brought up the issue with multiple statements saying unequivocally that it is a crime to shoot an unarmed tresspassor. This is not the case and I wanted you to know WHY it is not "

Aimee wrote on Nov 8, 2006 10:28 AM:

" Open Letter to Leonard---- Dear Leonard: The stated law is relevant because: 1. Noelle used a gun-a deadly weapon- It was assault when she pulled out the gun and pointed it at the intruder 2. "IF" Noelle had a privilege to use this deadly force, she will have had a valid legal excuse to commit the assault. The DA/police must decide if the facts warrant this "excuse". "

Aimee wrote on Nov 8, 2006 10:22 AM:

" Leonard: The reason I have not responded to your assertion that my recitation of this particular law is not relevant is because I am surprised that you would make this point over and over again. "

Leonard wrote on Nov 8, 2006 4:09 AM:

" Lodian: Not only would the Shooter have had to go into the house and load the pistol, with a child in the house she would have also had to unlock the pistol from whatever child proof storage container she was keeping it in. MAYBE she has one of those push button access boxes for the pistol that isn't even registered in her name, but I doubt it. "

Leonard wrote on Nov 8, 2006 4:05 AM:

" Aim-e: I am still curious to know where you think the other two bullets went. "

Leonard wrote on Nov 8, 2006 4:04 AM:

" Ami: The point that has been made OVER and OVER which you still seem unable to grasp is that there is absolutely no evidence that the law you cite is relevant to this case. "

concerned wrote on Nov 7, 2006 10:28 PM:

" Wasn't there a shooting in this neighborhood recently? I recall that the police were called about a party or two that were getting out of hand and someone was injured. Anyone know about this? "

Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2006 10:22 PM:

" Noelle Fabrizio put herself at a higher risk by confronting the man outside in the yard rather than staying inside, locking up and loading the gun. She could have confronted a much more dangerous "armed" person that could have made her daughter an orphan. Where's the good judgement in that? We all make mistakes, but this could have been a grave mistake with a loaded gun. Very serious. Perhaps Fabrizio needs to take a hard look at her decision making skills and get the gun out of the house. ??? Just food for thought. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2006 10:21 PM:

" Also, think about this now.... Fabrizio was outside, talking to a friend, when she got the news from a neighbor that a stranger/man was wandering the streets and going into backyards. When Fabrizio went inside the house to get the gun, and load it, then why did she go back outside to confront the stranger/man/urinator? Looks to me like she wanted to confront the guy. Foolish choice to confront a stranger in the dark. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2006 10:19 PM:

" The shooter, Noelle Fabrizio, does not have the right to endanger other people/families in the neighborhood by shooting four times at a figure in her dark backyard, which is in town and close to other homes in the development."If" the urinator was coming towards Fabrizio in a threatening manner that prompted her to make the decision to get a gun from inside the house and then go back outside to shoot the guy then why didn't she get more lead in the guy? If he was coming at her he would have been right in front of her. "

Aimee wrote on Nov 7, 2006 9:34 PM:

" Lodian: I was just reciting the applicable law. I, too, will be interested in the outcome of this case. "

Aimee wrote on Nov 7, 2006 9:30 PM:

" P.S. It's "suite" not "suit" "

Aimee wrote on Nov 7, 2006 9:29 PM:

" Leonard: I'm touched that you hold me in such high esteem. Pshaw, I am only just slightly arrogant, and only on the first Tuesday of every month... "

Leonard wrote on Nov 7, 2006 8:50 PM:

" Amy: Where do you think the Shooter's other two bullets went? "

Leonard wrote on Nov 7, 2006 8:43 PM:

" Oh Arrogant One: In any case, the fact remains that neither the Shooter, nor the Dysfunctional Family nor any of the other alleged witnesses to the event have said anything to suggest (or allege, if you will) that the Urinator was attacking the Shooter. Once again, your hypotheticals appear to have very little relevance to the shooting currently under discussion. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2006 8:39 PM:

" So what gives Noelle Fabrizio the PRIVILEGE to shoot the man in her backyard? What was the "imminent danger" to Fabrizio or another? The man was unarmed and hadn't touched her, so where is the PRIVILEGE? With the facts stated/presented at the current time, I don't see how Fabrizio was justified in the shooting of this man in her backyard. I will be interested to see where this goes after the investigation is completed by the "professionals". The judge may have to decide. "

Leonard wrote on Nov 7, 2006 8:38 PM:

" Aimee: It appears that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I never contested the Shooter's right to defend herself IF she was being threatened. What I did say is that you cannot shoot someone merely because they are trespassing. Why don't you try reading the posts before you comment on them, of Arrogant One? "

Aimee wrote on Nov 7, 2006 7:36 PM:

" cont.: your disussion of assault with a deadly weapon is flawed in that it fails to recognize that Noelle 'MAY' be 'EXCUSED' from criminal prosecution for the use of a deadly weapon 'IF' the facts suggest that she had 'PRIVILEGE' for using the deadly weapon against her 'ALLEGED' attacker "

Aimee wrote on Nov 7, 2006 7:27 PM:

" cont.: assault with a deadly weapon is indeed a crime. Using DEADLY force against a trespassor without reasonable justification is against the law..HOWEVER, if the person REASONABLY believes that there is imminent danger to themselves or another (and not to personal property where deadly force is NEVER excused) there is a PRIVILEGE extended to them that allows that person to use deadly force, which could be an assault with a deadly weapon. "

Aimee wrote on Nov 7, 2006 7:23 PM:

" Leonard: I laugh at your feeble attempt to analyze the law. If you knew anything about the law (and you know very little), there is an exception to the penal code you woefully attempted to assert...it's called PRIVILEGE. Shall I explain, oh, limited one? "

Aimee wrote on Nov 7, 2006 7:20 PM:

" Zoro: Leonard will not admit that he is wrong, no matter what. Leonard should stick to the things he knows best, and let me tell you, the law isn't one of those things. "

Bernardo to Zoro wrote on Nov 7, 2006 7:02 PM:

" It is good to see you admit your mistake like a man. "

Zoro wrote on Nov 7, 2006 5:03 PM:

" CMD. My problem with the other person is that he said there is a law that says if you shoot an unarmed man for trespassing on your property, you are, in fact, committing a crime. There is no specific law that says this. I was just trying to get this across to him so he wouldn't be giving out wrong information. I am well aware of deadly force laws.. Thanks...... "

Leonard wrote on Nov 7, 2006 4:42 PM:

" JD: Well, at 1:43 AM he was down the street causing trouble and at 1:45 he was being shot. I don't know how fast you can urinate but the times make me think he was caught in the act. If you believe... the Shooter put two bullets in the Urinator (and two God knows where) because he wouldn't "back up". In any case, none of the individuals who claim to have witnessed the event have claimed that the Urinator was threatening the Shooter in any manner. "

JD wrote on Nov 7, 2006 3:52 PM:

" Leonard--I didn't catch it from the article--was he definitely in the act of urinating when she shot him? If not, how do we know if he was standing still? "

Weezer wrote on Nov 7, 2006 3:16 PM:

" When is the use of deadly force necessary? Have gun, will shoot? Responsible gun ownership is the key. Otherwise, people would stupidly act like vigilantes a la Charles Bronson. "

"long time resident" writes... wrote on Nov 7, 2006 12:48 PM:

" (continued)...There were at least 4 shots(I thought I heard 5) and only 2 hit Mr. Ortega. That means at least 2 bullets flying around our yards. Remember, this was OUTSIDE. This person was not in her home! If she feared for her children, keep your doors locked and call 911! Shoot ONly if he tried to enter your home Stop shooting bullets toward MY family!!!!! "

re-post, As a long time resident wrote on Nov 7, 2006 12:47 PM:

" ...of the neighborhood,noelle,moved into two-months ago,we have always enjoyed a quiet cooperative neighborhood.The few times any of us has had to call police,they arrived extremely quickly and were always very professional.On one occasion a LPD officer knocked on our door because we had a ladder leaned against our house and he wanted to make sure it was not used to burglarize us. We awoke to gun shots two nights ago.Good thing it wasn't summer as our children like to camp out in the backard.This had never been a concern as everyone in our neighborhood is responsible and their children do-similar-activities.(continued).... "

CMD wrote on Nov 7, 2006 12:25 PM:

" ZERO: Check out People v. Ceballos If you are treatened with deadly force, you can always use deadly force back. You can use non-deadly force (gun = deadly force) to protect your property, but NOT deadly force to protect property. Death/deadly force is different. cont... "

CMD wrote on Nov 7, 2006 12:24 PM:

" cont... When it comes to a dwelling (inside your house) that is different. You do not have to retreat... ie can protect your house because you are in the dwelling. You cannot set a spring gun though to shoot people that enter. Here the guy was not inside her house. From what has been said so far, does not sound like he was armed, that she thought he was armed and so on. California Law limits the use of deadly force (using a gun) to: 1)forcible entry is used or 2) there is REASONABLE fear of GREAT bodily harm. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2006 12:01 PM:

" That should have read more like, "Can a person "shoot" outside of their home with a gun that is not registered to them personally?" "

Leonard wrote on Nov 7, 2006 11:39 AM:

" Zero: In any case, I stand by my original statement. "

Leonard wrote on Nov 7, 2006 11:37 AM:

" Zero: Is it your contention that it is legal to shoot an unarmed man for no other reason than that he is trespassing on your land or are you simply trying to create confusion? "

Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2006 10:31 AM:

" Can a person be outside of their home with a gun that is not registered to them personally? "

To Stephanie... wrote on Nov 7, 2006 9:09 AM:

" Maybe your kids should be doing their homework instead of blogging on an adult site since they can't seem to correctly write the word "you're" which stands for you are. Seems the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree though by your rantings and misspellings. "

Zoro wrote on Nov 7, 2006 8:21 AM:

" Leonard, on Nov. 2 at 3:51 PM you wrote,"The LAW says that if you shoot an unarmed man for trespassing on your property, you are, in fact, comitting a crime." I just asked you what law that was, no more. There is NO law that says this. Get your facts straight. An anyone who uses the word "PERPS" is watching to many cop shows. Bernardo, no comment... "

Good Ridance to Stephanie wrote on Nov 7, 2006 7:53 AM:

" and her illiterate children. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2006 7:41 AM:

" Stephanie: You said, "my children are doing well because they are far more enlightened at their age than anyone I have read about online"....wow! I guess I should have been more impressed with Nicole's post. "

To Stephanie wrote on Nov 7, 2006 7:36 AM:

" You keep promising to leave but here you are.... "

Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2006 7:36 AM:

" Does anyone else, that has been on these blogs a long time, see visions of the old poster "Mom" in the new poster "Stephanie"? Not sure if it's the same person, but sure sounds like it. LOL "

Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2006 7:33 AM:

" Stephanie:Some of us people "in society"(LOL)try to converse on topics on these blogs to the best of our ability and knowledge of the topic as presented to us in the LNS(this is the LNS blog,in case you weren't aware).Too bad you feel defeated after some have disagreed with you and/or put you in your place.That is the way of the world, Stephanie.People will disagree with you.Most adults will come back with a response as to why they stand behind their opinion on any given topic. Most do not whine and sign off with their tail between their legs.Grow up,Stephanie. "

Bernardo to Zoro wrote on Nov 7, 2006 5:37 AM:

" What do you think shooting someone is? At the very least it is attempted homicide. I hope you don't own a gun because you don't seem to understand much about when you can use one. "

Stephanie wrote on Nov 6, 2006 11:21 PM:

" You people who said that I should keep my children off the internet are right. If what I have read is the norm of what type of people who are on here then yeah, my kids are done with this as am I. Seriously, if I was less of a person I would wish what happened onto you, but I'm not. Like I said before, it must be really nice to be so educated, enlightened, and all knowing to be able to judge people so easily. "

Stephanie wrote on Nov 6, 2006 11:15 PM:

" Oh my goodness!!! This will be my final post. I am absolutely floored as to how ignorant you people in society are. Of all of the things that I have posted all that has been done is name calling and unfounded critisism. I honestly feel and know that I am a GREAT mom and I KNOW that my children are doing well because they are far more enlightened at their age than anyone I have read about online. "

Leonard wrote on Nov 6, 2006 10:13 PM:

" Red: You know, where I come from (here) being a redneck is not necessarily the same thing as being an idiot. I think a lot of people might be offended by your attempts to link the two. "

Leonard wrote on Nov 6, 2006 10:10 PM:

" Red: IF my wife or daughter were at risk, I would not hesitate to shoot. If they were not at risk, I would wait for the police. The key question here (which appears to be just a little bit too subtle for you) is whether there is a risk. As I said before (do you guys ever actually read?) if someone was peeing on my lawn, I would turn on the sprinklers. "

Leonard wrote on Nov 6, 2006 10:04 PM:

" Zero: As I said, I stand by my earlier statement. You can taunt me all you want, the fact remains that I am right and you are wrong. Face the facts and quit your whining, "

Zoro wrote on Nov 6, 2006 9:20 PM:

" Leonard, try again. 197 and 198 are definitions for justifiable homicide. They are not even chargeable sections. Show me the section that says it is against the law to shoot a trespasser as you specifically said. Hint -section 602 is for trespassing. Or just admit you were wrong. "

You know you're a redneck when..... wrote on Nov 6, 2006 7:44 PM:

" Here's the real truth. If some drunk guy was on Leonard's property in the middle of the night and his wife and baby were at risk, he wouldn't have the balls to shoot the guy! Instead he'd wait for Lodi P.D to show up, but by that time it would be too late! Dee Dee Dee! I rest my case. "

Lodian wrote on Nov 6, 2006 6:46 PM:

" Hopefully, Noelle will at the very least, take a class on how to handle and shoot the gun she owns (well, the friend's gun that she keeps in her home). Hopefully she doesn't keep it loaded in the home with small children. I fear that this woman, Noelle, is not a responsible gun owner. Maybe she has learned a few things this past few days. "

sam wrote on Nov 6, 2006 6:02 PM:

" nylodian, sorry for my ignorance... I just got your name.. a New Yorker from Lodi. Wow, so glad you blog. My daughter lives in SF and loves to blog regularly too. Thanks for your input. On shooting intruders... I was told by the sheriff after my last robbery to shoot to kill. I live in county and "innocent" trespassers wandering into my fenced yard in a vineyard are not that innocent. I do not know Lodi's city codes, but I will shoot to kill any 1:30 am trespassers. "

Leonard wrote on Nov 6, 2006 5:30 PM:

" Zord: I stand by my earlier statement. Under California Law, trespassing in someones yard does not justify the use of deadly force. As for the penal code, I would suggest that you read section 197.2 and then consider it in the context of Section 198. "

Zoro wrote on Nov 6, 2006 4:33 PM:

" Leonard. Still waiting for the PC section in regards to trespassing. You can't be believeable when you are caught in a lie. You have gone after everyone else on here but won't answer my question. "

Leonard wrote on Nov 6, 2006 4:25 PM:

" Lodian: I agree 100% Stephanie and Nicolle are very lucky that the Shooter didn't either mistaked them for Urinators or hit them with stray rounds. "

Leonard wrote on Nov 6, 2006 4:24 PM:

" Stephanie: I was simply responding to the part of your post that was directed at me and which concerned spelling and grammar. With regards to the rest of your message, given the fact that both the Shooter and the Urinator are under investigation, I think we should confine ourselves to the actual facts of the case as reported by the police and leave any self serving comments that either of the suspects may have made out of the mix. "

nylodian wrote on Nov 6, 2006 3:50 PM:

" The resident was charged with manslaughter because none of the 12 or so men who broke in were arme