Woman slain with AK-47 in Vallejo, and no one will be punished




Sounds like the prosecutor team should be fired and disbarred.

Guy (Beamon) goes to see his ex-girlfriend, new GF drives him there.
Ex-GF and Beamon have an argument but no assault, no weapons used by Beamon.
Beamon and new GF are shot in back while driving away, GF dies.
Shooter claims it was self defense to shoot them in the back.
Prosecutor ignores the crime and gives shooter immunity.


Even weirder is that it was Beamon that was being tried for taking his new girl friend into a gun fight. A gunfight where the victims didn’t have a weapon and the shooter had to get a gun from the attic and shoot them as they drove away? :confused:

Certainly makes one wonder what the shooter had over the prosecutor or what beef they had with Beamon that they would grant immunity on the greater charge to try to get a conviction on a lesser charge. The more I read about the bizarre things that happen in California, the happier I am to not live there.


Certainly sounds like a weird theory of the crime. DAs often give immunity to really bad guys but that’s usually to get accomplices. I wonder if the prosecutor had some reason for wanting to get Beamon even though that wouldn’t excuse this mess.


The only thing I could think of is if Beamon was wanted for more serious crimes, but they couldn’t get the charges to stick. That being said, if they fed the shooter some BS self defense story then they would be guilty of witness tampering. Seems like it was a very flimsy attempt if that was the case.


That happens all the time.
Using the promise of immunity DAs are basically allowed to bribe witnesses and suborn perjury. Of course they cover themselves by saying “I’ll give you immunity for your truthful testimony [wink, wink]”. Also, testimony in exchange for immunity is not legally bribery because the law doesn’t consider freedom a “thing of value”.


Yes, they clearly had the hots for Beamon but their case against him for murder was appallingly weak. If he’s a criminal they could have got him for a parole violation etc etc and still punished the actual shooter.


I was really thinking if they actually coached him to commit perjury. At best it would have been an ethics violation. What ever the reasoning behind the bizarre case, it seemed the prosecutor badly misjudged if they thought they could get a conviction.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.