Los Angeles homeowner who got into a shootout with masked intruders at his home said his concealed carry permit was taken away. The attempted home invasion on Nov. 4 was caught on camera. Vince Ricci had just returned home from the gym when a man with a gun hopped over a wall at the home and ran up behind him as tried to get his keys out at the front door. The gunman grabbed his arm but Ricci dropped a coffee cup in his hand and pulled out his gun, surveillance video shows. The assailant and an accomplice are seen running off as Ricci fired several gunshots. Ricci’s wife, young daughter and a nanny were in the home at the time of the attack and he called the shooting a clear case of self-defense. "After successfully defending my home and my family and my 5-month-old child, California has now decided to suspend my Second Amendment," Ricci said in a video released by the National Rifle Association on Friday.

Later in the video, Ricci said the state had “temporarily suspended” his concealed carry permit. “This is an attempt to make me vulnerable,” Ricci claimed. Ricci told Fox News that the sheriff's office “revoked” his concealed carry permit because they said he yelled at Los Angeles police officers who had gone to his home days after the incident. The sheriff's office did not respond to a request for comment, Fox News reported. The Bronx native ended the video saying he is a proud member of the NRA.

There were 2,780 armed robberies involving a gun reported in Los Angeles last year – nearly 400 more than in 2021, Crosstown, a local news outlet, reported. The jump continued an upward trend of reported firearms-related crime incidents seen since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

Eris wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2023 12:06 pm If he was shooting at people who were already fleeing then he *should* lose his permit and should probably be charged with a crime, too.

BKinzey wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:27 pm My take is different, and since it is mine, it is much better.

This guy is in the "Fatal Funnel". He is trapped in a hallway at a locked door. The bad guys have the drop on him are 2 to 1 and have a drawn firearm. At this point he can fight or submit. That's his choice to make, he decided to fight. Excellent counter-ambush with the hot tea. He needs to get the cup out of his hands and he was able use it against the criminals. He bought himself the time to draw and fire. That was the right thing to do because the criminals are still close and he is still in the hallway. It would be a grave mistake to brandish and wait to see what the criminals do.

At this point the criminals have chosen to leave the hallway. This leaves our guy in the hallway with two choices. Return to the front door and try to open it and get inside or follow the criminals back out into the driveway area. I suppose there is the third choice of staying in the hallway but that would be tactically stupid. If he had made the decision to return to the door that would again place him at a great tactical disadvantage. He'd have to get his keys back out, get them in the door and get inside all the while trying to look behind him while he only has a very narrow view of where the criminals are and what they are doing.

I think he made the right choice to move to a position where he can see where the criminals are, get out of the Fatal Funnel and if need be, continue the gunfight.

Given there is some real time discrepancy as the video from the doorway camera has an unknown section of time edited out of it and it is unknown how much the video from the driveway camera overlaps, or not, the previous footage but it doesn't look like much if any. As for the fleeing criminals, you can see one firing his gun at least once. They maybe fleeing but they are still making the choice in continuing to be a deadly threat.

I give a huge benefit of the doubt to the homeowner. The criminals presented themselves as a threat, when he resisted they continued to actively be a threat and It looks like he stopped firing once they were off the property and he didn't pursue them down the street. I'd say this was a good shoot and it's shameful that the Sheriff revoked his permit.

Great. Because there is no chance the criminals will see this and think about revenge however small that chance may be.

highdesert wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:15 pm

BKinzey wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:27 pm My take is different, and since it is mine, it is much better.

This guy is in the "Fatal Funnel". He is trapped in a hallway at a locked door. The bad guys have the drop on him are 2 to 1 and have a drawn firearm. At this point he can fight or submit. That's his choice to make, he decided to fight. Excellent counter-ambush with the hot tea. He needs to get the cup out of his hands and he was able use it against the criminals. He bought himself the time to draw and fire. That was the right thing to do because the criminals are still close and he is still in the hallway. It would be a grave mistake to brandish and wait to see what the criminals do.

At this point the criminals have chosen to leave the hallway. This leaves our guy in the hallway with two choices. Return to the front door and try to open it and get inside or follow the criminals back out into the driveway area. I suppose there is the third choice of staying in the hallway but that would be tactically stupid. If he had made the decision to return to the door that would again place him at a great tactical disadvantage. He'd have to get his keys back out, get them in the door and get inside all the while trying to look behind him while he only has a very narrow view of where the criminals are and what they are doing.

I think he made the right choice to move to a position where he can see where the criminals are, get out of the Fatal Funnel and if need be, continue the gunfight.

Given there is some real time discrepancy as the video from the doorway camera has an unknown section of time edited out of it and it is unknown how much the video from the driveway camera overlaps, or not, the previous footage but it doesn't look like much if any. As for the fleeing criminals, you can see one firing his gun at least once. They maybe fleeing but they are still making the choice in continuing to be a deadly threat.

I give a huge benefit of the doubt to the homeowner. The criminals presented themselves as a threat, when he resisted they continued to actively be a threat and It looks like he stopped firing once they were off the property and he didn't pursue them down the street. I'd say this was a good shoot and it's shameful that the Sheriff revoked his permit.

Great. Because there is no chance the criminals will see this and think about revenge however small that chance may be.

I agree BK, we don't see everything. Two armed robbers jumped his wall and one that we can see confronted him and was shooting, the other one is armed we just don't see him. That second one climbs over the wall at the end. Ricci had a Glock 26, ten rounds in CA. Colion Noir says in his video that Ricci fired 8 rounds. He was on his own property so he's allowed to be armed without a permit in CA.

Colion Noir interviewed Vince Ricci.

In its statement to KTLA, the sheriff’s department did say that Ricci’s CCW may immediately be reinstated as long as he has followed all the required policies, such as “proper notifications” and “use of [a] properly documented weapon.” “The DOJ has been notified and there are avenues for Mr. Ricci to re-apply for his permit,” LASD’s statement said. “We have been in contact with the Ricci family and have been providing information to them about CCW protocols and guidelines in an effort to ensure their Second Amendment rights are protected.”

On Saturday, the Los Angeles Police Department released a statement on X regarding Ricci’s concealed carry permit that read: “The Department is continuing the robbery investigation involving Vince Ricci. The Los Angeles Police Department has not issued nor revoked a permit to carry a concealed weapon involving Mr. Ricci.”

On Saturday, the Los Angeles Police Department released a statement on X regarding Ricci’s concealed carry permit that read: “The Department is continuing the robbery investigation involving Vince Ricci. The Los Angeles Police Department has not issued nor revoked a permit to carry a concealed weapon involving Mr. Ricci.”

Eris wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2023 12:06 pm If he was shooting at people who were already fleeing then he *should* lose his permit and should probably be charged with a crime, too.

CDFingers wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2023 7:23 pm He scored no hits. His bullets went somewhere. He was outside his house, and the perp was fleeing. He will get toasted. I think he made errors. We shall see how toasted he gets.

CDFingers

BKinzey wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2023 7:30 pm

CDFingers wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2023 7:23 pm He scored no hits. His bullets went somewhere. He was outside his house, and the perp was fleeing. He will get toasted. I think he made errors. We shall see how toasted he gets.

CDFingers

Your Kung Fu is shit and your master knows nothing!

Certainly I would have preferred he drew, fire one shot and hit both yahoos while they were stacked up but this ain't no cowboy movie. Second to that he fires 2 shots and hits both with one each, but but that being a practical pipe dream that ain't happening either. So there were at least 9 shots and nobody was hit. That is not uncommon in gunfights. I'll also point out he didn't stop shooting because of slide lock. It looks like he made the decision to stop shooting. Since I haven't seen any footage of what the homeowner saw nor what prompted him to keep shooting or stop I'm not going really second guess his decisions. Though it does look like he kept shooting while the dynamic duo was on the property.

The bullets went somewhere. Yes, looks like some were hitting the high walled fence. Since I haven't seen any reports of rounds not being accounted for they all may have well never exited the yard. Doesn't really matter though. The guy was in a gunfight. You deal with the deadly threat at hand, not what has a very low chance of occurring. The vast majority of errant rounds don't hit anyone. This didn't occur at a carnival, with innocents everywhere, it was in a high fenced in area in the homeowners yard with 3 people in a gunfight. By the way, we do know the homeowner's family was inside and the homeowner wasn't the guy shooting towards the house.

The gunfight did indeed occur outside of the house... So?

The perp was fleeing. And shooting. He chose to continue being a deadly threat. The gunfight wasn't over. I haven't seen any info that the homeowner continued to fire after the criminals left the property.

He's been in a gunfight. I'm sure he's being toasted now just for that. It's just a matter of how much.

What errors did he make? Other than not having to worry about being labelled with the monicker "Ol Dead-Eye".

NonServiam wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2023 7:23 pm They were armed; deadly intent is probably a safe assumption to make. The time to retreat was before initiating the attack. Situations heat up much quicker than they cool and I think this guy can be forgiven for not immediately assessing the threat has passed just because his attackers were running. Were they retreating or repositioning to further press the attack? Such an assessment could easily be the last one makes if it is made incorrectly.

I'm not surprised his permit has been temporarily suspended, I wouldn't be surprised if his gun was also seized. The real point of interest here, for me, is how this all plays out, legally speaking.

sikacz wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2023 8:23 pm

NonServiam wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2023 7:23 pm They were armed; deadly intent is probably a safe assumption to make. The time to retreat was before initiating the attack. Situations heat up much quicker than they cool and I think this guy can be forgiven for not immediately assessing the threat has passed just because his attackers were running. Were they retreating or repositioning to further press the attack? Such an assessment could easily be the last one makes if it is made incorrectly.

I'm not surprised his permit has been temporarily suspended, I wouldn't be surprised if his gun was also seized. The real point of interest here, for me, is how this all plays out, legally speaking.

Indeed, the legal play out will be interesting. As for the perps, they kept firing as they were running away. No way to know what their intent was since they were still engaging. So not giving the perps a pass just for running. The homeowner did nothing wrong in continuing to engage until the perps were off his property.

BKinzey wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:27 pm My take is different, and since it is mine, it is much better.

I give a huge benefit of the doubt to the homeowner. The criminals presented themselves as a threat, when he resisted they continued to actively be a threat and It looks like he stopped firing once they were off the property and he didn't pursue them down the street. I'd say this was a good shoot and it's shameful that the Sheriff revoked his permit.

sig230 wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:40 pm The only thing that I see to really criticize is the idiots interview. That was utter stupidity and I hope he has a good lawyer.

CDFingers wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2023 4:43 pm The way I understand the unwritten rule in California is, if you have shoot someone, make sure he falls inside your house.

CDFingers