Man assaults ex-wife and boyfriend

January 30, 2011

Guzman Jimenez

A Guadalupe man allegedly broke into his ex-wife’s Grover Beach home, entered her bedroom and attacked her and her current boyfriend, at about 5 a.m. on Sunday.

The ex-wife and her teenage son were able to force Rafael Guzman Jimenez, 37, out of her 14th Street home. He eventually fled the residence followed by Grover Beach Police officers.

A short pursuit ended when Guzman crashed his Chevy Tahoe into a tree on Trouville Avenue.

He ran from the vehicle and fought with officers who ran him down and subdued him with the assistance of a Taser gun.

Guzman’s ex-wife and her boyfriend were transported to Arroyo Grande Community Hospital by ambulance and treated for facial injuries they received during the attack. One of the arresting officers was treated for a hand injury.

Guzman was transported to the hospital, treated for injuries he sustained during the confrontation with the two victims at the home, the vehicle collision and from resisting arrest.

Police booked him into San Luis Obispo County Jail on suspicion of burglary, domestic abuse, child abuse, injuring a police officer, assault with a deadly weapon, violating a restraining order, driving drunk and with a suspended license.


7 Comments

  1. RU4Real says:

    PasoParent, I agree with everything you’ve said! It does seem that many people’s morals have gone the way of the “horse & buggy”! It’s true, it’s the kids who suffer.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  2. choprzrul says:

    This type of thing happens all the time. The victims are fortunate that Jimenez didn’t have a weapon of some type. Even without a weapon, it took 3 of them and the presence of the GBPD to get him to leave the residence.

    Thousands will be injured, maimed, or killed in CA in domestic violence incidents. Restraining orders are of no consequence to someone who is willing to break into a residence and attack someone. The ONLY defense that these victims can rely upon is personal self defense, yet the state of California mandates that they wait 10 days to exercise their fundamental 2nd Amendment civil rights. It is like leading lambs to slaughter. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

    Was the mother in the wrong for having another guy in the house? Most likely in my opinion. Did she have the right to do so? Absolutely. Did the mother, boyfriend, and son have the right to be secure in their home? Absolutely. Did they have the right to defend themselves in their home? Absolutely. Did they have ability to defend themselves in their home? I don’t know. Did they have the means by which to defend themselves? Not enough info in the article, but if they wanted to purchase a firearm Sunday afternoon so that they could protect themselves they could not have done so.

    This needs to change. It is a violation of our civil rights and people are dying because of it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5

    • bobfromsanluis says:

      ” …. but if they wanted to purchase a firearm Sunday afternoon so that they could protect themselves they could not have done so.” Hopefully you are aware of why this restriction is in place; by not being able to pay for and take with you ANY firearm, someone who is in an emotional state, such as someone enraged and wanting to harm to another person, or an individual who wants to shoot themselves cannot do that without the ten day period passing. There is nothing in the article about Mr. Jimenez and if he just came back into the county or if he had just been released from jail or anything else. If the victims really felt that Jimenez was going to be a potential problem (which he is/was, for sure) and they wanted a firearm, they should have started the process as soon as they could, provided that they could even afford to spend the money for such a weapon. And maybe, the mother felt that a firearm would not be an item she wanted to have in her home with a child living there. There are so many variables to this situation, one really shouldn’t jump to any conclusions, pro-firearm or anti-firearm. Personally, I think the ten day waiting period is a prudent idea. It is your opinion that the ten day waiting period is a violation of our “rights”; the courts have not sided with your opinion however.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      • Moderator says:

        Imaginative speculation about 2nd Amendment deleted, off topic no guns were involved.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  3. PasoParent says:

    I feel sorry for the teenage boy. It must be weird knowing your mom’s in bed with another guy down the hall.
    Yeah–the dad messed up and deserves jail time but can’t the mom wait until her kid’s grown and out of the house before she takes a new guy into her bed?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 16

    • GrayGranny says:

      PasoParent … Isn’t the point here domestic violence. Obviously you are uninformed about this horrific crime. Good or bad morals, domestic violence is the issue. Every day, many domestic violence victims are killed, injured or permanent traumatized.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      • PasoParent says:

        I’ve experienced domestic violence in our family; I’m well familiar with its consequences so I don’t need a lecture. OF COURSE the ex-husband is at fault. OF COURSE there’s no excuse for his behavior.

        I work with kids. I see firsthand the effects of divorced moms plus a string of boyfriends…the kids are the ones most affected when mom (and dad) go out and start sleepin’ with someone new.

        I stand by my assertion that before a women shacks up with a new guy out of wedlock (yeah–I’m old fashioned!), she should wait for her minor chldren to grow up & leave home.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5

Comments are closed.