Purse snatcher stabs man in San Luis Obispo

March 24, 2012

Late Friday night, a 24-year-old man attempting to help a San Luis Obispo woman battle a purse snatcher was stabbed in the upper body, police said.

Elizabeth Key and Christopher Sebastian were walking along Madonna Road near Los Osos Valley Road when a man ran up and grabbed Key’s purse. Key grasped onto her bag and a struggle ensued between Key and the thief.

Sebastian stepped in and fought the alleged purse snatcher who stabbed him in an undisclosed portion of his upper body. He was transported to French Hospital Medical Center with the stab wound and a neck injury before being moved to another hospital for further treatment.

Police describe the suspect as a white male with dark facial hair, in his late 30s, about 6-feet-tall and weighing 190 pounds.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

William: Apparently we have taken our conversation as far as the thread would allow, so with the moderator’s indulgence, one more response to your last comment about the Trayvon Martin shooting, a tangent off of the original content of the thread of the story, but still somewhat related since we are talking about a crime, criminal behavior and the possibility of citizen response, including “vigilante justice” and what the end result can turn out to be, like in the Trayvon Martin case, the killing of an individual by another citizen.

William, you asked me for my response to the “bounty” put out by the Black Panthers on the live of George Zimmerman; I am appalled by this “offer”, as all responsible adults should be. I hope that no one gives the idea of “going after” Mr. Zimmerman any thought at all, period. As for the other part of your comment about Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan, since they are citizens of the United States and they happen to be black, they have every “right” to speak up about this murder. I may not like everything they say, I may not agree with them, but they certainly have the right to speak up. Your snarky comment about our President, Barack Obama, leaves me with a bad taste though. President Obama is factually correct when he stated that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin did when he was alive; I don’t see how that comment is anyhow provocative in any manner, so if that is what has upset you, please explain that too me because I would like to know. The comments by Newt Gingrich about the comments of the president do seem to me to be more provocative than the President’s comments, and if you disagree with me on that, perhaps we could follow up on that so I could possibly understand your reasoning. Thanks.

I haven’t read Newt’s response and will stipulate that he probably just added fuel to the fire. You are right. The President is factually correct; Trayvon would look like son. It’s also irrelevant and inflammatory because the implication is he’s choosing sides. He should stay out of these controversies unless it’s to say something like, “Everybody quit jumping to conclusions and let L.E. do their jobs.”

Okay, I was wrong, here is one more question for you: Exactly how is the President’s remarks about Trayvon Martin looking like a son he never had “inflammatory”?

I just think it makes him look like he’s choosing sides. Remember his, “I think the cops acted ‘


He’s our C-in-C and everything he does is magnified. He appears to be choosing sides whether he intended that or not. He did that with the cop and college prof. in Conneticut as well; he should just butt-out. His position is too high and he just complicates things.

Some comments have been deleted , The Paso articles are still open BTW.

If you like your comment to appear here at the top of the scroll,

It must be on the topic of the story .

replies to comments appear under the comment.

!!!or??? Email

Ist amendment concerns are mentioned in our comment guidelines.

I for one applaud Christopher Sebastian for “stepping in” to try and defect the attack on Elizabeth Key, and I’m sure that most of us (meaning the men, sorry to be sexist for a moment) would attempt to do the same, some with probably the same results (getting stabbed by the attacker) and others either successfully disarming the attacker and even holding him for the police, or at least deflecting the attack so the suspect gave up and ran away, or possibly to some of you, the desired outcome would be to pull out a hand gun and stop the attack by putting the attacker under citizen’s arrest, or possibly even shooting the man, maybe even killing him, which even I would have to admit could be a “reasonable response” to such an attack. I for one think that more people should look into some sort of self-defense training, as you will become conditioned to responding to any sort of attack by not freezing up, remaining calm, but also knowing that you should be able to defend yourself. If you are a person who feels more comfortable with carrying a loaded handgun on your person, I would certainly hope that you get some firearms training as well so you too can respond in such a situation with control of your actions, even if carrying that loaded firearm is currently illegal to do so since obtaining a CCW permit is very hard to do.

On the subject of firearms and “Stand Your Ground” laws such as the one in Florida, is the answer more firearms? Before you answer, think about it in this manner; for young, black males, one of the leading causes of death is being shot; should more young, black males carry handguns to protect themselves? Or would that leave even more young black males dead? For those following the events leading to George Zimmerman shooting and killing seventeen year-old Trayvon Martin, how different would the outcry be if it were George Zimmerman who was killed by a young black man with a handgun? The “Stand Your Ground” laws seem to encourage more violence then protection, IMO; would more armed citizens have a positive effect, or would it possibly make the situation even worse?

Two words:

Model Mugging


“…or possibly even shooting the man, maybe even killing him, which even I would have to admit could be a “reasonable response” to such an attack.”

It is more than a reasonable response! Barring the fact of a concealed weapon is unlawful, California gun laws stipulate that if you have “reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death”, you can use a gun in defense.

As in this case mentioned, a gun would have been appropriate to use against this foo because he had a knife and used it!l

What can we learn from the above California Law? The fact that you NEVER bring a knife to a gunfight, period.

A major benefit of the Concealed-carry laws is the uncertainty factor. Most of us wouldn’t carry but the bad guys don’t know who is or is not. As far as more inner-city black kids carrying weapons: 1) I don’t believe minors can legally carry (though your implication that 18-year olds are still immature is pretty correct) and 2) anyone who really wants weapons will get and carry irrespective of the laws.

There is a concerted effort on the Left to demonize weapons and terrorized young people to treat them as if they are bombs or something. Firearms training (whether you own a gun or not) demystifies weapons and ’empowers’ (Leftists LOVE ’empowerment’) the individual with confidence knowing how to handle a gun not with fear, but with safely and with respect

Interesting interpretation of what I wrote; “There is a concerted effort on the Left to demonize weapons …. ” and “Firearms training (whether you own a gun or not) demystifies weapons and ’empowers’ …. ” . First, did I, anywhere in my comment, demonize weapons or firearms? Second, did I or did I not write ” … I would certainly hope that you get some firearms training as well so you too can respond in such a situation with control of your actions, …. “? I think you are a little too quick to try to take my comments and put them into a neat little box of “leftist” thoughts, when I actually tried very hard to get people to really think about the “Stand Your Ground” laws and firearms in particular. Your comments about minors carrying legally is kind of off point since so many adults cannot carry “legally” without a CCW permit; regardless of the legality and/or the age of the individual, what is your stance on encouraging more people to carry, regardless of their race or ethnicity? And did I say anything about “inner-city” black kids? What I wrote is: ” … for young, black males, one of the leading causes of death is being shot; … “; did you simply interpret that as “inner-city” blacks? Again, you seem to be guilty of putting your answers into a neat little “conservative” viewpoint box; how about some real thoughts that allow you to venture somewhat out of your “comfort zone” of thinking?

Yes, you’re kind of correct about all that; basically encapsulated several sentiments expressed around here plus other anti-gun attitudes I’ve had expressed to me. I don’t think being in favor of CCW permits equates to encouraging more people to carry. Most of us don’t give a fig for carrying guns but, like i said, the uncertainty factor or brandishing (proven by John Lott) is a deterrent.

The young black males in danger of being shot are precisely those in the inner-city. Disarmed innocents do not benefit from CCW proscription. What would be the effect of CCW permits for inner-city adults? It’s racist, don’t you think, to deprive these people of a means for self-defense when the bad guys are going to be armed, permits or no.

And spare me the condescending, stereotypic ‘conservative comfort zone’ meme reminiscent of our C-in-C’s “…so they cling to their guns and religion…”

Well played, Sir. (polite golf clapping) “It’s racist, don’t you think, to deprive these people of a means for self-defense when the bad guys are going to be armed, permits or no.” Can I assume then that you would have more people carry, permit or not? And that that would apply to anyone regardless of race, religion or ethnicity? It sounds like what you are proposing is more guns, period; well, at least you’re consistent. Apparently you are not in law enforcement because most LEOs (at least those in larger cities) really don’t like the idea of putting more guns on the street, legally owned and registered or not.

One item I did not see you address are the “Stand Your Ground” laws in the twenty some states that currently have them; do you think that these laws could be contributing to more shootings, justified or not? Do you really think they are really needed? And sorry to “condescend” to you, it wasn’t intentional.

I think it was clear, CCW laws create uncertainty for the bad guys. Most of us have no interest in carrying firearms, what a hassle. But, personally, I want this to be MY decision. Whether more people carry or not might be an interesting study. I would wager a bump in people carrying and then most would tire of the novelty and just keep a firearm in the car and in the home, if at all. Most of us have no real interest in guns.

I don’t know what “‘Stand Your Ground” laws are. I could infer that they allow legal protection in cases of self-defense. John Lott and others studying guns and self-defense have proven that just brandishing firearms and no shots fired is a deterrent in maybe a million confrontations per year.

You may remember the case in Jupiter, FL where CCW laws are in effect,15 years ago or so. Bank robbers exited a bank to find themselves facing a wall of armed citizens crouched behind their cars with the two-hand grip.

They were apprehended without a shot fired. The MSM ignored this ending and portrayed these people as a bunch of trigger-happy Dirty Harry wannabe’s. Guess where there have been no robberies in the ensuing years.

More guns equates to less crime and fewer shots fired. Maybe I’ll buy a gun, maybe not. But, again, I want this to be MY decision.

William: You don’t know what “Stand Your Ground” laws are? You do know how to work “the google”, don’t you? Stand Your Ground laws give armed citizens the ability to use their firearms anytime, anywhere for any reason, provided they can “claim” that they were “defending” themselves from an attack. The so-called logic behind these laws in their various incarnations is that an armed citizen who is attacked does not have to worry about running away or retreating (even if that might be the smartest thing to do, occasionally), but instead they can use deadly force in almost any situation. Now believe me that if someone was trying to break into my home while I’m there, I too would feel justified in defending myself and my wife with all force available, even if I don’t happen to own a firearm, but the results of all of the “Stand Your Ground” laws is that there have been more “justified” killings by armed citizens than before those laws were enacted. In the more recent case of George Zimmerman killing 17 year old Trayvon Martin, Mr. Zimmerman was not arrested after the police arrived at the scene of the shooting, even though a murder had been committed. The officers at the scene did not even confiscate Mr. Zimmerman’s handgun, they did to perform a toxicology report on him (although they did do one on Trayvon Martin) the police did not perform a blood alcohol test either, and apparently there was very little gathering of forensic evidence at the scene as well since supposedly no homicide detectives bothered to report to the scene. My whole point here is that the “Stand Your Ground” laws seem like they are having a perverse (IMO) effect in possibly contributing to more violence.

How many questionable Stand Your Ground incidents have there been? Likely few. And it now appears in this case that the media/Left’s rush to judgement is premature and wrong. Broken nose, head injury, wet, stained clothes and a witness to confirm Zimmerman’s story? Don’t you hate it when facts interfere with a good ’cause celebre’?

btw, where is the outrage over the New Black Panthers’ bounty on Zimmerman? This is patently illegal and morally outrageous.

“Broken nose, head injury, wet, stained clothes and a witness to confirm Zimmerman’s story?” Is there, anywhere in a credible news source that provides any evidence of the claims being made about Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries? Did the police take any photos of Mr. Zimmerman during their so-called investigation? Are there any reports from any emergency rooms, doc-in-a-box offices or health center’s that can verify that Mr. Zimmerman was seen for his injuries? Claims without evidence are not credible, period, there is no “proof”. As for the witness, how credible is he in refuting what the 911 tapes have recorded?

Exactly Bob; we’ll see once all the evidence is in. But this hasn’t stopped those race-hustlers: Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan from milking this for every ounce of publicity. Where’s the outrage over the New Black Panthers’ bounty on Zimmerman’s capture?

And, as usual, our ‘Dear Leader’ has to insert himself. Can’t miss an opportunity to help stir up some divisions now can we…

This really pisses me off. Wish I had been there.

Really ? What would you have done ?

Vigilantism results in mistakes, and often the WRONG parties injured. ( Witness Trayvon Martin ).

I don’t know what EXACTLY I would do…but I would hope to make noise while calling 911.

You’re family must be so proud.

Yeah, my grandfather was a cop. It was his solid advice that kept me from great bodily injury when I was held up at gunpoint many years later.

I live. It is dimestore cowboys like you that get your reward early in the best of cicumstances, or that end up causing harm to innocent bystanders in the worst situations.

Those are the facts.

Got it, now defending yourself is vigilantism. Duly noted Love the brilliant comparison of two entirely different situations. Does apples and oranges ring a bell? You go with the “noise”, I prefer a Walther PPK.

Beretta 9.

Yes, vigilantism.

My solace is in KNOWING that people with your attitudes end up more often being killed by their own weapons.

One can hope.

I rest my case. Thanks for validating what we already knew.

If one is up to it, vigilantism is exactly what’s called for when the situation is as clear as this one.

Love the knee-jerk Leftist martyr-du jour-reference. Now a witness says Mr. Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman who, per the police report, was ‘bloodied with wet grass-stains on his back’ just as he had claimed. But the grievance mongering Left will milk this and, as usual, our Divider-in-Chief has recognized yet another opportunity to fan a crisis.

Precisely William, and now it’s revealed that there’s an eye witness to the Martin / Zimmerman event who collaborates Mr. Zimmerman’s side of the story. Notice how Reuters and AP have run with the “white Hispanic” description. Notice their capitalization in this description? I wonder if they’ll do the same when describing Obama. Ah, probably not, but the good news is they’ll be exposed for who they really are; shills for the left.

It always worked for the Sheriffs dept, and what happened to Martin was premeditated murder by a racist idiot.

SLORider is STILL a silent …whatever.

What does one call a HIT-AND-RUN TROLL ?

Yeah, this ‘Braveheart’ would have seen the action and RUN AWAY !

That’s his M.O. !

The Conservitard FREAKS here can continue to DIS my posts, but local popularity is NO guage for right and wrong.