More tow trouble: Lot owner arrested for brandishing weapon
-
The contretemps that led to the eventual arrest was the subject of the November 29 Hook cover story.hook cover
Three weeks after a towing incident at the former Fry's Spring Exxon station on Fontaine Avenue escalated into a confrontation between a vehicle owner and an allegedly gun-wielding property owner, an arrest has been made.
Seventy-five-year-old Lee Hayword Hoff was arrested by Charlottesville Police on December 5 and charged with misdemeanor brandishing a firearm, after his alleged victim, 29-year-old Nicholas Rigterink, filed a complaint with the magistrate.
The incident in question, detailed in the Hook's November 29 cover story, took place November 12 when Rigterink joined friends for dinner at Fry's Spring Station pizzeria at the corner of JPA and Maury Avenue. Rigterink parked across the street at the just-closed Fry's Spring Exxon, where restaurant parking had been permitted by the station owner. With the station closed, the property owners, Lee and Gladys Hoff, however, had changed the parking policy and posted "no parking" signs in their building's windows– signs Rigterink says he didn't see. The Hoffs were parked on the adjacent property, and Rigterink says he believed they were overseeing the towing operation rather than asking drivers to park elsewhere, which angered him.
After finishing dinner, Rigterink told the Hook, he parked his car in front of the Hoffs' SUV, and got out to ask why they were having people towed. That's where the stories diverge. Rigterink says Gladys Hoff got out of the SUV and approached him before he could utter a full sentence. He says Lee Hoff was aiming a gun at him from the vehicle. Gladys Hoff, however, told the Hook Rigterink was the aggressor, and that her husband pulled his weapon only after Rigterink approached her in a threatening manner.
"No husband is going to watch someone run up in his wife's face," Gladys Hoff told the Hook. "You never know what someone is going to do."
Police initially declined to make an arrest, calling the incident a "he said/she said" and instructing Rigterink to file a complaint with the magistrate, which he did on Tuesday, November 27.
Reached for comment after Hoff's arrest, Gladys Hoff suggested the Hook "get your story straight," then hung up. Rigterink did not respond to the Hook's request for comment.
Lee Hoff will appear in Charlottesville District Court on December 14.
34 comments
You can get a magistrate to write a warrant now for anybody or anything almost, they don't know who to believe or what to believe in most cases. They opt to let the courts make a final decision in these allegations most of the time. But state law on brandishing a firearm does not apply to any person engaged in "excusable or justifiable self-defense." It will be interesting to see Hoff's defense and the outcome of this charge. I don't personally think a firearm needed to be introduced in this argument or deabte, but was Mr. Hoff in fear for his or his wife's life or well being? I guess that's what the judge will have to decide.
Being afraid, which is a subjective experience, isn't quite the test, Gasbag. There is a "reasonableness" component that needs to be met. From the way the story was reported, it doesn't sound like Mr. Hoff bothered with that little step, before whipping out his piece -- instead, it looks like he went straight for argument-via-expletive, even while the complainant was still sitting (presumably snuggly buckled up, per Virginia law). Of course, as we weren't ther, who knows what happened? Perhaps the Hook embellished things in order to tell a better story. Even so, you won't see me encroaaching on the Hoffs' "property rights," real or imagined. The chance Rigterink took, in a state with such liberal firearms laws, was dumber than flipping off a recklessly driven white dodge pickup truck sporting an easy-rider-rifle-rack and an "america -- love it or leave it!" bumpersticker.
It is always a pleasure to see someone so nasty who--at 75 probably does not have that many years left--dragged to accountability for his actions. Now, if this complainant was threatening in any way or hostile, may Hoff be acquitted. However, I know Hoff's track record. It is one thing to defend property rights within reason, clearly another to pull out a firearm. And actually aim it at the man? If Hoff was so worried about his wife's safety, why was she the one out of the car? If the complainant was approaching in a threatening manner, why didn't they file a counter-charge?
Look, I am only too happy to see car thieves, burglars, etc. get capped. Hey, I surely did not weep when the humidifier thief in Waynesboro was struck and killed by a car while running from security. Property rights are paramount. Then there are the property owners who are real jerks.
R.I.P.: Tupac
The way I see it is the wife was approaching an unarmed man to verbally assault him, and the husband brandished a firearm to make sure she got her say wiithout retaliation verbal or otherwise.
If we switch Mr. Hoff and his wife and take the gun out of the equation and it turned into a fistfight would it be Mr Rigerinks fault for expressing his displeasure at being duped with a miniscule sign or Mr Hoffs fault for hopping out of the safety of his truck and getting in his face? Remember he was on the store parking lot which is not "private". he was not trespassing, and a consumer does have the right to approach the owner of a semi public parking lot to discuss legitimate business . For instance.... suppose it turned out that the owner was unaware of the signs and was in fact appreciative of being informed that some jerk was screwing people and not only thanked him but paid for his tow bill, bought his dinner and bought him a chillywilly from the convienence store.
I am sure this will all go awat, but hopefully not before it coast the hoffs more in legal fees then they spent taking advantage of a situation to semi legally steal money from strangers.
Perhaps karma will win this time around.
I am glad that Mr R went forward with this.
If Mrs Hoff had not jumped out of the truck then Mr Hoff would not have needed to brandish his weapon.
I guess his defense could be that he was actually pointing it at his wife so she would get back in the truck and stop being such a bbbeeeeeeoch.
I quit going downtown to eat out after being towed late one evening by Collier in the same situation. What maggots to leave a person without any idea where their car is then demand $120 cash to bail out your car. They are the scum of the earth and the businesses downtown have lost revenue due to this practice.
Liberalace, the magistrates will often refuse to write counter charges. I do not know the criteria they use nowadays in making these decisions though. I haven't sat in the magistrates office with my feet propped up on the desk since all my friends that worked there either retired or died. I understand it's a whole new world in the Magistrate's Office, and I'm not sure what this means.
tj why isn't being fearful for your life or that of another enough now? Police use it every day to get cleared in fatal shootings. And it works.
The Hoffs give the term "white trash" a bad name. They always have. They always will. Just because you have enough money to purchase a fancy car does not improve your status. Gladys, your hateful ways are coming home to roost.
I think it would have been cool if Mr R also had been carrying a concealed weapon. The when old man H pulled his gun, young man R would have been scared for his life (heck he just wanted to talk to Mr H, can't you do that in America?) and could have drawn his own gun. And to make of really cool, like the movies, Mr R's friends could ALSO have been carrying concealed guns, and could have drawn their own guns and ran to assist their friend when it looked like Mr H got the drop on him. Hey that's why I love liberal gun laws, 'cause it makes life like a movie, it's so cool.
How bout a picture of the tow dude?
Yeah. I want a mug shot.
"The Hoffs were parked on the adjacent property, and Rigterink says he believed they were overseeing the towing operation rather than asking drivers to park elsewhere, which angered him."
So what if it did anger him? So what if they were parked in another lot calling in the tow truck? So what possessed this man to take it upon himself to set the world straight according to his "it ain't fair" whine? I must have missed the Everything has to be Fair amendment.
What posseses someone to confront another person about what they do with their land?
Could it be he knew the couple was elderly and thought he could bully them without repercussion? Would he have done the same thing if a known drug dealer was calling the tow company having cars towed from a crack house?
So now you have a do gooder complaining about a 75 yr old man pulling a gun on him.
I believe just about everyone would have either called a tow truck or the cops instead of confronting the trespassers. You never know when someone is going to pull a gun on you.
Chalk this up as a lesson learned. Suck it up and move on. Life ain't fair and no one is special snowflake.
jeezelouise,
sounds to me like you are having trouble understanding the difference between gated private property, and privately owned property with a public use, such as a parking lot, and what happens to the private property of others when on that parking lot.
When you do something to my private while it was on your public use property, yes, I have a right to ask you about what you did with my property. And the law clearly indicates it is my right.
When I approach you on public use property - like a store parking lot - you do not automatically have the right to just point a gun at me and cry self defense. I had a right to be in that parking lot, unless a no trespassing order had been given specifically to me, and you shouldn't be getting out and talking to me if you think I am threatening you. You should be dialing 911 first. You know, kind of like the do-gooder did.
tj,
Ignore the gasser in this. He is just looking for some way to turn this into her personal victimization story by the cops, while a deputy, and try and demonstrate some special knowledge about the police he thinks no one else has.
"When I approach you on public use property - like a store parking lot - you do not automatically have the right to just point a gun at me and cry self defense. .... You know, kind of like the do-gooder did."
So which part of "which angered him" and "confront" do you misunderstand?
He wasn't asking for directions or wanting a battery jump. He wanted to confront the people about a serious wrong in the universe. If I remember correctly he even went back in the pub and thought about it then returned.
Keep on talking the talk old timer. You go ahead and dial 911 when being aproached by an "angered" trespasser.
@jeezlouise...So , what if he wanted to ask them about this "serious wrong?" Their response is for hubby to send out the old hag and stay in the truck and pull his gun out? Either he is an un-chivalrous wimp or he intentionally stayed within the confines of his vehicle to insure there would be fewer witnesses than if he got out of the truck and brandished the gun while walking towards the complainant.
Let's say my child was in a business's parking lot misbehaving, and some idiot property owner or manager of the property came out, immediately got in my kid's face, yelled at him and told him to stay the hell of the property or he'd call the cops. Then let's say I witnessed this, drove into the parking lot, and began reading the riot act to the grown-up bully about the right way to handle such a situation. One could call me an overprotective parent, one could call me correct, one could call me a bit over-reactive (like the property owner in my scenario). However, I do not think anyone would defend the owner if he immediately pulled a gun on me and aimed it towards me. Having a gun in sight in a holster on my waist is one form of intimidation. But actually aiming it at someone is into a whole other realm.
R.I.P.: Ravi Shankar
These two had a business transaction and one person feels ripped off. He has a legal right to peaceably confront the person he feels ripped him off. Technically if the signage was blocked then the Hoffs were in violation of the law and in the wrong to tow in the first place.
So now we are back to whether the confrontaion was simply heated or in danger of escalating into an altercation that crosssed a legal line.
So if I am on a jury and the course of events as I have read appear to me to have occurred like this
1) Mr Rs car was towed while the hoffs laughed.
2) Mr R felt ripped off by the obvious set up of small signage.
3) Me R wanted to voice his displeasure and approached the hoffs vehicle to presumably do so.
4) assuming the worst of Mr R, Ms Hoff jumped out of the truck and began berating Mr R
5) Mr R while holding his ground saw Mr Hoff brandish a firearm even though Mr R possedd no weapon and made no threats or actions that even implied that anything physical would occur.
6) Mr R descalated the situation by leaving and called the police.
It seems to me that Mr Hoff is guilty of preejerkulation for pulling his gun out too soon and that crossed a legal line.
You can bring a gun to knifefight and even a fistfight but not a simple argument.
I think if you search Lexus Nexus it falls under the "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me " doctine
Asking for an explanation as to why someone would be such a greedy selfish jerk is certainly reasonable in this case. This is not like he drove around a rope or opened an unlocked gate. I guess the Hoffs brought a gun to an oral argument and now they can go to court and use an oral argument to avoid being locked up at gunpoint.
Karma... sometimes it does come around....
"However, I do not think anyone would defend the owner if he immediately pulled a gun on me and aimed it towards me"
Hard to say. To many variables to consider but baseline would be if he was 45 no, if he was 75 yes.
"So , what if he wanted to ask them about this "serious wrong?" "
He tried and had a gun pulled on him. How about accepting the fact that he was trespassing and deal with it?
I am not trying to villify the young man. I am simply trying to point out that sometimes in life it is best to just let it go. We have to many angry people and he was very lucky he was not shot either intentionally or accidentally.
If I were 75 I would like to think I would not be scared of being approached by someone much younger that I just had towed. Think about it.
"1) Mr Rs car was towed while the hoffs laughed.
...
6) Mr R descalated the situation by leaving and called the police. "
Pretty good Bill. Glad you were there taking notes.
The real villian here is the City of Charlottesville, which granted a business license to an establishment which obviously had insufficient parking on site, apparently assuming that all of the other businesses and residences in the area would be tickled to death to share their also limited parking with this restaurant's patrons, to the detriment of their own businesses and loss of space/access. Maybe Mr. Hoff should take his gun to the next council meeting and straighten that bunch out!
Did I hear my name mentioned above, Old Timer? What about Amadou Diallo in the Bronx? Shot 41 times (and killed) when he pulled out his wallet to hand it to the cops. Every cop involved claimed they feared for their life and thought he was pulling a gun. Every cop was cleared of any wrongdoing.
This is the only defense I see Hoff having, he feared for his wife's or his own life. Was it a reasonable fear at age 75? That's up to a judge to decide. it works for all cops, it might work for Mr. Hoff.
Gas dog.. the number of bullets is irrelevant is it not?
If there are 1000 cops there and one cop shouts" gun" everyone is supposed to fire until the threat is GONE.
So which officer do you charge with doing something wrong? They are responsible for doing THEIR duty and THEIR bullets, so if one cop held back and the guys wallet turned out to be a gun and a cop was killed because he hesitated then should he be forgiven or fired?
I understand that the cop who shouted gun screwed up and the city needs to pay but that cop is the only one who screwed up that day.
If everyone waited until they got confirmation or so the gun for themselves someone could die.
jeezlouise, hate to tell you this but I own property, which I must pay personal property taxes, I am liable for any damage or injury on my property to an extent and laws in Albemarle County state I can't have abandon vehicles on my property too. Heck, the City of Charlottesville has even more laws that require property owners to be sure to clear their sidewalks within a curtain period of time after snow or ice and they have sited and fined folks for other reasons. So, when you speak of property and what rights one has - they are pretty regulated.
And it was a public parking lot. It will be interesting how this plays out.
Gasbag, you are very right - Magistrates today will write up warrants on anyone and let the courts work it out.
With as much press and other the Huff's have received, I do not see them holding onto the property/businesses for much longer. Charlottesville is a small down and word spreads like wild fire...
@jeezlouise...
"If I were 75 I would like to think I would not be scared of being approached by someone I had just towed. Think about it."
Yep, I did, and you're right...As a 75-year-old husband, I would just dispatch my 70-year-old wife out of the safety of my SUV to confront the threatening person.
R.I.P.: Brian Keith
Ponce De leon, a teenager is shot and killed in Arizona for holding a 3 Musketeers candy bar. It was packaged in chrome wrapping. No record. Never been in trouble. Startled by cop shouting at him. Turns to face cop. BAM BAM BAM BAM! Go tell his mother and father that the cops had to shoot first or else a cop might die.
Again, cops cleared of all wrongdoing because they feared for their life and thought a candy bar was a firearm.
Whether it was a rational fear or not, if Mr Hoff was fearful for his life or that of his wife, he may have a legitimate excuse for brandishing a firearm. If cops can use the excuse in murder cases and get by with it, why can't Mr Hoff use it in a simple brandish case?
"Yep, I did, and you're right...As a 75-year-old husband, I would just dispatch my 70-year-old wife out of the safety of my SUV to confront the threatening person"
She possibly saved that young mans life. The closer he got to that vehicle the probability of his death was steadily increasing. I doubt he dispatched her. I suspect she jumped out on her own but I don't anyone involved so that is speculation.
"jeezlouise, hate to tell you this but I own property, which I must pay personal property taxes, I am liable for any damage or injury on my property.."
Not arguing the fact they were parked in another lot or what transpired was right or wrong.
It was absolutely none of his business why anyone would be sitting in any lot monitoring their own property or someone elses. He wanted a confrontation because he got busted and he bit off more than he could chew.
"preejerkulation"
Love it. Gotta remember that one.
JeezeLouise,
"It was absolutely none of his business why anyone would be sitting in any lot monitoring their own property or someone elses."
Wrong. The fact that they tried to tow his car most certainly made it his business. What part of that do YOU not get?
"Wrong. The fact that they tried to tow his car most certainly made it his business. What part of that do YOU not get?"
Oh I get it.
So if I were to get caught parking in your driveway and you called a tow truck you believe I should confront you because you called from your neighbors house? Should I cop an attitude on you because you didn't come over and tell me not to park there? How about I lay the blame on you for not marking your driveway or for me failing to see those elusive NO PARKING signs?
Or
Do you think I should be a big boy and accept the fact somebody doesn't think I am a special person who deserves special treatment and move on?
the fact that the old bag got out of the car pretty much null and voids the "they were scared for their life arugement"
it's to bad ol Nic didn't have his assault rifle that he owns with him..then we could of had a real ol western shoot out!
I requested my last post be deleted about 30 minutes ago because it was written poorly. Hopefully the site will respond soon.
jeezlouise, no you really don't seem to "get it." If you park in my driveway then you have parked on private property in a place that does not in any way suggest that it might be open to the public. It would be an entirely different situation if you were to park in a place that was specifically built for random people off the street to park in. The law recognizes that distinction and requires that large obvious signs be placed in the latter if parking is not allowed and might result in towing.
"jeezlouise, no you really don't seem to get it.......that it might be open to the public" "
holy moley.
Are you confirming that you don't get it? No need, it was pretty apparent to the rest of us.