The defense emphasizes trespassing concerns and a feared collision, while the wounded salesman says he was trying to leave when shot.
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — A confrontation that began over whether a door-to-door salesman belonged inside a private gated community has become a felony case testing two dramatically different descriptions of what happened when an armed homeowner and the salesman encountered each other a second time.
Patrick McBride, 80, has pleaded not guilty in connection with the Sept. 13 shooting of Juan Hoffman, a 21-year-old salesman who suffered a spinal injury after being struck in the lower back. McBride’s defense says the broader context matters: Hoffman was soliciting in a private community, had been told to leave, remained in the neighborhood and later approached McBride on a motorized Segway. Hoffman says that framing misses the decisive moment. He says he stayed only because he was looking for a lost wallet and that once McBride displayed a handgun, he tried to turn away. No trial has yet determined which account accurately explains the shooting.
McBride’s attorney has placed unusual emphasis on what happened before the two men ever met. Attorney Jefferson M. Simmons says Scottsdale police had contacted Hoffman earlier that day in a different gated community and told him that he needed a permit to solicit in the city. Simmons says Hoffman was removed from that community and later entered McBride’s neighborhood despite a “No Trespassing” sign. The defense also says neighborhood video showed Hoffman still moving through the area about 10 minutes after McBride first told him to leave. Those claims form the background for McBride’s argument that he had reason to remain concerned about an unfamiliar solicitor inside the private neighborhood.
Hoffman’s first interaction with McBride, however, began with a request for water. Hoffman was selling window-cleaning services and traveling from house to house on an electric Segway. He has said he was hot and dehydrated when he stopped at McBride’s residence and asked for a drink. McBride told police he became suspicious of Hoffman’s story and questioned why he was in the neighborhood. McBride told him he was not permitted there. According to McBride’s police interview, another detail heightened his concern: as Hoffman left, he pointed a cellphone toward the home, leading McBride to believe he might be photographing or recording the property.
Hoffman says he complied by leaving McBride’s immediate property, but before taking a break he realized he had misplaced his wallet. He then circled back through the area to search for it. The distinction is important. The defense presents Hoffman’s continued presence as part of a pattern that reinforced McBride’s concerns about trespassing. Hoffman presents the same period as a practical effort to recover an important personal item before he departed. Neither explanation, standing alone, decides whether deadly force was justified later, and the available reports do not indicate that a court has made such a finding.
McBride did more than watch from his home after the initial encounter. According to police records, he and his wife developed a plan to make sure Hoffman had left the neighborhood. McBride went inside, retrieved a handgun from a safe and carried it in a holster. His wife took a vehicle to check one direction while McBride walked another. If she found the Segway, the plan was for her to contact him, according to the arrest account. That sequence is significant because it shows McBride was armed when he and Hoffman met again, but the parties disagree over what the decision to carry the gun says about his intent.
The defense says the second encounter became dangerous when Hoffman moved toward McBride. Simmons said Hoffman came “aggressively” on the Segway and accelerated while McBride stood on foot. The attorney said Hoffman raised his right hand while holding an object that McBride could not immediately identify. Believing he might be struck, Simmons said, McBride lifted his arm to protect himself. McBride had already drawn his handgun and was holding it at his side, according to the defense. Simmons says the gun discharged when the two made contact, making the shooting the result of a feared collision and physical interaction rather than an intentional shot at a retreating person.
Hoffman tells a nearly opposite story. He has said McBride confronted him and again ordered him out. Hoffman replied that he did not want to leave without finding his wallet. He then saw the gun. Hoffman says he did not raise his hands at McBride and did not threaten him with the cellphone. Instead, he says, he turned away after realizing McBride was armed. The shot struck his lower back. Hoffman fell and discovered he could not move his legs. In later interviews, he disputed McBride’s claim that the discharge was accidental and said he believed he had been shot as he was trying to disengage.
The events immediately afterward contain both points of agreement and another factual dispute. McBride did not flee and was still at the scene when police became involved. His wife called 911, according to court records, after encountering the injured Hoffman. Reports say she helped him while emergency responders were summoned. Hoffman says McBride picked up his cellphone and a spent shell casing and went back toward his residence. McBride’s lawyer denies that, saying McBride remained with Hoffman and that McBride’s wife retrieved the phone from the ground. Police later found the spent casing in McBride’s possession; he told investigators he had picked it up to preserve evidence.
Investigators also noted that McBride’s handgun had a cracked, partly broken trigger guard. Public reporting has not disclosed a conclusive firearms examination explaining what caused the weapon to discharge. That leaves an important evidentiary question open. McBride says the gun fired as the two men came into contact. Hoffman says he had turned away before the shot. Police confirmed the lower-back wound, but the publicly reported record has not provided a full trajectory analysis that independently reconstructs each man’s position. Those issues may become more important if the case reaches a jury.
The shooting’s consequences for Hoffman have been severe. He was hospitalized with a spinal injury and initially reported no feeling in his legs. He later said doctors removed the bullet but could not tell him whether he would walk again. Hoffman, who had come to Arizona from Washington for a short work trip, is now undergoing rehabilitation and learning to manage basic movement with a wheelchair. He has described himself as highly athletic before the shooting and has said one rehabilitation goal has been transferring into the wheelchair without help. He has also reported nightmares and uncertainty about plans that had included earning money for college.
For McBride, the case has moved into a formal criminal process. He was arrested after the shooting and posted a $150,000 bond. A judge later rejected a request for permission to travel after finding him to be a flight risk, according to Arizona’s Family. Simmons has emphasized McBride’s history as an Air Force veteran and longtime family man and says the indictment should not be mistaken for evidence of guilt. The defense argues that McBride reasonably feared an imminent impact from Hoffman and acted protectively. Prosecutors will have the burden of proving the criminal allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case therefore involves two separate questions that can easily become blurred. One concerns Hoffman’s right to be inside the private neighborhood and whether he complied with requests to leave. The other concerns what McBride reasonably perceived and did at the precise moment the firearm discharged. McBride’s defense treats the first question as important context for the second. Hoffman’s account places greater weight on his movement away from the gun. The criminal court, not the neighborhood’s private rules or public debate, will determine whether prosecutors can establish that McBride committed the charged offenses.
McBride has pleaded not guilty and remains presumed innocent. Local reports say a trial is expected in early 2027. Hoffman continues rehabilitation while the legal system works through the central dispute over whether the final confrontation was an act of self-defense, an accidental shooting during contact or a criminal assault.
Author note: Last updated Oct. 21, 2026.