PDA

View Full Version : FOX 40 Poll - Sac man shoots burglar...charges or no?


LAK Supply
04-04-2007, 10:20 PM
Thought some of us should hit this poll....

Sac man shoots one of the people trying to rip off property (car, I think they said on the news).......hits one.......gets arrested.

Tom Sullivan BAILS THE MAN OUT OF JAIL AND PUTS HIM ON THE SHOW. Sullivan appears to be a little bit pissed about the situation.....called the burglars lowlifes.

Here's the link to the FOX 40 opinion poll....

http://fox40.trb.com/news/local/special2/

I can't find the full story in print, but I will post it as soon as I can find it.

tango-52
04-04-2007, 10:27 PM
I just voted. There were 15 yes votes, 615 no votes. LOL.

whatdyisit
04-04-2007, 10:38 PM
15-yes to 710-no now :D

Wulf
04-04-2007, 10:44 PM
In the perfect world inside Wulf's head, this kind of activity would earn the homeowner a nice deduction on his already trivial income tax and perhaps "free ammo for a year". But based on the situation described in the Bee story I think he easily prosecutable under the current law.

JS-M1A
04-04-2007, 10:50 PM
1.9%
Yes (16 responses)

98.1%
No (835 responses)

851 total responses

LAK Supply
04-04-2007, 10:51 PM
I seem to recall something in the penal code about (paraphrased) "apprehending someone during the commission of a felony constituting justifiable homicide?" I'm pretty sure I'm correct.....wouldn't this apply to this case?

gh429
04-04-2007, 10:56 PM
You shouldn't shoot people committing misdemeanors. Where do you draw the lines? People breaking your mailboxes? Kids toilet papering your house?

I've had my cars stolen / broken into on many occasions. Car thiefs should be tied down and repeatedly punched in the face, then carted off to jail, but shooting at them (and possibly killing them) is just not reasonable.

Bushwacker
04-04-2007, 11:04 PM
I voted.

17 yes
855 no

sintax
04-04-2007, 11:05 PM
You shouldn't shoot people committing misdemeanors. Where do you draw the lines? People breaking your mailboxes? Kids toilet papering your house?

I've had my cars stolen / broken into on many occasions. Car thiefs should be tied down and repeatedly punched in the face, then carted off to jail, but shooting at them (and possibly killing them) is just not reasonable.

What about maybe a pistol whip when they are not looking and then a shot or two the knee cap.


Really though. I think the guy got what was coming to him. If more people were willing to step up and defend what was rightfully theirs this world would be a different place.

This is no different then the old horse thieves of the wild west....

Pthfndr
04-04-2007, 11:07 PM
You shouldn't shoot people committing misdemeanors. Where do you draw the lines? People breaking your mailboxes? Kids toilet papering your house?

I've had my cars stolen / broken into on many occasions. Car thiefs should be tied down and repeatedly punched in the face, then carted off to jail, but shooting at them (and possibly killing them) is just not reasonable.

The guy had already had 4 attempted thefts of his car. On his block alone 8 other homes had been burglerized or robbed.

SCREW THE BAD GUYS! These days people depend on their cars to get to their livelyhood just as people depended on a horse 100 years ago.

They hung or shot horse thieves.

DRM6000
04-04-2007, 11:09 PM
i voted

Do you think the homeowner who shot at the men trying to steal his car should face charges?

2.0%
Yes (18 responses)

98.0%
No (864 responses)

882 total responses

(Poll results not scientific)

Turbinator
04-04-2007, 11:16 PM
You shouldn't shoot people committing misdemeanors. Where do you draw the lines? People breaking your mailboxes? Kids toilet papering your house?

How do you justify vandalism as being "OK"??

Turby

CalNRA
04-04-2007, 11:19 PM
since when did the Sac government do what was good for the people?

CalNRA
04-04-2007, 11:20 PM
The 18 yes votes are anti-gun Koolaid drinkers.

no, I think those are career car thieves.

DedEye
04-04-2007, 11:23 PM
18 yes
886 no :D.

DedEye
04-04-2007, 11:25 PM
How do you justify vandalism as being "OK"??

Turby

I don't think he's justifying it as "ok." Instead, he seems to be asking (rightly) where you draw the line between someone doing something bad enough to shoot them. Is it ok to shoot teenagers breaking mailboxes or toilet papering a house?

FreedomIsNotFree
04-04-2007, 11:32 PM
Why does it matter what the public thinks? The DA has a job to do. If the DA believes a crime was committed they are duty bound to prosecute. That does not mean the DA will get a conviction, but opinion polls should play no role in the decision.

The rule of law is mightier than the mob. That's what separates a Republic from a Democracy.

LAK Supply
04-04-2007, 11:49 PM
Last time I checked Burglary is a felony, whether it's burglary I (which is strikeable as well) or burglary II. It CAN be charged as a misdemeanor, but any attempt to break into someone's vehicle is considered entering a premises with intent to committ theft. That may just be in Stanislaus county, but somehow I tend to doubt that Sac is more lenient than we are.

socalguns
04-05-2007, 12:05 AM
It matters to Fox news

Cpl_Peters
04-05-2007, 8:04 AM
Where is the line? I don't know if I would shoot someone breaking into my car or not. I guess it would all depend on the situation. The only reason I wouldnt would be fear of prosecution. If there weren't any laws about that I would 100% blow someone away for trying to steal my car. This guy should get a medal....one less lowlife on the street, and another scared out of his mind. Next car he'll try to steal will be from a house with a "Hillary 08" sign out front.

racko
04-05-2007, 8:11 AM
I think that it depends on what kind of car they are stealing and who owns it, should be the benchmark if they should be shot or not.

jp.cherokee
04-05-2007, 8:18 AM
19 yes

991 NO :D

dicast
04-05-2007, 8:26 AM
send a clear message to all those lowlife outhere. get a real job and stop ripping people off or theres a bullet for you.

Res
04-05-2007, 8:35 AM
You shouldn't shoot people committing misdemeanors. Where do you draw the lines? People breaking your mailboxes?

Isn't this a felony?




oh yeah...

20 yes 2%
1003 no 98%

1023 total

:cool:

tygerpaw
04-05-2007, 8:42 AM
I dont think he should be charged. However, I caught a guy breaking into my car one night and I am glad I did not have my gun on me because I would have shot him in the back as he was running away. I simply lost it. I'm sure I would have been charged. But I also dont want to kill someone unless they gave me no other option but to kill them.

HowardW56
04-05-2007, 8:45 AM
Why does it matter what the public thinks? The DA has a job to do. If the DA believes a crime was committed they are duty bound to prosecute. That does not mean the DA will get a conviction, but opinion polls should play no role in the decision.

The rule of law is mightier than the mob. That's what separates a Republic from a Democracy.

I agree up to a point. The DA has to believe that the facts and evidence support the prosecution’s theories and that there is a reasonable probability that the trial will result in a conviction. If the DA doesn’t believe that they can win a conviction, going ahead with the case is a waste of taxpayer money and time…

JimAmentler
04-05-2007, 9:59 AM
Yes - 20 (1.8%)
No - 1065 (98.2%)

SnWnMe
04-05-2007, 10:01 AM
The rule of law is mightier than the mob. That's what separates a Republic from a Democracy.

But this doesn't hold true anymore either. The biggest whiners win.

eta34
04-05-2007, 10:20 AM
Yes, vehicle burglary is a felony.

brighamr
04-05-2007, 11:27 AM
its 20 vs 1013 now :-) Can't wait to see them spout those numbers off on live-tv!

IMO, if you are going to steal my car, you are removing part of my survival (ie. without a car, if a big storm or earthquake or riots started, you're SOL) therefore, someone who is caught stealing a car should be shot\apprehended.

Why is it that if a felon commited a crime and is running from the PO-PO they can shoot, but if a felon commits a crime and is running from a citizen, they can't do anything?

Surveyor
04-05-2007, 11:38 AM
If I went outside at 3:00 am, and caught 3 gang bangers trying to steal my car (again) I bet they wouldn't punk out. In fact, I bet that at least one of them would come at me. It only takes one person to steal a car, the other two were for back up. If that happened I would undoubtedly fear for my life.

Tom Sulivan is one of the smartest and fairest right wing talk show hosts, out there. He wouldn't jump into this if the guy was just some hothead. This guy is an immigrant who really just wanted to protect his home.

shonc99
04-05-2007, 1:03 PM
Whatever.

People shouldn't be committing (FELONYS) on my damn property. Try that on for size.


SERIOUS +1 for that. You break into, vandalize or destroy my property, I voilate your organs with lead. Fair trade.

Basic judicial premise: If you don't like the punishment you would recieve for commiting said crime, then perhaps think twice before comitting it.

If you were certain to be shot either by the victim during comission of crime or firing squad after conviction was the norm, I wholeheardtly believe that crimminals would find a safer, more rewarding occupation than "career crimminal"

And lets look at that term "Career Crimminal" WTF:eek: is that about? How does somebody get away with making a career out of stealing, murdering and taking from others?

Again, perhaps if the punishemnt was severe and swift we wouldn't need to face the issue again and again.

rocknut
04-05-2007, 1:27 PM
21 yes
1146 no...
:D

hung380
04-05-2007, 1:34 PM
Can someone please do me a favor and put up a poll to see how many of our calgun members had there car broken into or stolen? I would do it myself but i dont know how:(
Im glad that burgular had his early retirement. Within the past 7 years I had my car broken in 3 times and have cost me over 2000 dollars. Thats enough funds for a new M1a with 2000 rounds of ammo:mad:
Thats kind of cruel to lock up one of my super heroes. What will it be like if this were to happen in Texas:rolleyes:

CalNRA
04-05-2007, 1:43 PM
I had my car stolen a few months ago in Berkeley.

tango-52
04-05-2007, 1:50 PM
Just voted from work. Now at 21 yes, 1156 no.

derek@thepackingrat.net
04-05-2007, 2:03 PM
They're discussing this issue on 1530 KFBK with Tom Sullivan again. Started yesterday and is carrying over through today.

kilword
04-05-2007, 2:15 PM
HELL YEA! it's was fine awhile ago (Horse/cattle thieves) should still be today... hell if it was Texas they'd just cart the body off and say have a good night:cool: . Screw car thieves should be shot on sight.


The guy had already had 4 attempted thefts of his car. On his block alone 8 other homes had been burglerized or robbed.

SCREW THE BAD GUYS! These days people depend on their cars to get to their livelyhood just as people depended on a horse 100 years ago.

They hung or shot horse thieves.

Wulf
04-05-2007, 3:12 PM
Just voted from work. Now at 21 yes, 1156 no.

I was hoping we could keep the yes vote under 12 just so this guy would have a chance with a jury.

SunshineGlocker
04-05-2007, 3:51 PM
You can't use deadly force to defend property. It's not morally or legally acceptable in California. Everyone who owns a gun for defensive use should know that. Why didn't that guy just have theft insurance on his auto insurance policy? It adds very little to the insurance costs and it's a lot cheaper than the legal bills he's now facing.

Directshot
04-05-2007, 3:57 PM
"just Say No"

Bill_in_SD
04-05-2007, 3:58 PM
It is wrong to kill another person over an automobile, no matter how you cut it. (and if you shoot, you better expect to kill)

So go ahead and rationalize away...

"It was a felony"
"He was a low-life" (or some other noun of your choice)

The root cause of this problem is that no one expects to be held at gunpoint in California because the state has effectively disarmed it's citizens.

If these people (and kids) had it in their mind that they might get shot being stupid and jacking someone's car, they would not be so apt to do it.

Guess none of you all have never done the wrong thing.... and you should also review what is a felony and what is not.

Bill in SD

brighamr
04-05-2007, 4:39 PM
Why didn't that guy just have theft insurance on his auto insurance policy? It adds very little to the insurance costs and it's a lot cheaper than the legal bills he's now facing.


yeah, that's right. We should pay more each month so these criminals can steal cars and get away with it :rolleyes: that's the worst statement I've ever read on CG. I don't mean to attack you personally, so please don't take it that way, I'm just saying that type of mentality is one of the reasons our rights are being stripped.

The reason why mode of transportation theft (horse\car) used to be considered a hanging offense is simple: in the event of emergency, without your mode of transportation, your chance of survival is very slim. This applies to current day:

Katrina
LA Riots
SF earthquake

In all three scenarios, if one didn't have a means of transportation out of the disastor zone, one's chances of survival were much, much less.

It's hard to draw the line on using deadly force to protect property, but if someone were to try and steal Mrs. Feinsteins car, do you think they would be allowed to run away?

Python2
04-05-2007, 5:04 PM
You can't use deadly force to defend property. It's not morally or legally acceptable in California. Everyone who owns a gun for defensive use should know that. Why didn't that guy just have theft insurance on his auto insurance policy? It adds very little to the insurance costs and it's a lot cheaper than the legal bills he's now facing.

I agree with you 101%, but I still voted NO. :D

Surveyor
04-05-2007, 5:37 PM
You can't use deadly force to defend property. It's not morally or legally acceptable in California. Everyone who owns a gun for defensive use should know that. Why didn't that guy just have theft insurance on his auto insurance policy? It adds very little to the insurance costs and it's a lot cheaper than the legal bills he's now facing.




You can't use deadly force to defend property. It's not morally or legally acceptable in California.

1. True, but you can arm yourself and stop a potential car thief. The cops in that area won't get there in time to stop the thieves, you must hold them for the police. Also, is it possible that these gang banging scum lied to the police when they said that they tried to flee :rolleyes: ? Is it possible that they actually tried to attack their victim, before they realized he had a gun ?



Why didn't that guy just have theft insurance on his auto insurance policy? It adds very little to the insurance costs and it's a lot cheaper than the legal bills he's now facing?


2. In case you don't realize it, this happened in one of the poorest (and predominantly immigrant) neighborhoods in Sac. So the extra $40 a month means way more to him than you or me. In areas like that, (Where they steal your catalytic converter out of your engine, like his), you can expect a high premium and high deductable. Basically rendering the insurance useless if you drive a POS like this man does.


It's not morally or legally acceptable in California.

3. Unless of course you are the police, then it becomes legal and apparently moral ;) .

Jeremy K.
04-05-2007, 6:07 PM
What I gathered from interviews with the true victim and Tom Sullivan was that the actual shooting wasn't over property but rather a perceived threat. What they both are stating is that the shot was fired when one of the perpetrators with a heavy coat turned abruptly and shoved his hand inside it. The victim took this as a threat against his life and thankfully was armed to protect it. Unfortunately the suspect(s) escaped and had ample time to dispose of any weapon he may have had at the time so the truth may never be known.

The regrettable thing here is that it has already been put on record that his (victim) initial intention for walking out side and brandishing the rifle was to "scare them off". I wonder how different things would be if he would have said his actions were merely to finally apprehend these degenerates who may or may not have been responsible for his families previous plights. Never mind that fact that doing so really isn't the safest or most tactically favorable maneuver possible, but rather focus on the legalities of making a citizen's arrest with the use of a firearm as protection for doing so. Is this a legal course of action?

I'm unaware of this detail, but was the victim standing on his property at all times while holding his rifle? Does that factor play into this at all as a legal standpoint? If he did come out of his residents to confront this suspects to affect a citizen's arrest does the penal code support this?

197 Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
-
-
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.
Is holding someone at gunpoint either on or off your personal property considered to be a "lawful ways and means"?

These, as well as many other, need to be asked and answered for us to make any rational judgements on this occurrence.

SunshineGlocker
04-05-2007, 6:26 PM
It is wrong to kill another person over an automobile, no matter how you cut it. (and if you shoot, you better expect to kill)

So go ahead and rationalize away...

Thank you Bill. That's right.

"It was a felony"
"He was a low-life" (or some other noun of your choice)

Those are horrible rationalizations that people make. They don't stand up legally, morally, or in court, and in fact if someone says, "I shot him because he was a low-life" that's enough to start a murder investigation.

shonc99
04-05-2007, 7:38 PM
The root cause of this problem is that no one expects to be held at gunpoint in California because the state has effectively disarmed it's citizens.

If these people (and kids) had it in their mind that they might get shot being stupid and jacking someone's car, they would not be so apt to do it.



These statements contradict each other. If it isn't justifiable (read legal) to shoot someone over trying to jack my car, then how would you go about putting that same fear in them? How do you take their cake and eat it too?



If these people (and kids) had it in their mind that they might get shot being stupid and jacking someone's car, they would not be so apt to do it.
Bill in SD

Yes, exactly. If they know that they might be risking their life commiting said crime, they may think twice before proceeding.

I don't care what someone's social, economic or professional background may be when it comes to protecting my property, my family or my life. I don't discriminate and neither does my gun. You steal here, you may die here.

Granted, I am not out to shoot everyone that might steal my newspaper or rose bushes but crimminals need a strong message that actually speaks to them and this incident is a loud one.

Bill_in_SD
04-05-2007, 7:38 PM
Jeremy K. - you are right about the answers needed.

We must consider these factors *before* things like this happen. If I see someone breaking into my car, on my street, do I just grab the gun and go outside? Do I attempt to apprehend them?

I think the prudent thing is to call 911, find a place with cover, and somehow convey the message to the perps that I have called the police. If things escalate, then you do what you have to do. It is at that point we can discriminate between the 'career criminal' and the 'one time mistake'.

You may have to replace the broken window or lock on the car, but you will not have to live with the burden one carries from ending another's life.

I do appreciate everyone's passion about defending life, limb, and property, but I think some thought needs to go into what is really important and necessary as opposed to disposable and unnecessary.

Bill in SD

shonc99
04-05-2007, 7:44 PM
Those are horrible rationalizations that people make. They don't stand up legally, morally, or in court, and in fact if someone says, "I shot him because he was a low-life" that's enough to start a murder investigation.


Agreed, those rationalizations are poor in trying to justify shooting someone. Saying someone was a low life is an opinion which has nothing to do with the facts.

In Texas deadly force is legal in protecting personal property after dark. Do you suppose that theft or personal property is lower in Texas?

I don't care if a sharp-dressed business looking man was stealing my car. Personal appearance is just that, personal appearance. The facts are what matter.

Bill_in_SD
04-05-2007, 7:49 PM
Shonc99 - fear is different than termination of life.

I should have stressed the *might* part of my statement about having second thoughts, since the possibility of getting shot always exists if I am not sure whether or not the car/home owner is armed - and as illustrated by the earlier posts, some would shoot. The fact is that in California it is perceived that gun ownership is lower per capita than other states (I am pretty sure that is true) and so criminals will always choose California over say, Texas.

And while you may not care about anyone's background, you should care about your future - which is pretty bleak if you shoot to protect your property without any other justification (protection of life).

Bill in SD

shonc99
04-05-2007, 8:05 PM
I do appreciate everyone's passion about defending life, limb, and property, but I think some thought needs to go into what is really important and necessary as opposed to disposable and unnecessary.

Bill in SD

Without having been at the situation we can only speculate. I do not believe I have advocated just going out and shooting someone as they are stealing or attempting to steal.

I would go out with my pistol drawn if it was clear that a crime was taking place. I would use my escalation of force measures in an attempt to apprehend the suspect.

If lethal force became the only option to prevent the theft of the car or to protect myself or others then so be it.

shonc99
04-05-2007, 8:11 PM
And while you may not care about anyone's background, you should care about your future - which is pretty bleak if you shoot to protect your property without any other justification (protection of life).

Bill in SD

Yes, if this situation were to present itself I would have to make the choice right then. Yes, the sad sad fact is that "we" as the collective firearm owners would need to justify ourselves BEYOND a reasonable doubt because every attempt is made to persecute the person shooting. But again, I would rather kill a man then have him be injured and then sue me for everything I own!:eek: :confused: :mad: EDIT( NOT THAT I WOULD WANT TO KILL SOMEONE< THE GUILT LASTS A LIFETIME REGARDLESS IF YOU ARE JUSTIFIED)

Imagine that, being more afraid of getting sued then proscecuted for killing someone who was purposly attempting a crime.

Bill_in_SD
04-05-2007, 8:11 PM
Without having been at the situation we can only speculate. I do not believe I have advocated just going out and shooting someone as they are stealing or attempting to steal.

Which is why we have discussion like this. To give thought to a situation that could happen in our life, any time.

Thank you for engaging in discussion and laying out your point of view.

Stay safe-

Bill in SD

Jeremy K.
04-05-2007, 8:25 PM
Jeremy K. - you are right about the answers needed.

We must consider these factors *before* things like this happen. If I see someone breaking into my car, on my street, do I just grab the gun and go outside? Do I attempt to apprehend them?

I think the prudent thing is to call 911, find a place with cover, and somehow convey the message to the perps that I have called the police. If things escalate, then you do what you have to do. It is at that point we can discriminate between the 'career criminal' and the 'one time mistake'.

You may have to replace the broken window or lock on the car, but you will not have to live with the burden one carries from ending another's life.

I do appreciate everyone's passion about defending life, limb, and property, but I think some thought needs to go into what is really important and necessary as opposed to disposable and unnecessary.

Bill in SD

100% reflection of my sentiments.

It really is too bad that what ultimately sent this family man into action was emotion. By no means is it ever truly necessary to come out of your home armed to thwart a crime in progress (*mandatory disclaimer* perhaps unless a life were in the balance yada yada yada hehe). The risk of the unknown is far too great in such circumstances and the need for a set of eyes on scene for law enforcement is far too great.

But alas, the wisdom of ones actions can always be dissected to an infinite degree. Something I'm sure we can all agree on is that this poor man's intentions were for the good of his family and his ultimate actions were forced by a thief who put himself in the position to have a bullet implanted in his chest.

ravenbkp
04-05-2007, 8:45 PM
What get all of us going on this topic is right and belief vs knowledge of the law and culture in California. A car is most peoples most or second most valuable possession we can all guess how he felt seeing someone damaging and stealing his car.

The rub is California law and legal culture and law enforcement resources are such that these crimes seem at least from the outside to be addressed at a very low level. Which Bugs the bleep out of me but...........

Bottom line if you shoot a car thief in California LE and the DA are going to take a very long hard look at it and if he was no threat to a person ya should expect to be prosecuted........don't make it right it just is what it is.

Jeremy K.
04-05-2007, 10:08 PM
Agreed!

FreedomIsNotFree
04-05-2007, 11:58 PM
If he would have said he was going outside with his gun to place the criminals under citizens arrest he would have been 100% within the law.

The penal code allows for citizens to make arrests with loaded firearms.

***I'd also like to add that this is a perfect example of why you dont make ANY statements to the police. If he had kept his mouth shut he could, at a later date, explain that he was within the law when he went outside with his loaded rifle to place the burglars under arrest......case closed.

JALLEN
04-06-2007, 11:38 AM
Why does it matter what the public thinks? The DA has a job to do. If the DA believes a crime was committed they are duty bound to prosecute. That does not mean the DA will get a conviction, but opinion polls should play no role in the decision.

The rule of law is mightier than the mob. That's what separates a Republic from a Democracy.

What???

An opinion poll will play a role in the decision. It will be an opinion poll of carefully selected peers, sworn to give an opinion, called a jury. A jury is a sworn mob. The DA is going to have to think what result he is likely to get given the circumstances. If these are in fact the circumstances.

Has a crime been committed? Besides attempted car theft, I mean. Grand theft?



PC 197:
"197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace."

That ought to cover attempted homicide, n'est pas?

Shane916
04-06-2007, 4:10 PM
197 covers lawful defense mostly relating to human life with felony's. As for #4 on that, it would be easily argued in this case, that opening fire on someone who is running away is not "by lawful ways and means" :)

FreedomIsNotFree
04-06-2007, 4:31 PM
What???

An opinion poll will play a role in the decision. It will be an opinion poll of carefully selected peers, sworn to give an opinion, called a jury. A jury is a sworn mob. The DA is going to have to think what result he is likely to get given the circumstances. If these are in fact the circumstances.

Has a crime been committed? Besides attempted car theft, I mean. Grand theft?



PC 197:
"197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace."

That ought to cover attempted homicide, n'est pas?

Not sure I get your argument....what question are you asking me?

anotherone
04-06-2007, 6:08 PM
I live in South Sacramento. It's ghetto here. While it sucks to see thugs go back on the street, I'm sure anyone who runs out of his home discharging a firearm in an urban environment poses just as much as a threat.

Why couldn't he just do what the rest of us do when someone is screwing with our vehicle:

1. Store your car in the garage and lock the garage if you believe it could be stolen

or

2. Turn on the exterior lights, open the window and shout, "I'm calling the police start walking away from the vehicle"

dawson8r
04-06-2007, 6:59 PM
Unfortunately for the victim, or fortunately if you are the perpetrator, most CCW laws and "use of force" laws only allow you to escalate use of force equal to the that of the perpetrator. An example of escalation of force:

1. Someone is breaking in to your car parked in front of your house.
2. You arm yourself, call the police, and go out to confront the perpetrator.
3. You tell perpetrator that you have called the police and to stop what they are doing. You may even inform them that you are making a citizens arrest, take a picture of them with your digital camera, draw a sketch of them, jot down license plate of unfamiliar car, etc.
4. Perpetrator decides you are a nuisance and comes at you with a tire iron, bat, knife, fists, etc.
5. You may now draw your weapon and tell them to stop because you believe your life is threatened.
6. Perpetrator continues to advance towards you.
7. Drop 'em.

Point is, much as you'd like to, you can't come out of your house blasting. Kind of a bummer really.

shonc99
04-07-2007, 9:20 AM
4. Perpetrator decides you are a nuisance and comes at you with a tire iron, bat, knife, fists, etc.
5. You may now draw your weapon and tell them to stop because you believe your life is threatened.
6. Perpetrator continues to advance towards you.
7. Drop 'em.

Point is, much as you'd like to, you can't come out of your house blasting. Kind of a bummer really.


While I didn't elude to it in my first post this is exactly how the escelation of force should advance.

I didn't know that he just went out shooting. Is that seriously what he did? That right there will possibly seal his fate.

Bill_in_SD
04-07-2007, 10:04 AM
2. You arm yourself, call the police, and go out to confront the perpetrator.
3. You tell perpetrator that you have called the police and to stop what they are doing. You may even inform them that you are making a citizens arrest, take a picture of them with your digital camera, draw a sketch of them, jot down license plate of unfamiliar car, etc.


Going out to confront the perpetrator is a mistake - I would never leave the relative safety of my home unless necessary to convey the message that the police have been alerted.
And an attempt to perform a 'citizen's arrest' would be an escalation of force on your part - forcing the hand of the junkie/ex-con/desperate individual who is now thinking "I ain't going to jail". And what about his lookout buddy in the bushes, outside your field of view?

Collecting as much information as you can about the perp(s) is exactly what you need to do, as you indicated - pictures, remembering details about the getaway car, license plates, physical description, etc. You probably won't remember those things if you end up in a potentially life threatening situation when you try to arrest the person.

Bill in SD

FreedomIsNotFree
04-07-2007, 3:04 PM
Going out to confront the perpetrator is a mistake - I would never leave the relative safety of my home unless necessary to convey the message that the police have been alerted.
And an attempt to perform a 'citizen's arrest' would be an escalation of force on your part - forcing the hand of the junkie/ex-con/desperate individual who is now thinking "I ain't going to jail". And what about his lookout buddy in the bushes, outside your field of view?

Collecting as much information as you can about the perp(s) is exactly what you need to do, as you indicated - pictures, remembering details about the getaway car, license plates, physical description, etc. You probably won't remember those things if you end up in a potentially life threatening situation when you try to arrest the person.

Bill in SD


I can understand if you dont want to use the ability to place a criminal under citizens arrest...its not for everyone, but the ability is there and its not considered an "escalation of force". Would you say the same of a LEO when they arrest a criminal?

Bill_in_SD
04-07-2007, 3:57 PM
I should have said 'escalation of the confrontation'.

This would certainly lead to an escalation of force by the perp if he is a junkie/ex-con, and especially if he already has '2 strikes'.

Bill in SD

FreedomIsNotFree
04-07-2007, 10:12 PM
I should have said 'escalation of the confrontation'.

This would certainly lead to an escalation of force by the perp if he is a junkie/ex-con, and especially if he already has '2 strikes'.

Bill in SD

My point is that its legal to arrest somebody that has committed a crime.

Bill_in_SD
04-07-2007, 11:09 PM
My point is that its legal to arrest somebody that has committed a crime.

It is also legal to ride a motorcycle in some states without a helmet.....

My point is that you need to weight the risk to the reward, especially when you are dealing in human life. I believe it is best to avoid placing yourself in this situation when there is way too much that can go wrong.

Bill in SD

FreedomIsNotFree
04-07-2007, 11:57 PM
It is also legal to ride a motorcycle in some states without a helmet.....

My point is that you need to weight the risk to the reward, especially when you are dealing in human life. I believe it is best to avoid placing yourself in this situation when there is way too much that can go wrong.

Bill in SD

What does the helmet law in other states have to do with this? And you are entitled to believe anything you want. The law, on the other hand, is clear....a citizen can place a criminal under arrest.

Bill_in_SD
04-08-2007, 1:30 PM
Just because it is legal does not mean you do it.

I may be legal in not wearing a helmet, or effecting a citizen's arrest on someone breaking into my car, but will it matter if I am 'legal' when I am dead from it?

I agree that it is legal to attempt to apprehend the guy breaking into my car, but is it worth it?

Bill in SD

FreedomIsNotFree
04-08-2007, 10:19 PM
Just because it is legal does not mean you do it.

I may be legal in not wearing a helmet, or effecting a citizen's arrest on someone breaking into my car, but will it matter if I am 'legal' when I am dead from it?

I agree that it is legal to attempt to apprehend the guy breaking into my car, but is it worth it?

Bill in SD

Yes, its worth it to me.

LAK Supply
04-08-2007, 11:16 PM
It would be worth it to me as well. As long as people go out of their way to avoid criminals as if it's their own fault that someone is stealing from them, the criminal element of society will enjoy semi-free reign.

I hold the live and let live theory in my life until someone begins to encroach upon my life. At that point I personally think it is necessary to stand and use force if necessary......... And no, I'm NOT saying to just run out and shoot people that are breaking into your car, but I'm also saying that I wouldn't lock myself in my house and wait for the cops to get there.

When criminals know that people are scared of getting into a confrontation and are just going to call the police (who may be there in anywhere between 10 minutes and never) to handle the situation, I think it gets taken as a show of weakness. The pacifist technique never seems to stop people who are determined to rob, steal, assault, kill, etc.

If one BG made a wrong move when being detained at gunpoint and got shot, I'm not going to cry over it. Obviously the cops were not solving the problem, and these people were tired of getting their stuff stolen. If one idiot lowlife gets wounded and it stops or slows the crime problem in that area, then it was probably worth it.

This same guy was obviously willing to disregard the fact that he was hurting others......who's to say that next week he wouldn't have been back on that street with home invasion in mind?

People should not have to live in fear that their most valuable possessions are going to be taken from them because someone else has no regard for the law or for others. They should also not have to constantly fear those same individuals coming back and doing something worse the next time.

Bill_in_SD
04-09-2007, 7:35 AM
Then let's agree to disagree on whether or not it is worth it.

I originally got in this discussion based on the original postings that showed some seriously lack of thought - that this shooting was justified just as any shooting would be justified for stopping someone in the commission of a possible felony. Morally justified? That was my question. Within the law? Probably.

Ending someone's life (or your own) in a totally avoidable situation over a car.

I totally agree that criminals have the edge in California. It is due to the stigma that most Californians are unarmed, not so much because waiting for the police to show up is a sign of weakness. As a father and husband, I will risk "looking weak" for not going out there trying to stop a guy in my yard. But you better believe they are *not* making it through the front door.

That is why I believe the gradual disarming of this state is the biggest crime of all - from the "safe" handgun list to discretionary CCW permitting - things are only gonna get worse. And it starts with the folks who have less resources, and somehow never effects those making the rules.

I also agree that no one should live in fear that things are going to be taken from them - but this is the face of the new California. Gone are the days where you don't lock your front door and leave the keys in your car. If you live in SoCal, nothing is safe unless it is chained down in the yard. So you make adjustments by adding lighting and maybe a dog to the yard. Expect the same coming to a neighborhood near you. Even 'gated' communities are at risk down here....

Stay safe-
Bill in SD

nic
04-09-2007, 9:47 AM
IMHO, shooting someone over a car should be totally justifiable. Why? Particularly in California, people rely on their vehicles for their livelihoods... in my case, not only is my way of life dependent upon my car, but I would have no way of replacing it if it were stolen.

I agree with the previous poster who said that once upon a time, they hung horse theives. With damn good reason.

redneckshootist
04-09-2007, 10:48 AM
I agree that shooting someone over stealing your car can be justified. Some people are so dependent on vehicals that it would ruin thier life if it was stolen. If someone were to steal my van you can bet I'll be shootin and chasing them down, my van is my moble office and if it disapears I will loose my whole business, my van carries more than $10,000 worth of tools and parts. On the other hand when my bronco got stolen I let the police handle it and when they found the guy who did it I made the guy repair the damage he caused and didnt press charges. Also the guy may have been trying to make a citizens arrest and was attacked so he defended himself

FreedomIsNotFree
04-09-2007, 10:48 AM
Then let's agree to disagree on whether or not it is worth it.

I originally got in this discussion based on the original postings that showed some seriously lack of thought - that this shooting was justified just as any shooting would be justified for stopping someone in the commission of a possible felony. Morally justified? That was my question. Within the law? Probably.

Ending someone's life (or your own) in a totally avoidable situation over a car.

I totally agree that criminals have the edge in California. It is due to the stigma that most Californians are unarmed, not so much because waiting for the police to show up is a sign of weakness. As a father and husband, I will risk "looking weak" for not going out there trying to stop a guy in my yard. But you better believe they are *not* making it through the front door.

That is why I believe the gradual disarming of this state is the biggest crime of all - from the "safe" handgun list to discretionary CCW permitting - things are only gonna get worse. And it starts with the folks who have less resources, and somehow never effects those making the rules.

I also agree that no one should live in fear that things are going to be taken from them - but this is the face of the new California. Gone are the days where you don't lock your front door and leave the keys in your car. If you live in SoCal, nothing is safe unless it is chained down in the yard. So you make adjustments by adding lighting and maybe a dog to the yard. Expect the same coming to a neighborhood near you. Even 'gated' communities are at risk down here....

Stay safe-
Bill in SD

Reasonable people can definitely agree to disagree. I bet we have much more in common than not.

Surveyor
04-09-2007, 3:50 PM
Update:

The man (Victim) charged with the shooting will be arraigned today or tomorrow. The DA might even reduce the charges (rumor has it).

KFBK talk show host, and centi-millionaire, Tom Sullivan didn't just post bail for the guy, he got him a great lawyer too :D !

Tom's pretty confident this will work out for Captain Save-a-Hood.

Got Stuff?
04-09-2007, 5:24 PM
Yes:
2.6 percent
39 responses


No:
97.4 percent
1482 responses

Cops shoot at people stealing cars all the time! Especially in the movies lol.
On a more serious note, maybe less cars would get stolen if people knew there were more of a chance of getting shot?

I guess it mostly depends on how much the property getting taken really means to you. You have to remember too that this country is extremely lenient when it comes to crime.

LAK Supply
04-09-2007, 5:37 PM
Tom's pretty confident this will work out for Captain Save-a-Hood.

LOL!!! I like that! :D

gh429
04-10-2007, 3:41 AM
What about maybe a pistol whip when they are not looking and then a shot or two the knee cap.


I'm totally down for the pistol whip. :D Going back to what I said earlier, I just think it's not right to potentially kill someone who's only breaking into your vehicle... Big picture - it's just a property crime....

Surveyor
04-11-2007, 12:18 PM
All charges dropped against Sou Saechin!

His attorney was Don Heller (sp?) courtesy or KFBK's Tom Sullivan.

Chalk up one for the good guys!




http://www.kcra.com/news/11620508/detail.html

shonc99
04-11-2007, 12:47 PM
Well, well, justice is served.

It isn't exactly a slam dunk but a step in the right direction.

Baby steps people, baby steps.

G17GUY
04-11-2007, 5:12 PM
Awsome!!!

Pthfndr
04-11-2007, 5:41 PM
Saechin Will Not Face Criminal Charges, DA Says

Wed Apr 11, 4:37 PM ET

A south Sacramento man accused of shooting a suspected car burglar earlier this month will not face criminal charges, District Attorney Jan Scully said Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Sou Saechin was arrested on April 4 on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon after he confronted three suspected car burglars outside his Rock Creek Way home.

Saechin was accused of using a .22-caliber rifle to shoot one of the suspects in the chest and shooting at the suspects' car as it fled the area. The injured 17-year-old suspect, who was identified only as J.C., is expected to survive.

The other two suspected burglars, Marco Virelas and Larry Tran, were later arrested in connection with the case.

"Under the circumstances, we do not believe a jury would find Saechin acted unlawfully in firing this first shot in self defense," Scully's office said in a prepared statement.

Authorities said Saechin then fired three more shots as the three suspects' car left the area. Saechin told authorities he was not attempting to shoot any person, but was simply trying to leave a mark on the suspects' car so the police could later identify it.

Scully's office said the shots fired at the fleeing car appeared to be a penal code violation involving discharge of a firearm in a grossly negligent manner. These three shots did not strike the car or any person.

The district attorney's office said that the only witnesses who saw what happened were Saechin and the suspected car burglars. Saechin is a necessary witness against the burglars, while they are necessary witnesses against Saechin, officials said.

"For this reason, it is not legally practical to prosecute both cases," Scully's office said in a statement. "Under the circumstances, since no one was injured by the unlawful shots (Saechin) fired as the car drove away, the district attorney has elected not to prosecute Mr. Saechin, who has no record and whose testimony will be needed to prosecute the burglars."

The district attorney's office said it will prosecute Virelas and Tran for the car burglary, as well as for probation violations.

Tran and Virelas both have criminal records, Scully's office said. Tran is currently on felony probation for unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm and misdemeanor probation for giving false information to a peace officer. Virelas is on misdemeanor probation for unlawfully possessing an assault weapon. Both have additional criminal records.

Since J.C. is a juvenile, Scully's office said it will make no statement about any prosecution he may face.

LAK Supply
04-11-2007, 5:53 PM
Heard this on the news this morning...... GOOD STUFF!!

And wow, these people have several other criminal convictions on their records! It seems the "wait for the police to get there and deal with it" approach has worked well in the past....... They are apparently very scared and must have just tried to get away with just this one more thing before retiring from their life of crime due to their fear of the police coming. :rolleyes:


It always sucks when people have to get hurt in situations such as these, but I'm also glad these scumbags got a real wakeup call this time. Maybe this one will work and the residents of that area can sleep a little better at night.

brownie168
04-11-2007, 8:05 PM
Thanks kindly for the update. After reading this, I wonder if the outcome would be any different if Mr. Saechin had an AR / AK instead... I am not talking about the kid's well being here; perhaps the DA might treat this some other way? Would that not be sad if the victum gets more punishment than the criminal?

Anthonysmanifesto
04-12-2007, 10:15 AM
the sac bee reports (http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/153731.html)no charges have or will be filed

Archenemy550
04-12-2007, 10:35 AM
10851/10851(A) is a felony.... shoot the b-tard!

Surveyor
04-12-2007, 11:24 AM
Lucky for the perp, Mr. Saechin had some POS .22 cal mouse gun. I think they call those "Saturday Night Specials" :rolleyes: .

If he'd had a real gun...

Looks like another life saved, thanks to an affordable handgun :cool: .

Res
04-12-2007, 12:18 PM
Lucky for the perp, Mr. Saechin had some POS .22 cal mouse gun. I think they call those "Saturday Night Specials"

The article states that he used a .22 cal rifle.

I now feel concerned about Mr. Saechin's safety. With his name and picture in the paper, as well as the attackers/thieves knowing where he lives, there might be some act of retribution. Hopefully Mr. Saechin will upgrade his arsenol.

Bunyfofu69
04-12-2007, 1:02 PM
This happened down the street from my house, he fatally shot 1 burglar, and then shot a women in a get away car, whom went to UCD med center. I find that over doing it.

Surveyor
04-12-2007, 1:09 PM
This happened down the street from my house, he fatally shot 1 burglar, and then shot a women in a get away car, whom went to UCD med center. I find that over doing it.

WTF are you talking about!!!

NO ONE DIED!

He shot at a car, but hit no one!

It's misinformation like this that gets stupid laws passed.

Surveyor
04-12-2007, 1:17 PM
The article states that he used a .22 cal rifle.

My bad.

Bunyfofu69
04-12-2007, 11:19 PM
WTF are you talking about!!!

NO ONE DIED!

He shot at a car, but hit no one!

It's misinformation like this that gets stupid laws passed.


No on died?


Check this

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=9272

Shane916
04-12-2007, 11:28 PM
lol... I think you guys are both talking about completely separate incidents.. and one of the car burglars was shot in the chest from the .22 rifle.

Res
04-13-2007, 1:18 AM
No on died?


Check this

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=9272

Bro, did you even bother to read any posts in this thread? You're talking about an incident that happened over 2 years ago.

Surveyor
04-13-2007, 8:51 AM
No on died?


Check this

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=9272

Wrong case altogether.

If you had bothered to read the whole thread, (or at least the link I posted), you would know that.

As far as that 2 year old home invasion story goes,(the one you linked to), that was justifiable by anybodys' definition. And the story mentions nothing about firing at a get away car.

By the way, aren't you that "Grad Assistant" who's working on the SB1192 study?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=259507#post259507

Let's hope you get your facts straight before you publish any of your "findings" in that study :rolleyes: .

Surveyor
04-13-2007, 8:54 AM
lol... I think you guys are both talking about completely separate incidents.. and one of the car burglars was shot in the chest from the .22 rifle.


You're right, it was a rifle. The radio said pistol, but the KCRA link correctly ID'd it as a rifle.

My bad.