Originally posted by: BoomerD
http://news.yahoo.com/s/kcra/20070404/lo_kcra/11518821
A south Sacramento man who told police he was defending his property was arrested early Wednesday after shooting a teenager who was allegedly trying to steal his car, authorities said.
Police said 42-year-old Sou Saechin told them he accidentally shot the teen at about 3 a.m. on Rock Creek Way.
But officials said Saechin went too far in trying to protect his red Honda.
"What we try to stress to people is that deadly force, the use of a firearm, is never justified under any circumstances to protect property," said Sgt. Matt Young of the Sacramento Police Department.
Police said Saechin came outside of his home armed with a .22-caliber rifle and confronted three alleged burglars.
Saechin fired one shot, hitting one of the alleged burglars in the chest. The three fled the scene, police said.
Saechin's wife said her husband was not trying to kill anyone but only wanted to warn the robbers.
Saechin was taken to jail on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon. Bail was set at $30,000.
The injured teenager was taken to Kaiser Permanente Medical Center for treatment and is expected to survive. Police said they are looking for two other people who were involved in the attempted theft. The men were described as Asian and between 18 and 20 years old.
Gotta say, I don't agree with the cops on this one. They do next-to nothing to stop car thefts. IMO, you SHOULD have the right to shoot a thief if you catch them in the act...especially since he was out-numbered 3:1...
Originally posted by: Specop 007
I see ATOT still thinks criminals have more rights then citizens.
More things change, the more they stay the same.
Originally posted by: Ktulu...
BS, what did he think happened when you shoot someone in the chest? If he would have just shot one of them in the leg, that would have been fine. Once you go for the torso or head, you're going for the kill.
Originally posted by: Termagant
Listening to some of your arguments and rationalizations in other threads, as well as your ridiculous beliefs on non related things, makes me concerned that you silly Rambo wannabes actually consider it justified to start shooting first after no questions when you see someone messing with a car. The average person is simply too stupid to act as a fair vigilante over pieces of replaceable property.
There are at times, other options. You can Lojack your car, and that gives the police the ability to actually track it down, fairly quickly too. Provided your local L.E. uses the tech. They have it in the Sacramento area where this happened.Originally posted by: BlancoNino
It's sad that somebody has to just stand there and watch his car get stolen with the only option of calling the police who will probably never catch the thief.
I'd contend that the difference between the coverage required by law, and what full coverage costs him, would have been a very worthwhile investment. Particularly considering the popularity of particular model years of Hondas i.e. the Accord and Civic, among car thiefs. Do we issue give a pass to citizens that cap the perp, based on such a criteria? IMO it is a classic slippery slope issue. I'd vote against any laws giving the right of deadly force, to the citizens, in regards to GTA. Some here would vote the other way, welcome to America. :thumbsup:1EZduzit- Did anyone ever stop to consider that maybe, just maybe this was the victims only car and he didn't have full coverage to replace it in case of theft?
I've put many 1000's of rounds through .22 rifles *fun&cheap being the reason of course*, within 50yards, hitting center mass, even as jacked-up as the shooter doubtless was, would be very doable.Originally posted by: AmphibSailor
Originally posted by: Ktulu...
BS, what did he think happened when you shoot someone in the chest? If he would have just shot one of them in the leg, that would have been fine. Once you go for the torso or head, you're going for the kill.
Maybe he wasn't aiming for the chest...Not everyone's a good shot...
:Q
Full coverage is worth the chips..... if you have the chips and if he didn't have the chips that makeds protecting an even bigger priority in his eyes.Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
There are at times, other options. You can Lojack your car, and that gives the police the ability to actually track it down, fairly quickly too. Provided your local L.E. uses the tech. They have it in the Sacramento area where this happened.Originally posted by: BlancoNino
It's sad that somebody has to just stand there and watch his car get stolen with the only option of calling the police who will probably never catch the thief.
I'd contend that the difference between the coverage required by law, and what full coverage costs him, would have been a very worthwhile investment.1EZduzit- Did anyone ever stop to consider that maybe, just maybe this was the victims only car and he didn't have full coverage to replace it in case of theft?
I guess that's what trials are for. I farm but nobody lives on the actual farm and I get ripped off asll the time. They've taken the tools from the tractors sitting outside, the radios, cassette players, they've even broken into my sheds and stolen antiques, tools, parts, fuel, chemicals, etc. I don't know what would happen if I ever pulled in there and caught someone red-handed. I've had so much crap stolen out there that it would be easy to slip up and lose your temper.Particularly considering the popularity of particular model years of Hondas i.e. the Accord and Civic, among car thiefs. Do we issue give a pass to citizens that cap the perp, based on such a criteria?
IMO ]it is a classic slippery slope issue. I'd vote against any laws giving the right of deadly force, to the citizens, in regards to GTA. Some here would vote the other way, welcome to America. :thumbsup:
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
1EZduzit,
Testimonies like yours', definitely garner my sympathy. I also agree they have to be willing to except that their poor choices can ruin or end their lives too.
But I'm a bit philisophical about such things; if the law is that you don't use lethal force in defense of property, and you shoot and/or kiill someone, haven't you just become a criminal?
Rationalizing or justifing it to ourselves, doesn't make us right, or law abiding citizens anymore, we broke the law, didn't we? Some say it is our right, perhaps in their area it is? But where this happened it seems that isn't the case. The old addage "2 wrongs do not make a right" springs to mind.
Feel the laws need changing? well most here are intelligent enough to know how to attempt that. However, declaring it is your right, if the law does not agree, won't give you a "get out of jail free card" either.
In your case, and being it is rural, you could probably just plant them as fertilizer and they would never be missed. :evil:
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
1EZduzit,
Testimonies like yours', definitely garner my sympathy. I also agree they have to be willing to except that their poor choices can ruin or end their lives too.
But I'm a bit philisophical about such things; if the law is that you don't use lethal force in defense of property, and you shoot and/or kiill someone, haven't you just become a criminal?
What about a person who has no way of protecting their property except by using a gun? Old people, crippled people, people like that? You can't just step out there and expect them to move on because you told them to. Not everybody lives in a city where they can call the cops and expect them to show up in 10 or 15 minutes. That just remeinded me of an email I got a couple of weeks ago. Here it is and it's "supposedly" true??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DONT MOVE FAST ANYMORE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi was going up to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things. He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your house?" and he said "no". Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available. George said, "Okay," hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the police again. "Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now cause I've just shot them all." Then he hung up. Within five minutes three police cars, an armed Response unit, and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips' residence and caught the burglars red-handed. One of the Policemen
said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"
George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationalizing or justifing it to ourselves, doesn't make us right, or law abiding citizens anymore, we broke the law, didn't we? Some say it is our right, perhaps in their area it is? But where this happened it seems that isn't the case. The old addage "2 wrongs do not make a right" springs to mind.
Feel the laws need changing? well most here are intelligent enough to know how to attempt that. However, declaring it is your right, if the law does not agree, won't give you a "get out of jail free card" either.
In your case, and being it is rural, you could probably just plant them as fertilizer and they would never be missed. :evil:
I guess my argument is that if you are in a position where you are being robbed you have the right to defend your property. If you are out numbered, old, crippled, or just a 98 pound weakling how do you do that?
Well, the safest way IMO would be to use a gun. Now that there is a gun invloved your life is at risk and I most defintely believe that I have the right to use whatever force neseccary to protect it, including shooting someone.
If it's your choice that it's not worth risking your life to protect your property, that's fine with me, don't risk it, but don't try and stop me from doing what I believe would be the right thing.
I don't know the details of this particular case. If he chased them down to shoot them then I disagree with his actions, but if he shoot the guy on his property because he was trying to steal his car then I say tough tittie to the guy who got shoot.
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I have to agree with DA on this one. Threaten or harm my family and I'll cap yo a$$ in a hearbeat but to protect a car, no. I would fire a couple of warning shots, but a car is not worth killing someone over.
He did it seems, chase them and fire additional shots. Bad move, that one.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I guess my argument is that if you are in a position where you are being robbed you have the right to defend your property. If you are out numbered, old, crippled, or just a 98 pound weakling how do you do that? Where this happened, you evidently do not have the right to shoot people in defense of your property. Your agreement doesn't change the fact he is likely to be subjected to our criminal justice system to a moderate extent.
Just because you say it is your right, may not be the case from a legal standpoint.
Well, the safest way IMO would be to use a gun. Now that there is a gun invloved your life is at risk and I most defintely believe that I have the right to use whatever force neseccary to protect it, including shooting someone. You believe, well if the authorities become involved, you may find your beliefs put on trial, literally.![]()
If it's your choice that it's not worth risking your life to protect your property, that's fine with me, don't risk it, but don't try and stop me from doing what I believe would be the right thing. IMO it isn't even worth risking someone else's life to defend my stuff. Defending MY family though? well, I'll make the news on that one, no doubt about it.
I don't know the details of this particular case. If he chased them down to shoot them then I disagree with his actions, but if he shoot the guy on his property because he was trying to steal his car then I say tough tittie to the guy who got shoot.
Are you agreeing you wouldn't cap them for GTA, or did you misread it and you would cap them for GTA?Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I have to agree with DA on this one. Threaten or harm my family and I'll cap yo a$$ in a hearbeat but to protect a car, no. I would fire a couple of warning shots, but a car is not worth killing someone over.
QFMFT
If there's someone else in the car, those motherfvckers better wear ballistic kevlar.
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Are you agreeing you wouldn't cap them for GTA, or did you misread it and you would cap them for GTA?Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I have to agree with DA on this one. Threaten or harm my family and I'll cap yo a$$ in a hearbeat but to protect a car, no. I would fire a couple of warning shots, but a car is not worth killing someone over.
QFMFT
If there's someone else in the car, those motherfvckers better wear ballistic kevlar.![]()
Originally posted by: BoomerD
OMG!! Won't someone PLEASE think of the criminal's rights? After all, they have a RIGHT to steal your stuff... yeah, that is what I said alright :thumbsdown: Why is this always the tactic in P&N? to frame the other side of a debate's statements and/or stance on an issue, so that it isn't even their stance?
That seems to be one of the attitudes here. Sure, call the cops. It's not likely that they will get there fast enough to catch them, nor to recover your car before it gets stripped,If he invested in Lojack it very likely would be. It is important enough to shoot/kill over, but not to invest in? but isn't that why we pay for insurance? It's not like it actually costs you anything beyond your deductible...:roll:.Again, I have no beef about my premiums. If I parked my car outside, I'd probably Lojack it too. It is MO that it is a superior solution to shooting/killing over it.
Car jacking is certainly another matter entirely. This story concerns the second example though.Originally posted by: halik
Well honestly, I don't see how you could attempt a car jacking without threatening bodily harm, which is a safety-off point for me. But if you see someone trying to steal your car, you don't need to shoot them to get 'em away...
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
He did it seems, chase them and fire additional shots. Bad move, that one.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I guess my argument is that if you are in a position where you are being robbed you have the right to defend your property. If you are out numbered, old, crippled, or just a 98 pound weakling how do you do that? Where this happened, you evidently do not have the right to shoot people in defense of your property. Your agreement doesn't change the fact he is likely to be subjected to our criminal justice system to a moderate extent.
Just because you say it is your right, may not be the case from a legal standpoint.
Well, the safest way IMO would be to use a gun. Now that there is a gun invloved your life is at risk and I most defintely believe that I have the right to use whatever force neseccary to protect it, including shooting someone. You believe, well if the authorities become involved, you may find your beliefs put on trial, literally.![]()
If it's your choice that it's not worth risking your life to protect your property, that's fine with me, don't risk it, but don't try and stop me from doing what I believe would be the right thing. IMO it isn't even worth risking someone else's life to defend my stuff. Defending MY family though? well, I'll make the news on that one, no doubt about it.
I don't know the details of this particular case. If he chased them down to shoot them then I disagree with his actions, but if he shoot the guy on his property because he was trying to steal his car then I say tough tittie to the guy who got shoot.
Originally posted by: BoomerD
OMG!! Won't someone PLEASE think of the criminal's rights? After all, they have a RIGHT to steal your stuff...
That seems to be one of the attitudes here. Sure, call the cops. It's not likely that they will get there fast enough to catch them, nor to recover your car before it gets stripped, but isn't that why we pay for insurance? It's not like it actually costs you anything beyond your deductible...:roll:
Here's more of the story:
"SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A south Sacramento man accused of shooting a suspected car burglar said he felt threatened and had no other choice but to pull the trigger.
Sou Saechin was arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon early Wednesday after confronting three alleged burglars who he said were trying to break into a red Honda he had parked in front of his Rock Creek Way house.
Saechin said he told the men to stop, but at least one of them turned around and faced him.
"I had to do it," Saechin said.
One of the men was hit in the chest and was taken to Kaiser Permanente Medical Center for treatment. He is expected to survive.
Saechin, an immigrant from Laos who works as a handyman, said he was grateful that Sacramento radio talk show host Tom Sullivan came to his aid by bailing him out of jail. He said he did not have the money for bail.
But Sgt. Matt Young of the Sacramento Police Department said citizens should not resort to using potentially fatal force while protecting property.
"You just can't use deadly force," Young said.
Saechin said he was attempting to find a lawyer in preparation for his first court appearance on Friday.
Saechin said this was the fifth time that someone had tried to take his property. Police said he confronted the men with a .22-caliber rifle.
Saechin said he was afraid when the men made threatening moves toward him. He also said he feared for the safety of his family members, who were inside of the house.
Police are still searching for two other alleged burglars involved in the incident.
Sullivan, who hosts a show on KFBK, said he decided to bail Saechin out of jail because he felt it was wrong that a crime victim had been arrested.
"I just thought justice was not being served," Sullivan said.
Defense attorney Johnny Griffin, who is not involved in the case, said he understands Sullivan's frustration.
But he said the law is very specific. Griffin said people may use deadly force only if they feel their life or the life of another person is in imminent danger.
Griffin said the issue that District Attorney Jan Scully may face is whether or not Saechin feared for his life at the time the shot was fired.
It already appears the defense will be based on the clause concerningOriginally posted by: 1EZduzit
Yeah, I kind of figured it was something like that. He snapped, temporary insanity.
deadly force only if they feel their life or the life of another person is in imminent danger
That is when they get the biz end of it. They walk off laughing with my stuff? I would probably follow at a respectable distance, gun in 1 hand, cell in the other, directing the L.E. to them the whole time.Maybe they will decide to steal your gun while they are at it?
My whole argument is based on the fact that if they don't comply with you when you have a gun pointing at them then YOUR LIFE AND YOUR FAMILIES LIFE IS IN IMMINENT DANGER because these fools are crazy, druggies, or both and you don't know what they might do.Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
It already appears the defense will be based on the clause concerningOriginally posted by: 1EZduzit
Yeah, I kind of figured it was something like that. He snapped, temporary insanity.deadly force only if they feel their life or the life of another person is in imminent danger
That is when they get the biz end of it. They walk off laughing with my stuff? I would probably follow at a respectable distance, gun in 1 hand, cell in the other, directing the L.E. to them the whole time.Maybe they will decide to steal your gun while they are at it?
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
My whole argument is based on the fact that if they don't comply with you when you have a gun pointing at them then YOUR LIFE AND YOUR FAMILIES LIFE IS IN IMMINENT DANGER because these fools are crazy, druggies, or both and you don't know what they might do.Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
It already appears the defense will be based on the clause concerningOriginally posted by: 1EZduzit
Yeah, I kind of figured it was something like that. He snapped, temporary insanity.deadly force only if they feel their life or the life of another person is in imminent dangerI wouldn't have open the door and acossted them, is my point, you escalate the situation by accosting them, IMO of course. Try coming in the house though....
That is when they get the biz end of it. They walk off laughing with my stuff? I would probably follow at a respectable distance, gun in 1 hand, cell in the other, directing the L.E. to them the whole time.Maybe they will decide to steal your gun while they are at it?
Good luck keeping up with your car. You changed the senarioI gave a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question, that's all. They can have the bloody car, I'd Lojack it if it was outside, and with my present setup they have to defeat the home alarm and car alarm first. They want my ride badly enough to have to go through that much work, I'll just deal with the insurance company over it, I'm not going out there ready to exchange gunfire, I think that puts my family in danger.If they just decide to walk off with your property laughing at you then what?
That sounds like a form of anarchy, everyone doing what is best for themselves/their situation. We live by the rule of law, if the law states you can't use potentially deadly force to protect property, that isn't me telling you what is best, it is what society says is best, at least for now.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
A person has to draw the line someplace, don't they. If everything I have hadn't come so hard or was easily replaced then I might agree with you. Everyone's sitution is different, so you do as you think best but quit telling me what's best for me..... because you have no way of knowing what's best for me and my situation.
Certainly, but if that line exceeds where the law has drawn it, be prepared to face the prospect of losing freedom&rights, and be subjected to our penal system. Some fight the good fight and win, others lose, I guess I just don't agree killing over my car is a good fight.A person has to draw the line someplace, don't they.
