Sacramento Man Arrested

Status
Not open for further replies.

wuluf

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
291
Location
Nevada's capital
Here's the story:
http://cbs13.com/local/local_story_095004945.html

CBS13) SACRAMENTO Police say a South Sacramento man shot a suspect on his property who was allegedly breaking into the man's car. The case has stirred up a debate on what rights people have to protect their home and property, and has even drawn a well-known local talk show host into mix. After spending the day in jail, the homeowner is back at his South Sacramento home.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Sou Saechinn was getting ready for work when he heard something outside. He looked out the window and saw three people reportedly trying to break into his car. Saechinn went outside and shot at the trio, hitting one -- a minor -- in the chest.

Radio talk show host Tom Sullivan normally comments on the day's news but this time he became a part of it. After hearing that Sou Saechinn was arrested for the shooting, Sullivan decided to get involved.

I KNOW this man broke the law by defending property with deadly force..but! When the police response time is so slow that you are going to lose your car, are we supposed to just let it disappear? If you try less than lethal response or unarmed , you're also going alone against 3 opponents. What's a law abiding citizen to do???

"I first called a bail bondsman I knew and said 'what do we do?' I've never bailed anyone out before," said Sullivan.

The bail bondsman, Greg "Topo" Padilla, escorted Saechinn out of the main jail this afternoon. Padilla says getting a call from a person the suspect doesn't even know rarely happens.

"I've been doing this 23 years. This is the second or third time this has happened," said Padilla.

In broken English, an emotional Saechinn had no comment when asked about Sullivan coming up with $3,000 (10%) of his $30,000 bail.

What does Sullivan have to say about a talk show personality inserting themselves into a story?

"I just get caught up in stories of people; and if you want to help you help," said Sullivan.

Sacramento police Sgt. Matt Young did said that police were merely enforcing the law when they arrested Saechinn.

"Based on all the facts we had at the time, we established probable cause. He shot the individual in violation of the law. It's as simple as that," said Sgt. Young.

California law allows a person to fire a gun to protect a person but not property. Sullivan says the law, at least in this case, fired off in the wrong direction.

"I grew up where signs said 'trespassers will be shot'. If you're doing something wrong and you get hurt in the commission of a crime that's too bad," said Sullivan.

Sacramento Police say the suspect who was shot is still in hospital and could be charged with attempted burglary and conspiracy. Police say the other two alleged burglary suspects are still at large.

I KNOW you cannot defend property with deadly force..BUT! Is a law abiding citizen supposed to just stand by and watch his car disappear? Are we supposed to attack 3 robbers unarmed? What's a body to do???
 
I know a poll won't change a DA's attitude, but it's nice to know that at least a few people feel the same way I do about things.

Besides, we don't need the DA to change... we just need enough of "us" on the jury:evil:
 
I would have went out armed and took aim on the group. Odds are that seeing the owner of the vehicle pointing a gun towards them would be enough to convince the scum to leave. If they present a weapon in a threating manner then I would open fire in self defence. It sounds like the owner of the car just went out and started shooting (although I have only heard the papers spin on it so I may be wrong). He broke the law plain and clear and will likely be convicted. Now I dont think the law is right in this regard. While I doubt I would kill a person to protect my car others may. My feelings on it are "if you dont want to get shot, dont go around breaking into homes and cars".

At my last home I had a small shed out back that was broken into twice. Well one night I was up late watching T.V with the lights off, and heard a loud bang.......clang sound come from my back yard. I knew right then what it was (sound of the lock being smacked off the shed and hitting the piece of plate steel that I used as a ramp to drive my mower up on). I ran to the bedroom, grabbed my 870 and went out the back door. As I passed through the door I racked the slide (I know you guys hate hearing that the sound of a shotgun is an effective deterent but hey it worked well in this case). Upon hearing the "chuh-chunck" of a 3" shell being chambered he bolted out of the shed and ran so fast towards the fence he actually smacked right into it before he managed to climb over :D . My shed was never broken into again so I suspect it was the same perp both previous times.

The moral of that story is that in non life threating situations a little visual (or in this case audible) deterent goes a long way.
 
I don't think I would shoot anyone over property. But when society fails to curb crime; when police response can be timed in hours, not minutes; when criminal-loving judges sentence convicted murderers to a few months or let them out on probation; when parole boards think prisons should have unlocked doors; when major newspapers side with the most horrible criminals; when police, prosecutors, and judges are routinely bribed or scared off by drug gangs citizens are going to have to do something to defend themselves.

I am not talking about vigilantism, only self defense. But it is often said that vigilantism arose in the old west, in towns with no law officers. In fact, it arose in San Francisco, which had a regular police force, prosecutors and a judiciary, all totally corrupt and all in the pay of the criminal gangs. Just like now.

Jim
 
Just something to think about.

Years back a guy I know was in very poor financial shape. (wife was ill, 3 young kids lots of other things going on) He depended on his tools for his living, but they got lifted. About 3 grand worth of tools. Had let his insurance lapse because of other bills he was trying to pay off. Would have lost his house, and everything were it not for some caring friends. Now I don't want ANYONE to get shot, but in his case, his "property" was basily his life. Would you REALLY condemn him for defending them?
 
Now I don't want ANYONE to get shot, but in his case, his "property" was basily his life. Would you REALLY condemn him for defending them?

That exact scenario is the justification for the often maligned Texas statute allowing deadly force to protect property "if there was no reasonable certainty the property could be recovered" any other way.
 
unfortunately California law does not allow you to use deadly force to stop someone from burglarizing your vehicle. sounds like a bad shoot.
 
I guess the the early days thet shot horsetheves because your life depended on a horse. Anyone here ever been without a car in California???

Or anywhere for that matter.

The facts on this case are less then filled in, imho. This could be the lack of communication (since the article noted his broken English) between the police and Mr. Saechinn. If he did "lead with lead" then yes he broke the law. It's not right because I feel the law needs to be addressed and changed. The man faced 3 unknowns, in the dark, breaking into his vehicle. Chances are there were tools, which can be weapons. A good defense attorney should be able to work this out.
 
The link has a poll. So far, 90 % say the shooting was justified.

Won't matter in California. I remember when (I used to live there) the majority voted that they weren't going to educate children of illegal immigrants.

The state senate overturned it as if to say, "We don't care what you want." Kal's lawmakers/politicians are a ruling class, answerable to no one. Socialism at its best.
 
"I grew up where signs said 'trespassers will be shot'. If you're doing something wrong and you get hurt in the commission of a crime that's too bad," said Sullivan.

haha... way to go Tom Sullivan. Fun to see the local news people with something good to say.

(I wouldnt have shot the kids but... but damnit, shouldn't be breakin into cars..duh)
 
It's expensive

A fellow employee one night caught a guy stealing the stereo from his car. He punched him in the face just as a cruiser went by. The thief got nothing because the cops didn't actually see him trying to strip the radio. But the employee was charged with assault and battery.

Frankly, I'd need more then car theft to shoot someone. Mainly because it would cost me more for lawyers then a new car is worth.

Is it right? No, absolutely not. But it sure as hell is true.
 
Sou Saechin, the south Sacramento man arrested for allegedly shooting a boy he caught breaking into his car, chased the boy and two other would-be thieves while firing his gun multiple times at the group, Sacramento police revealed Thursday.

Saechin, 42, was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon. Sacramento Police Sgt. Matt Young said Saechin fired one shot after confronting the boy outside his Rock Creek Way home early in the morning, striking the juvenile in the chest.

The boy and two others who had allegedly broken into Saechin's Honda Civic ran, and Saechin shot at the group several times as he pursued them, Young said.


"This is a situation where the facts speak for themselves," Young said.

Saechin said in an interview Thursday that he fired three times at a car the group was using to get away, hitting the bumper. He said he shot at the vehicle to mark it "to let the police know that was the car."

"I didn't try to kill those people," he said.

Saechin, a native of Laos and the father of four, went outside his home about 3 a.m. Wednesday after a motion light on his garage flickered, his wife said. Saechin said one boy was outside the Honda and put his hand into his jacket.

"I can't wait to see if he has a gun," Saechin said. "And I don't care how big or how small they are. It's three guys."

Police said Saechin shot the boy in the chest. The boy, along with two others who allegedly had broken into the family's red Honda, ran into a quiet side street and got into a car, Saechin said.

Saechin said he was afraid for his family's safety.

"If they shoot me and take my gun, what they'll do is come into my home and shoot all of my family," he said.

Saechin said he regretted shooting the boy, "but what can I do? What's done is done."

The boy who was shot -- whose name has not been released -- is recovering in an area hospital. He may face criminal charges, police said.

His two alleged accomplices are still at large.

Crime scene investigators scoured Saechin's front lawn for evidence Thursday afternoon while investigators interviewed neighbors. Saechin is expected to be arraigned in Sacramento County court next week.

Saechin's case has sparked widespread debate on the Internet and radio waves over the past two days -- with many supporting him and questioning state laws that allow people to use deadly force when threatened with personal injury but not to protect their property.

He was bailed out of jail Wednesday by conservative radio talk show host and freelance Sacramento Bee columnist Tom Sullivan.


Sou Saechin, the south Sacramento man arrested for allegedly shooting a boy he caught breaking into his car, chased the boy and two other would-be thieves while firing his gun multiple times at the group, Sacramento police revealed Thursday.

Saechin, 42, was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon. Sacramento Police Sgt. Matt Young said Saechin fired one shot after confronting the boy outside his Rock Creek Way home early in the morning, striking the juvenile in the chest.

The boy and two others who had allegedly broken into Saechin's Honda Civic ran, and Saechin shot at the group several times as he pursued them, Young said.


"This is a situation where the facts speak for themselves," Young said.

Saechin said in an interview Thursday that he fired three times at a car the group was using to get away, hitting the bumper. He said he shot at the vehicle to mark it "to let the police know that was the car."

"I didn't try to kill those people," he said.

Saechin, a native of Laos and the father of four, went outside his home about 3 a.m. Wednesday after a motion light on his garage flickered, his wife said. Saechin said one boy was outside the Honda and put his hand into his jacket.

"I can't wait to see if he has a gun," Saechin said. "And I don't care how big or how small they are. It's three guys."

Police said Saechin shot the boy in the chest. The boy, along with two others who allegedly had broken into the family's red Honda, ran into a quiet side street and got into a car, Saechin said.

Saechin said he was afraid for his family's safety.

"If they shoot me and take my gun, what they'll do is come into my home and shoot all of my family," he said.

Saechin said he regretted shooting the boy, "but what can I do? What's done is done."

The boy who was shot -- whose name has not been released -- is recovering in an area hospital. He may face criminal charges, police said.

His two alleged accomplices are still at large.

Crime scene investigators scoured Saechin's front lawn for evidence Thursday afternoon while investigators interviewed neighbors. Saechin is expected to be arraigned in Sacramento County court next week.

Saechin's case has sparked widespread debate on the Internet and radio waves over the past two days -- with many supporting him and questioning state laws that allow people to use deadly force when threatened with personal injury but not to protect their property.

He was bailed out of jail Wednesday by conservative radio talk show host and freelance Sacramento Bee columnist Tom Sullivan.

Sou Saechin, the south Sacramento man arrested for allegedly shooting a boy he caught breaking into his car, chased the boy and two other would-be thieves while firing his gun multiple times at the group, Sacramento police revealed Thursday.

Saechin, 42, was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon. Sacramento Police Sgt. Matt Young said Saechin fired one shot after confronting the boy outside his Rock Creek Way home early in the morning, striking the juvenile in the chest.

The boy and two others who had allegedly broken into Saechin's Honda Civic ran, and Saechin shot at the group several times as he pursued them, Young said.


"This is a situation where the facts speak for themselves," Young said.

Saechin said in an interview Thursday that he fired three times at a car the group was using to get away, hitting the bumper. He said he shot at the vehicle to mark it "to let the police know that was the car."

"I didn't try to kill those people," he said.

Saechin, a native of Laos and the father of four, went outside his home about 3 a.m. Wednesday after a motion light on his garage flickered, his wife said. Saechin said one boy was outside the Honda and put his hand into his jacket.

"I can't wait to see if he has a gun," Saechin said. "And I don't care how big or how small they are. It's three guys."

Police said Saechin shot the boy in the chest. The boy, along with two others who allegedly had broken into the family's red Honda, ran into a quiet side street and got into a car, Saechin said.

Saechin said he was afraid for his family's safety.

"If they shoot me and take my gun, what they'll do is come into my home and shoot all of my family," he said.

Saechin said he regretted shooting the boy, "but what can I do? What's done is done."

The boy who was shot -- whose name has not been released -- is recovering in an area hospital. He may face criminal charges, police said.

His two alleged accomplices are still at large.

Crime scene investigators scoured Saechin's front lawn for evidence Thursday afternoon while investigators interviewed neighbors. Saechin is expected to be arraigned in Sacramento County court next week.

Saechin's case has sparked widespread debate on the Internet and radio waves over the past two days -- with many supporting him and questioning state laws that allow people to use deadly force when threatened with personal injury but not to protect their property.

He was bailed out of jail Wednesday by conservative radio talk show host and freelance Sacramento Bee columnist Tom Sullivan.
 
I probally would have yelled first, if they didn't high-tail, I would had fired a warning shot. Had I seen any of them reaching for a weapon, I would shoot to kill. All 3 of them.

Kola
 
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's a damn shame how neutered we've become. It SHOULD be legal to defend one's property. There should be risks to engaging in criminal activity.

How far the mighty have fallen.
 
Clearly a bad shoot. I cannot believe that "reasonable" gun owners would see it as anything other than an unfortuante situation where a gun owner over stepped his legal bounds. He was well advised and within his rights to walk out of his house armed and stop the crime (if CA law allows it). But to shoot at the car as it was driving away is clearly irresponsible. Especially since they didn't take his car (if I read the article correctly). I also don't understand how the same people can advocate lethal force in defense of property. In AZ, we are not required to retreat before using deadly force. However, it is usually the best course of action. It is also against the law to defend personal property with lethal force. There is no justification for killing someone for stealing your car.

The best thing for Mr. Saechin is to try to get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor and plead guilty.
 
Here's a good solution - DON'T STEAL CARS!

How can a society continue to exist if the only thing you can do is sit in your house and watch 3 punks steal your car, the one you bought with months of hard work, paid lots of taxes on, and need to get to your job. The cops will do little more than fill out some paperwork. If the car is found, it will be junk. In the unlikely event these crooks are caught, they will serve less time than it took you to earn the money to buy the car.

I'm sure at least one of the punks had a knife, or if necessary, I could find one in my kitchen for them.
 
I wonder how many of you guys that say you'd never shoot anyone over your property have ever had your property vandalized, destroyed or stolen.

I ask because I used to be just like you. Before my home was broken into and my stuff stolen (3 times in 9 years) and I had to watch my wife cry her eyes out over family heirlooms taken or destroyed and watch my daughters cry because their dog had been beat near to death. I was like you too before my middle daughter's car (that she worked very, very hard to earn the money to buy) was broken into and all the electronics RIPPED out and I had to watch her cry her eyes out over it. Before all that I said no man should have to die over a TV.

But you know what - I was wrong.

Every man or woman who commits a crime is deciding what their life is worth when they commit it.


If you break into someone's home in Oklahoma to steal a TV - well here you just decided your life is worth a TV and it is that way in a lot of states. If it were that way in all states and the law extended to property outside the home there'd be a whole lot less crime commited against homes - at least occupied homes anyway and property.

Sorry - but as far as I'm concerned the world is better off without all the criminal scum and if more of 'em got killed by regular folks we'd have a lot less of them and need a lot less cops. :cuss:

But then that's never gonna happen because the world is run by a bunch of pansy ass bleeding hearts who care more for the criminal than they do the victim. :banghead:
 
Quote:
(if CA law allows it).

I guess the Constitution should be changed to reflect that particular sentiment!
It's not a constitutional issue. Some states require that you retreat before you use deadly force. Others do not. The 2nd amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear arms, not shoot someone who is fleeing after attempting to steal your car.
It's common sense: your life as you know it will end if you shoot someone - justified or not! You will get drug through an emotional wringer that will effect every aspect of your life. You face potential criminal and civil trials, investigations and people will look at you differently (both good and bad ways). You could stand to lose everything that you have worked so hard for.
That's not including any emotional effects it may have on you and the other people involved. I'm not one who puts much credence in the emotional impact from killing someone, but the emotional impact of the potential investigation and trial can be devastating. Then there is the potential financial impact, that could effect the rest of your life as well. Why would you want to risk all of that because some scumbag tried to steal your car (in this case unsuccessfully)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top