Sacramento Man Arrested

[Lurper]

were
Occupied dwellings are a different story. In some states, b&e after dark justifies lethal force. I have BTDT on more than one occasion. As a person and a firearms professional, I do not believe there is any personal property that is worth taking someone's life for. Not for their sake, but for mine. I don't want the hassle. Anything that I value dearly, is in my house. When they enter my house, the rules change. But to run out in the driveway and shoot at a car of fleeing would be car theives? Do you honestly think that is justified? Do you really feel it passes the "reasonble man" test? Where do you draw the line? Can Wal-Mart employees shoot shoplifters? Can gas station employees shoot the drive aways? Can cashiers shoot people using stolen credit cards or forged checks?

I am sorry for you and your family's loss. But that begs the question: if your possessions are worth so much to you, what are you doing to protect them? I accept that my securtiy and the security of my belongings is my responsibility and I act accordingly. I secure my home, auto and valueables. Not an idyllic situation, but it is the way of society until man changes his nature.

 

[bp78]

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.

Sounds like legitimate use of force right until he dropped 3rds into a fleeing vehicle.

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."

 

[glockman19]

As a resident of California I have to say it was NOT a justified shooting. His life and the life of his family was clearly NOT in eminent danger.

It also makes a good argument for laser grips. Had he painted the boys said, "move and I'll shoot, slowly put your hands where I can see them", with the red dot on their chest he may have been able to hold one or more of them there until the police arrived. Either way hopefully the story will go around and there will be one less thief trying to steal something in fear of getting shot.

I doubt the kid who got shot, or his friends that cowardly ran away, will steal again. I hope they learned their lesson.

Perhaps the law chould change. Sounds like a good deterant.

 

[Lurper]

and put his hand into his jacket.

Thanks bp, I didn't see that in the original article. That makes the shooting of the kid justified, but still not the shots at the fleeing auto.

 

[Car Knocker]

It also makes a good argument for laser grips. Had he painted the boys said, "move and I'll shoot, slowly put your hands where I can see them", with the red dot on their chest he may have been able to hold one or more of them there until the police arrived.

Is it legal in CA to point a loaded firearm at someone when you're not threatened?

 

[Werewolf]

But to run out in the driveway and shoot at a car of fleeing would be car theives? Do you honestly think that is justified? Do you really feel it passes the "reasonble man" test?

YES! If I could kill the scum without endangering the neighbors it would be entirely reasonsable for me to do so. Fortunately for the scum the law is on their side. Thus in order to avoid becoming a criminal myself I would be forced to take the path of the pansy and let the scum drive away with my car. There was a day in the US when one would have been considered a yellow bellied coward to watch someone leave with your stuff when you had the means to stop them. But - no more - more's the pity for us.

Where do you draw the line? Can Wal-Mart employees shoot shoplifters? Can gas station employees shoot the drive aways? Can cashiers shoot people using stolen credit cards or forged checks?

non sequitor - the items you mention don't belong to the folks you give as examples. They are mear custodians. They aren't tied up financially or emotionally with the items being taken. Big difference.

I am sorry for you and your family's loss. But that begs the question: if your possessions are worth so much to you, what are you doing to protect them?

Which in turn begs the question why should I have to do anything to protect them when if permitted by law I could eliminate the scum that would take or destroy them from the face of the earth.

I accept that my securtiy and the security of my belongings is my responsibility and I act accordingly. I secure my home, auto and valueables. Not an idyllic situation, but it is the way of society until man changes his nature.

Good for you. I applaud you for your enlightened late 20th century attitude WHICH HAS LED US TO THE POSITION WE ARE IN TODAY.

AGAIN I ASK: HOW MANY OF YOU WHO SAY YOU WOULDN'T SHOOT HAVE BEEN ROBBED MULTIPLE TIMES?

Try it... You won't like it. Until you've had your home broken into and felt out of control and helpless because of it I contend that you're all full of it. I've know women that have been raped who've tried to tell me how it made them feel. I never truly understood. And though the feeling of loss, helplessness and being out of control cannot compare to what a woman raped has gone through having your home, cars and possessions stolen, vandalized or destroyed can provide some inkling of it. If the law permitted I wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet in someone violating my property.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

I take it that either a lot of you are not from CA, or you don't know the laws. Coming out with a gun drawn is brandishing and is against the law as well.

You're basically only allowed to draw a gun when you are in fear for you life or great bodily harm or you fear for the life of or harm to someone else.

Now if he came out, said something, then they turned towards him, he would have have been justified if he pulled out a gun and shot them (on his own property he can carry concealed or not). Just coming out with a gun drawn for the protection of property is still unlawful. Shooting for the protection of property is never justified.

The law sucks. The guy is screwed. The only thing that can save this guy is if some one in the government steps forward with a bill allowing deadly force for protection of property, and that does not have a snowball's chance in hell.

Is there any states in the union that allow deadly force for protection of property.

 

[Lurper]

AGAIN I ASK: HOW MANY OF YOU WHO SAY YOU WOULDN'T SHOOT HAVE BEEN ROBBED MULTIPLE TIMES?

I have. Twice in fact. Once was a burglary, once my car was stolen. Had I encountered the criminals in the act, I would have tried to stop them. If they fled without presenting a threat, I would then become a good witness, not judge, jury and executioner. I have had my car broken into on a few other occasions when I lived in DC. I have also been in more than one armed confrontation, so I have experienced it. I have no qualms about killing someone, it is a question I asked and answered many years ago. However, that doesn't mean that I am looking for any excuse to do so. We are held to a higher standard than the criminal and need to conduct ourselves accordingly. What we are protecting by doing so is an ideal - the ideal our country was founded upon - not just some personal property.

Which in turn begs the question why should I have to do anything to protect them when if permitted by law I could eliminate the scum that would take or destroy them from the face of the earth.

Uh-huh, and what happens to due process? Innocent until proven guilty? Probable cause? You honestly believe that it is okay to kill someone who is stealing your car stereo? That's sad. That's the same mentality that led to lynch mobs back in the old south. The next step is to start shooting people who dress like gangsters, don't belong in the neighborhood or "look like criminals", where would it end?

 

[MrTuffPaws]

AGAIN I ASK: HOW MANY OF YOU WHO SAY YOU WOULDN'T SHOOT HAVE BEEN ROBBED MULTIPLE TIMES?

Me. I have had my car broken into three times. I don't have a stereo anymore because I am tired of replacing windows and/or getting the door fixed.

I happen to not be ignorant of the laws of CA, and being in an apartment, I don't even have the right to bring a loaded firearm out to my car, much less have the right to shoot someone over my car.

Yes, I am forced to be a victim by the law, but breaking that law to protect a car is far from worth the consequences of breaking the law.

You feel free to shoot though, but you are going to end up in the same boat as this poor guy. His life destroyed because he thought his car was worth more than the consequences of breaking the law.

 

[Titan6]

Don't try it MrTuffPaws. Most of the guys on this board would shoot a teen running away in the back if said teen had broke their car window and stolen their CD player. You are going against a big majority who believe that the punishment for most petty crime should be death if caught in the act.

Why do people get so worked up over personal property? I do not know. I have worked very hard all my life to get the little I have. I have never taken anything that did not belong to me but still don't think that it is worth someone losing their life over if they run off with my car or stereo.

But even among anti's most of them would just as soon blow 'em away. At least that is understandable in a sick sort of way. It is truly a strange world we live in.

 

[Werewolf]

Yes, I am forced to be a victim by the law, but breaking that law to protect a car is far from worth the consequences of breaking the law.

You feel free to shoot though, but you are going to end up in the same boat as this poor guy. His life destroyed because he thought his car was worth more than the consequences of breaking the law.

Thus in order to avoid becoming a criminal myself I would be forced to take the path of the pansy and let the scum drive away with my car.

Why is it that people only seem to read and see what they want to read and see.

Pay attention people. I won't shoot. I don't want to become a criminal.

But I would if it was legal and that is the issue I have. It isn't legal - but it should be.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Don't try it MrTuffPaws. Most of the guys on this board would shoot a teen running away in the back if said teen had broke their car window and stolen their CD player. You are going against a big majority who believe that the punishement for most petty crime should be death if caught in the act.

Why do people get so worked up over personal property? I do not know. I have worked very hard all my life to get the little I have. I have never taken anything that did not belong to me but still don't think that it is worth someone losing their life over if they run off with my car or stereo.

But even among anti's most of them would just as soon blow 'em away. At least that is understandable in a sick sort of way. It is truly a strange world we live in.

Believe me, I know. With quotes like this:

Good for you. I applaud you for your enlightened late 20th century attitude WHICH HAS LED US TO THE POSITION WE ARE IN TODAY.

What can you do?

Personally, I think greed strong enough to kill someone over physical objects has had a much larger impact to the decay of our society than respect for the life of criminals has, but hey, that's just me. I'm not even a Christian

Please don't get me wrong. I will defend the life of my self or my family with overwhelming force if need be. If they have a weapon or move in a threatening way, they are free game. Just popping a cap in someone's a** over a radio? No.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Why is it that people only seem to read and see what they want to read and see.

Pay attention people. I won't shoot. I don't want to become a criminal.

But I would if it was legal and that is the issue I have. It isn't legal - but it should be.

Honestly, I missed that line. Sorry about that.

Still though allowing people to shoot one another over personal property is pretty iffy in my book, though being against regulations in general, I guess one could say that it should be legal, or at least not regulated, and that one would be allowed to exercise that right on personal choice, but as others have stated, it leaves much room for abuse. Some would, I would not.

Though allowing it would be the largest deterrent to property crime that one could have

 

[FCFC]

Still though allowing people to shoot one another over personal property is pretty iffy in my book, though being against regulations in general, I guess one could say that it should be legal, or at least not regulated, and that one would be allowed to exercise that right on personal choice, but as others have stated, it leaves much room for abuse. Some would, I would not.

Though allowing it would be the largest deterrent to property crime that one could have

Let's say you had a magic wand. And since you "guess... that it should be legal," you make it so with a wave of the wand. Say, in Cali.

Done.

What would happen?

Really. What would happen in the short term, medium term and long term?

Any guesses?

 

[Titan6]

What can you do?

Personally, I think greed strong enough to kill someone over physical objects has had a much larger impact to the decay of our society than respect for the life of criminals has, but hey, that's just me. I'm not even a Christian

Please don't get me wrong. I will defend the life of my self or my family with overwhelming force if need be. If they have a weapon or move in a threatening way, they are free game. Just popping a cap in someone's a** over a radio? No.

This has little to do with religion. Many people don't examine the ethical code by which they live. So when it comes down to it they make choices that are often illogical based upon short term loss/ gain vs. risk/ return. I could say a bunch of ugly truths here about the attitudes of people who run this country being passed down to the lowest level but it would do no good; because people will not accept that. In any case as I can present no evidence, my arguement in that point is moot.

But what one can say is that among the gun community we have certainly reached a consensus that petty criminals have no worth to society, cause people to live in fear and can not change and therefore are only deserving of death. While I personally find this to be morally repugnant and I do not understand the arguement it is there none the less.

 

[Titan6]

Let's say you had a magic wand. And since you "guess... that it should be legal," you make it so with a wave of the wand. Say, in Cali.

Done.

What would happen?

Really. What would happen in the short term, medium term and long term?

Any guesses?

ooh, ooh I know, PEOPLE STOP STEALING! riiiight......... HELL NO! The death penalty has had minimal impacts on capital crimes anywhere it has been imposed. I would say stealing remains at the same level and instead the criminals start killing anyone that gets in their way. Why not? Now they have nothing to lose...

 

[gezzer]

Horse thieves were hung by the neck until dead.

Car thieves should be.

 

[Titan6]

Horse thieves were hung by the neck until dead.

Car thieves should be.

Yep, but if you stole a man's horse and left him in the wilderness he would likely die. This is attempted murder. Not the same thing.

 

[Geno]

Nothing like protecting the criminals to assure the continuance of crime, so you can say we still have too much crime, and then take away guns from lawful owners.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Shooting over "Property"

We're all aware that there was a time when a thief shot in the act got no sympathy.

This had a certain deterrent effect.

We're also all aware that there is now a social prohibition against shooting the thief for "the simple act of theft."

This has the effect of encouraging theft/burglary/robbery based on the concept that "it's only property" and not a life. Of course, this is philosophically well aligned with the socialist "value" that nobody owns anything privately.

It is also a moral red herring and false dichotomy that "it's only property" and not "worth a life."

Now this next observation is not meant as a "legal justification" but rather as a sanity check:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

We understand, of course, that this is expressly a prohibition against the government abusing your person, invading your home, and stealing your stuff.

And then we say something non-sequitur like, "that only prevents the government from stealing from you, it's okay for civilians to take your stuff."

Ahem.

There's probably a sound reason why property is protected by the 4th amendment, and that probably has something to do with the inescapable tight coupling between a person's life and his property. Theft of property can be devastating to the point of substantial injury. Further, theft of some property is factually assault.

Theft is not okay, not permissible, not tolerable. Theft can ruin lives.

I, personally, have reconciled myself to letting go, if need be, of property in order to maintain my liberty, but that doesn't mean I would do so WILLINGLY or that I wouldn't do SOMETHING to prevent theft or robbery.

The continuing tilt of laws toward devaluing "just property" against human life is disingenuous: it is the desensitizing needed for the imposition of socialism, which begins with the confiscation of property.

Yes, it is unlawful in many (most?) places to "defend property" and yet, intuitively, everyone involved knows how destructive it is to allow theft to continue. Socially it can be as destructive as murder without actually directly killing anyone.

There's another dimension nowadays (and this dimension has really always been there) of home invasion for purposes that go way beyond theft. "Assuming" that someone is "only there for the property" is foolish and dangerous.

Theft is intrinsically bad, but it is also a gateway drug to more violent crime.

Enacting law that, in essence, tells criminals that as long as they don't get caught by the actual cops they're good to go? Really bad idea. It gives home invaders the easy escape clause, "we wuz only there to steal the TV, and he PULLED A GUUUNNN!"

The false moral imperative that "property isn't worth a life," especially when it's legislated by people who clearly don't value human life (except as a "resource"), is a scam.

Rape is okay, because you didn't get killed.

"Simple" assault is okay, because you didn't get killed.

Robbery is okay, because you didn't get killed.

Burglary is okay, . . .

Theft is okay, . . .

Hey, it's only property! Or your body, or whatever.

It's not worth a life.

I might conjecture that, if it's prohibited for the GOVERNMENT to abuse your person, invade your home, or steal your stuff, then it's probably a bad idea to allow private "citizens" to do it as well.

Mind you, I've already resolved that I can "let go" of property if need be so as not to run afoul of the law.

That doesn't mean I think it's moral or right to allow, condone, or encourage theft in any form.

Theft, burglary, robbery, and all those other synonyms should be high-risk activities by definition, and the risk should be great enough that your average criminal says, "nah, man, it's not worth it; I'm gettin' a day job."

But, that's just one man's opinion.

 

[modifiedbrowning]

Why would you want to risk all of that because some scumbag tried to steal your car

For some people (like me)the loss of their car would be basically screw them. For a lot of people if they didn't have their car they couldn't get to work, to the store to buy groceries etc.

Personally, I think greed strong enough to kill someone over physical objects has had a much larger impact to the decay of our society than respect for the life of criminals has, but hey, that's just me.

See above, for many it is not greed but , necessity.

 

[Titan6]

Thanks Arfin you have said everything I wanted to hear much better than I could have said it. Building a moral premise for killing people out of hand for affronts to you and your property is where I was hoping someone would go.

Claiming that our legislators are all without moral imperative and imply therefore the laws are somehow immoral is a good way to dismiss the law out of hand even if you are painting a very surreal picture with an awfully large brush.

Don't know about the life=property red hering but I will say this with all the meaningless death we already have in the world what is a few more worthless teens anyway? They would have just grown up to be thugs instead of productive members of society. We all know that once the kid grabs that first candy bar from the quik-stop it is straight to the gangs. I say nip 'er in the bud and lay em low with the side by side under the counter. No one will mess with my candy again...

Now that I think of it we really should extend the blow 'em away laws to other activities like drunk driving (kills thousand of innocents every year, and damages tens of millions in property), speeding (same) and say illegal dumping. After all no one wants to clean up someone else's trash. Strangely enough many people will agree with everything I wrote.....

 

[RustyFN]

If they present a weapon in a threating manner then I would open fire in self defence

I hate to say it but you would be arrested because it wouldn't be self defence since you left the safety of your home to confront them. They would look at you as the agressor. That doesn't mean I agree with this, it's just how the law is stated.

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

Sorry Kola but you would be in the real DEEP dodo. I'm just curious how many of the ( I would run out and kill them ) posters have a CCL and have been to a class?
Rusty

 

[Elza]

MrTuffPaws: Is there any states in the union that allow deadly force for protection of property.

Texas. I couldn't say about the others.

 

[Oldsportokie]

Vote the bums out

Get involved. Call a congressman. Register and Vote. If you can't get any saisfaction,"Vote the Bums Out". Too many lawyers get involved with exorbitant fees. Sorry if I offend members, but $300.-$800. per hour is padding the bill in my opinion. My "in family" lawyers say "because the service is worth it". And I know the other tactic is to find another disagreement after one is settled.
THE SILENT MAJORITY HAS TO STAND UP! Reinstitute capital punishment, with 2 appeals and your out. ceiling on case charges for representation. Make the perpetrator responsible for his action. No matter what addiction, if they have raped a child they are still guilty of the crime and making the wrong choices.