So. Cal. Man To Be Charged With Murder

[ysr_racer]

I heard on the news this morning they're going to charge him.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-car6apr06,1,521940.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Man Held in Killing in Driveway
By Richard Winton, Times Staff Writer

A Hollywood man was booked on suspicion of murder Monday after he allegedly shot and killed an unarmed man trying to steal his 1995 Honda from his driveway.

Yoon Ho Song, 26, allegedly fired a single gunshot that killed the unidentified 25-year-old man, said Det. Mike Thrasher of the Los Angeles Police Department's Hollywood Division.

"You can only use deadly force to protect life, not property," Thrasher said.

Detectives said they plan to ask prosecutors today to file charges against Song, who was being held in lieu of $1-million bail.

"It will be up to the district attorney whether to charge him with first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or voluntary or involuntary manslaughter," Thrasher said.

Song told investigators that he heard noises about 4 a.m. Monday outside his house in the 5000 block of Maplewood Avenue, then went outside and saw two men trying to break into his car.

During a confrontation that followed, police said, Song allegedly shot one of the would-be thieves with a handgun. The other man fled, and Song called 911, police said.

The shooting victim, whose identity was withheld pending notification of his family, died at the scene, Thrasher said. The alleged accomplice remains at large, he said.

 

[Nazirite]

Too bad it didn’t happen in Texas, the homeowner probably did us all a favor. If stealing cars was punishable by death, auto theft would drop by 90 percent.

 

[Moparmike]

Indeed it would Nazerite.

Ugh. I am soooooo glad I dont live in California. Maybe I can ask a few local deputies about "What if" situations like this.

<illegal> He could at least have said they made threatening moves against him. </illegal>

Actually, he could say that, because he poured himself into the car and took several months off his life to work to purchase the car. But its all in what your definition of the word 'is' is.

 

[Foreign Devil]

>Actually, he could say that, because he poured himself into the car and took several months off his life to work to purchase the car. <

What I was thinking exactly. Especially for the poor or working class a car may be only way to work/support the family.

 

[Riffraff]

I don't know Califonia law and I am not sure how much detail the reporter got from the Police, it doesn't look like they got anything from the District Attorney. Anyway from the report it says a "confrontation" started during which time Mr. Song shot the would be car thief. I wonder if the confrontation might have invloved the would be thief threatening Mr. Song?

I also note this:

"It will be up to the district attorney whether to charge him with first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or voluntary or involuntary manslaughter," Thrasher said.

Noting that Thrasher is most likely some Detective level PAO.

 

[ocabj]

I need to know more details before I pass judgement. If the guy just came up behind the thieves and shot one of them or shot the thief while he was running away, then I would agree with the police.

But I'm assuming this man declared he was armed and demanded that they cease and get down on the ground or whatever and they tried to run at him or something.

I've had my car stolen out of my driveway in the middle of the night (recovered the next day intact), so I know how it feels to be victimized by theft. If I had woken up and discovered the theft in progress, I would have been outside with my 12 gauge in hand.

 

[TarpleyG]

"You can only use deadly force to protect life, not property," Thrasher said.

Somebody said it earlier...that is why Texas rocks. Try and steal a car off someone's driveway during dark hours and you're fair game.

GT

 

[RepublicanMan]

I need to know more details before I pass judgement. If the guy just came up behind the thieves and shot one of them or shot the thief while he was running away, then I would agree with the police.

You're kidding right? A thief, whether running or not, does not deserve to breathe the same oxygen the rest of us use, period.

 

[flatrock]

He should have let them take the car and just called the police. Even if he has no insurance, and the car isn't recovered, losing the car is cheaper than defending himself agains the criminal and civil lawsuits he's going to face now.

It's not how it should be, but it's how it is. If someone is stealing your car, and you don't have the right to use deadly force to protect property, then wave goodbye to him and call the police.

I sure hope they catch the other thief and change him with felony murder. Then at least they'll get the remaining thief off the street.

 

[Eskimo Jim]

wasn't it horse stealing that was a crime punished with a rope necktie at one time?

It sure is difficult to defend the ex-car thief. Did he deserve to die for trying to steal a car? Probably not. Was he a drag on society? probably. I hope that the home owner gets a slap on the wrist though.

-Jim

 

[El Tejon]

Tarp, may want to check the details and case law of that Tejas statute.

No criminal case is as it first appears. Wait and see.

 

[tcsd1236]

You're kidding right? A thief, whether running or not, does not deserve to breathe the same oxygen the rest of us use, period.

Maybe not, but the legal standard in most places is that you have to be in immediate fear of harm to self or third party of death or serious physical injury before you can legally employ deadly physical force.

 

[Baba Louie]

Perchance Mr. Song should have waited until alleged BG's were actually inside said car in the process of "stealing" it, stepped somewhere near the vehicle and claimed use of deadly force being used against him with the old "I feared for my life" routine. I mean, it works for the police.
Naaaaahhh.
Wouldn't work if he had a path for and an obligation to retreat. Sounds like ya gotta let them steal your wheels for a little joyride. Who cares if its how Mr. Song gets too and fro his livelihood.

Better that one car get stolen than one criminal get dead.

Now, should they catch his accomplice... maybe they could put the homicide charge on him as the death occured while committing a crime... if they have that law on the books... probably not. This way, it's so much easier for everyone.

Except Mr. Song.

Ah that refreshing fragrence of freedom and justice for all that permeates the air today.

 

[RepublicanMan]

Yes I am aware of the legal standard.....that doesn't mean that I have to agree with the gentleman being charged nor does it mean I'd like to have see the little prick live.

 

[TimRB]

I have to wonder if at least part of this case involves the shooter not knowing the right thing to say. (I'm guessing by his name he may be new to these parts.) Anyway, if he said "He was stealing my car so I shot him!", he's in trouble, where if he said "I was holding him for police when he made a sudden move that scared me" it's a different situation.

Tim

 

[ysr_racer]

This man attacked me. I will press charges. I will cooperate fully within 24 hours after I speak to my attorney.

 

[Josey]

It was Hollywood. Everythig and everybody is looked at hard there. I believe we should make car theft a federal crime with the death penalty attached.

 

[Rawlings]

Did anybody else notice the "$1 Million bail" part? Seems a little extreme, even for CA.

 

[Standing Wolf]

You can only use deadly force to protect life, not property...

That's morally wrong. It may be the law, but it's a great moral wrong. Property isn't valueless simply because it's inanimate, and some lives—those of violent criminals, for example—are of little or no value.

 

[BSlacker]

Saw this on the channel 9 new last night the reported stated that when the home owner cnfronted the perps one ran the other pointed a gun at the home owner who shot the perp. Anyway differs from the papers account.

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

That's morally wrong. It may be the law, but it's a great moral wrong.

I disagree. There are some people who's lives are worth nothing, murderers and rapists, for example, but the common car thief isn't one of them.

 

[Test1968]

Deadly force and property

El Tejon,

Here it the Texas Penal Code Chapter 9

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY



§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

 

[brookstexas]

I've lived in the United States

And really glad I'm back in Texas.
When force and the threat of force is only allowed to protect life in certain situations you Have New York, L.A. and Washington D.C. crime rates....
BT

 

[Ryder]

Million dollar bail because he is a flight risk. By the sounds of his name he immigrated to California on the assumption it was part of a free country.

Do car thieves use tools? I highly doubt the confrontation he experienced was an unarmed threat.

 

[Mr. Mysterious]

2 men on one guy is odds that a handgun calls for.