Is California Crazy or What?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Since when can a man not protect his home and possessions from harm? Confronted by three guys in your front yard at 3am and it’s not ok to defend yourself and property? Maybe it would be better to become a victim and get seriously hurt? It looks like in California criminals have all the rights.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - 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.

2

Sounds like an irresponsible asshole to me, the shooter that is. It is people like him that give anti-gun legislation legs.

Owning a gun does not mean you get to use it at the drop of a hat. He was not in danger, the teens had not broken into his house, they had not assaulted him, they weren’t armed, but he shot one of them. That is not responsible ownership and I would fully support this man losing the ability to purchase firearms for the rest of his life.

A shot in the air would have caused the teens to scatter just as easily. Heck, pointing the weapon at them(while still pretty irresponsible) would have done as good of a job. Fuck, turning on a flood light outside the garage would have caused them to scatter!

Even if they were armed, how many petty criminals are going to draw a weapon on someone who is pointing a rifle at them? They would be dead before they fired a shot, and the man would be well within his rights(in my opinion) to shoot them.

The police are completely correct. Deadly force needs to be an absolute last resort in a situation like this. Unfortunately, too many people want to own guns for some misguided delusion of protection and safety. They then become the same type of assholes that use their gun as the first line of defense, more deaths and violence ensues, and more people become anti-gun.

If you want to own a gun, that is fine, I am for it, but I am not for jerk offs that think owning a gun entitles them the right to use it in any situation, when in actuality the vast majority of situations do not require firearms to resolve.

Guns do not make you any safer. If you don’t know how to be safe without a gun, why the fuck do you think you will know how to be safe with a gun?

3

Malevolence is right. Deadly force was not justified in this shooting.

4

I think if more punks got shot the country would be a safer place, providing that they were punks and trying to steal his car.

I understand that people cannot go around shooting other people with little provocation but is seems the laws are currently unbalanced in favor of the criminals vs the average citizen.

5

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Sounds like an irresponsible asshole to me, the shooter that is. It is people like him that give anti-gun legislation legs.

Owning a gun does not mean you get to use it at the drop of a hat. He was not in danger, the teens had not broken into his house, they had not assaulted him, they weren’t armed, but he shot one of them. That is not responsible ownership and I would fully support this man losing the ability to purchase firearms for the rest of his life.

A shot in the air would have caused the teens to scatter just as easily. Heck, pointing the weapon at them(while still pretty irresponsible) would have done as good of a job. Fuck, turning on a flood light outside the garage would have caused them to scatter!

Even if they were armed, how many petty criminals are going to draw a weapon on someone who is pointing a rifle at them? They would be dead before they fired a shot, and the man would be well within his rights(in my opinion) to shoot them.

The police are completely correct. Deadly force needs to be an absolute last resort in a situation like this. Unfortunately, too many people want to own guns for some misguided delusion of protection and safety. They then become the same type of assholes that use their gun as the first line of defense, more deaths and violence ensues, and more people become anti-gun.

If you want to own a gun, that is fine, I am for it, but I am not for jerk offs that think owning a gun entitles them the right to use it in any situation, when in actuality the vast majority of situations do not require firearms to resolve.

Guns do not make you any safer. If you don’t know how to be safe without a gun, why the fuck do you think you will know how to be safe with a gun?

[/quote]

“He was not in danger, the teens had not broken into his house, they had not assaulted him, they weren’t armed,”

Yes, you know all of this after the fact. The guy’s property was at risk, and he did not know whether they were armed or not. Great arm chair quarterbacking. If he shot the guy stealing his car (or worse?) in the knew would that have been ok?

6

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Sounds like an irresponsible asshole to me, the shooter that is. It is people like him that give anti-gun legislation legs.

Owning a gun does not mean you get to use it at the drop of a hat. He was not in danger, the teens had not broken into his house, they had not assaulted him, they weren’t armed, but he shot one of them. That is not responsible ownership and I would fully support this man losing the ability to purchase firearms for the rest of his life.

A shot in the air would have caused the teens to scatter just as easily. Heck, pointing the weapon at them(while still pretty irresponsible) would have done as good of a job. Fuck, turning on a flood light outside the garage would have caused them to scatter!

Even if they were armed, how many petty criminals are going to draw a weapon on someone who is pointing a rifle at them? They would be dead before they fired a shot, and the man would be well within his rights(in my opinion) to shoot them.

The police are completely correct. Deadly force needs to be an absolute last resort in a situation like this. Unfortunately, too many people want to own guns for some misguided delusion of protection and safety. They then become the same type of assholes that use their gun as the first line of defense, more deaths and violence ensues, and more people become anti-gun.

If you want to own a gun, that is fine, I am for it, but I am not for jerk offs that think owning a gun entitles them the right to use it in any situation, when in actuality the vast majority of situations do not require firearms to resolve.

Guns do not make you any safer. If you don’t know how to be safe without a gun, why the fuck do you think you will know how to be safe with a gun?

So, if the guy shoots a warning shot in the air, and it comes down on his neighbor’s house - rather than planting one in the criminal’s knee cap, that’s ok with you? Also, what about someone without floodlights?

You came down on the side of the criminals here. How do you justfiy that? I don’t even own a gun, and wonder how you can take that position?

7

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Sounds like an irresponsible asshole to me, the shooter that is. It is people like him that give anti-gun legislation legs.

Owning a gun does not mean you get to use it at the drop of a hat. He was not in danger, the teens had not broken into his house, they had not assaulted him, they weren’t armed, but he shot one of them. That is not responsible ownership and I would fully support this man losing the ability to purchase firearms for the rest of his life.

A shot in the air would have caused the teens to scatter just as easily. Heck, pointing the weapon at them(while still pretty irresponsible) would have done as good of a job. Fuck, turning on a flood light outside the garage would have caused them to scatter!

Even if they were armed, how many petty criminals are going to draw a weapon on someone who is pointing a rifle at them? They would be dead before they fired a shot, and the man would be well within his rights(in my opinion) to shoot them.

The police are completely correct. Deadly force needs to be an absolute last resort in a situation like this. Unfortunately, too many people want to own guns for some misguided delusion of protection and safety. They then become the same type of assholes that use their gun as the first line of defense, more deaths and violence ensues, and more people become anti-gun.

If you want to own a gun, that is fine, I am for it, but I am not for jerk offs that think owning a gun entitles them the right to use it in any situation, when in actuality the vast majority of situations do not require firearms to resolve.

Guns do not make you any safer. If you don’t know how to be safe without a gun, why the fuck do you think you will know how to be safe with a gun?

So, if the guy shoots a warning shot in the air, and it comes down on his neighbor’s house - rather than planting one in the criminal’s knee cap, that’s ok with you? Also, what about someone without floodlights?

You came down on the side of the criminals here. How do you justfiy that? I don’t even own a gun, and wonder how you can take that position?

[/quote]

If he doesn’t own floodlights then why does he own a gun? Floodlights are a very effective deterrent for domestic crimes like this. Most perpetrators scatter as soon as they feel like their position is compromised or the cops may have been called. A set of motion detecting lights would have solved the problem BEFORE it was a problem

A shot in the air isn’t a good idea, you are right, but it is a far sight better than shooting AT someone, especially when your life is not at risk.

Honestly, If you feel that shooting first is the way to deal with a situation like this, you do not deserve to own a gun.

8

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think if more punks got shot the country would be a safer place, providing that they were punks and trying to steal his car.

I understand that people cannot go around shooting other people with little provocation but is seems the laws are currently unbalanced in favor of the criminals vs the average citizen.[/quote]

This is not true. The fact of the matter is. The average citizen is clueless when it comes to being safe, both personally and domestically. Then they think owning a gun somehow makes up for that, and thus you end up with stories like the above.

9

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Sounds like an irresponsible asshole to me, the shooter that is. It is people like him that give anti-gun legislation legs.

Owning a gun does not mean you get to use it at the drop of a hat. He was not in danger, the teens had not broken into his house, they had not assaulted him, they weren’t armed, but he shot one of them. That is not responsible ownership and I would fully support this man losing the ability to purchase firearms for the rest of his life.

A shot in the air would have caused the teens to scatter just as easily. Heck, pointing the weapon at them(while still pretty irresponsible) would have done as good of a job. Fuck, turning on a flood light outside the garage would have caused them to scatter!

Even if they were armed, how many petty criminals are going to draw a weapon on someone who is pointing a rifle at them? They would be dead before they fired a shot, and the man would be well within his rights(in my opinion) to shoot them.

The police are completely correct. Deadly force needs to be an absolute last resort in a situation like this. Unfortunately, too many people want to own guns for some misguided delusion of protection and safety. They then become the same type of assholes that use their gun as the first line of defense, more deaths and violence ensues, and more people become anti-gun.

If you want to own a gun, that is fine, I am for it, but I am not for jerk offs that think owning a gun entitles them the right to use it in any situation, when in actuality the vast majority of situations do not require firearms to resolve.

Guns do not make you any safer. If you don’t know how to be safe without a gun, why the fuck do you think you will know how to be safe with a gun?

“He was not in danger, the teens had not broken into his house, they had not assaulted him, they weren’t armed,”

Yes, you know all of this after the fact. The guy’s property was at risk, and he did not know whether they were armed or not. Great arm chair quarterbacking. If he shot the guy stealing his car (or worse?) in the knew would that have been ok?

[/quote]

The guy’s property is not his life, and he does not have an obligation, or a right, to potentially take someone else’s life in defense of this. A car can be replaced, a life cannot.

If they had been armed, and he walked out with a rifle pointed at them, do you honestly think they would have shot him? They did not come to take a life, they came to take a car. Petty crimes and petty criminals are not murderers, If they actually had any intention of causing him harm, they would have broken into his house and taken a lot more than his car.

How you equate property as equal to life is astounding to me. Life isn’t a video game. The use of (potentially) deadly force is an absolute last resort.

The shooter was an irresponsible asshole.

The fact stands, he could have taken measures to protect his stuff, to protect his property, and to deter petty theft, but he did not, instead he thought his gun should do all the work.

10

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I think if more punks got shot the country would be a safer place, providing that they were punks and trying to steal his car.

I understand that people cannot go around shooting other people with little provocation but is seems the laws are currently unbalanced in favor of the criminals vs the average citizen.

This is not true. The fact of the matter is. The average citizen is clueless when it comes to being safe, both personally and domestically. Then they think owning a gun somehow makes up for that, and thus you end up with stories like the above.[/quote]

The shooter may have been in the right. People that steal cars should be afraid of being shot.

I don’t know how this particular incident went down but in California the advantage is to the criminal.

You should not have to wait until your life is in danger to use force against a criminal. You should not have to cower in fear because some punk wants to steal your car or destroy your property.

11

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You should not have to wait until your life is in danger to use force against a criminal. You should not have to cower in fear because some punk wants to steal your car or destroy your property.[/quote]

Part of the reason that one ought to be able to defend one’s own life is that the damage is irremediable; once you are dead, no court or state action can give you back your life.

As far as property goes, I don’t think the answer is to “cower in fear.” The criminals are outside, they aren’t posing anything even close to a threat to your person, and you can call the cops at your leisure. In suburban and urban areas, there is a very high risk of shooting someone other than the intended target; and for what? A car. Something very, very replaceable.

12

Also, I think in most of the U.S., you are not permitted to use deadly force to protect property.

Like nephorm posted, the law is basically placing a higher value on human life than on property.

I’m not sure whether I agree with this sentiment or not, but nobody asked me.

13

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I think if more punks got shot the country would be a safer place, providing that they were punks and trying to steal his car.

I understand that people cannot go around shooting other people with little provocation but is seems the laws are currently unbalanced in favor of the criminals vs the average citizen.

This is not true. The fact of the matter is. The average citizen is clueless when it comes to being safe, both personally and domestically. Then they think owning a gun somehow makes up for that, and thus you end up with stories like the above.

The shooter may have been in the right. People that steal cars should be afraid of being shot.

I don’t know how this particular incident went down but in California the advantage is to the criminal.

You should not have to wait until your life is in danger to use force against a criminal. You should not have to cower in fear because some punk wants to steal your car or destroy your property.[/quote]

Where are you getting this advantage to the criminal, cower in fear crap?

Not having a firearm doesn’t mean you are defenseless, weak, insecure and… oh wait, maybe it does for you, but if you actually take your personal(and household) security seriously. This would have been a non-issue to begin with. Having a firearm and an overzealous desire to use it does not make you any safer if you can’t take care of your shit to begin with.

The point that cannot be stressed enough. They were after his CAR, not his life. Property. An object, a thing. Not a person, and in response, he damn well could have taken a life.

I do not understand how you can equate the value property to the value of life so readily, seriously, that is fucked up.

14

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Like nephorm posted, the law is basically placing a higher value on human life than on property.

I’m not sure whether I agree with this sentiment or not, but nobody asked me.[/quote]

LOL!

15

Sadly the right to defend property with deadly force is not permitted in most states. In fact the “duty to retreat” is required in many states before deadly force can be used. You have got to know those laws or you get jammed up with crap like this. The discretion of the prosecutor is also usally pretty wide. Shooting criminals in the act is just an advanced form of natural selection.

I’ve taken a lot of civilian training and have a permit to carry. Bottom line, even a justified shooting is going to cost you $10K in legal fees so make sure it’s legitimate and worth it.

Personally I wouldn’t have taken a shot over a car. I would have had my gun out and at the ready and would have shot the shitbags if they advanced on me. First call would be to the cops telling them I have a criminal at my house and I am holding him at gunpoint.

This almost guarantees an instant response. That’s just good tactics that keeps you alive and accomplishs the goals of stopping the crime with minimal force. The chances of you firing or experiencing return fire are also small.

16

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You should not have to wait until your life is in danger to use force against a criminal. You should not have to cower in fear because some punk wants to steal your car or destroy your property.

Part of the reason that one ought to be able to defend one’s own life is that the damage is irremediable; once you are dead, no court or state action can give you back your life.

As far as property goes, I don’t think the answer is to “cower in fear.” The criminals are outside, they aren’t posing anything even close to a threat to your person, and you can call the cops at your leisure. In suburban and urban areas, there is a very high risk of shooting someone other than the intended target; and for what? A car. Something very, very replaceable. [/quote]

In this circumstance perhaps the homeowner is wrong but the law in California and many other states require the homeowner to retreat and even leave his home in the event of a burglary.

And I can forsee circumstances when shooting someone in your front yrd would be OK.

If I heard someone breaking in my car I should be allowed to go out and chase them off. If they threaten me I should be able to shoot them.

17

One things for sure — those little assholes will think twice before trying to steal another car or doing a B&E.

Someone should have taught the shooter what to say after he shot that punk: “I was concerned for my safety.” Those should be the first words he said to the cops.

It is true that we’re not supposed to shoot criminals who don’t pose a threat to anyone’s lfe or limb. But nowadays, crime is rampant and the courts/police sre pretty ineffectual. I don’t justify the shooter but do understand why he shot.

18

Hedo stated “Shooting criminals in the act is just an advanced form of natural selection.”

That is too funny!

But back to the issue. It is very easy to make judgments after the fact and say that the man’s life was not in jeopardy. However, we (and the cops) cannot make that determination as it is the man’s own perception that would indicate whether he felt personally in danger or not.

The situation was an Asian man (so I’m assuming he is small) on his driveway with 3 teenagers. I don’t know about you, but 3 to 1 odds are not very good even for an experienced fighter. So in the man’s mind he could have easily felt that his life was being threatened.

Also, the context is California, where in the Asian community there are a lot of home invasion robberies.

So saying he was irresponsible is not a judgment you can make, as you weren’t there and he isn’t you. In fact, had he not shot and just yelled at them, or turned on the flood lights (as some retard stated), that may just have caused him to get killed. And then we would all be saying; “if it was me I would have shot them or defended myself right away”.

So it is entirely possible that this man just saved his own life and the life of the family.

PS - in Texas you can use deadly force to protect your life AND property.

19

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
In this circumstance perhaps the homeowner is wrong but the law in California and many other states require the homeowner to retreat and even leave his home in the event of a burglary.
[/quote]

You’re correct, this is outrageous. If you break into my home, you deserve what you get. There is no reason to assume good faith on the part of a home invader. States like Maryland allow you to shoot someone in your home whom you reasonably believe will harm you, but you are prohibited from, say, shooting the person in the back as they try to get away.

As can I… if they are holding a torch, or gasoline, etc. I do think you have a responsibility to tell the intruder to stop before shooting them, however.

[quote]
If I heard someone breaking in my car I should be allowed to go out and chase them off. If they threaten me I should be able to shoot them. [/quote]

I agree with this. The legislative and judicial problems come in the hearsay accounts of what actually happens. There really isn’t a good way to tell if a person walked out to chase some would-be criminals off and then shot them, or if he walked out and shot them immediately.

20

I own a gun… infact, I own several… and my line of work for years gave me the possibility to spend several hours daily on the range. Just to make this clear… :wink:

  1. Most people in USA that buy guns for “self defence” NEVER train correctly for this. As t-men and reational human beings this should be quite obvious. Can lying comfortably down or standing in your own good time, in a lit shooting range be equated in any way to a dangerous situation in a dark alley? or backyard…?

No… It is like comparing a tkd-workout with a fight on the street… This is the first and biggest problem with the “I buy a gun to be safe”-logic. In most cases, the gun actually makes you less safe… A typical situation where intentions and consequenses are far apart.

  1. Stealing a car is not an offence up for the death penalty, nor should it be. And we, the citizens, are not judge OR jury when people steal from us or try to harm us.

I don’t understand where this triggerhappyness comes from. I recieved three deaththreats at work last night… did I even imagine shooting any of them? :wink: Neh, i put them on the ground, put cuffs on them and had them on their marry way to a cell…

Most situations can be solved with far less dangerous and destructive means than a gun, you should all try it out.