this is ludicrous

[DKSuddeth]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20040407/us_nm/crime_murder_dc_1&printer=1


L.A. Man Shoots Car Thief, Charged with Murder
Wed Apr 7, 5:51 PM ET Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!



LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A 26-year-old Los Angeles man who prosecutors say shot at two thieves stealing his car, killing one of them, was charged on Wednesday with murder.



Yoon Ho Song could face 50 years to life in prison if he is convicted of the first degree murder of Mario Sandoval Martinez and a special allegation of using a handgun, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office said.


Prosecutors say Song came out of his house to find two car thieves pushing his customized Honda out of his driveway in the predawn hours on Monday and opened fire, hitting Martinez, 25, in the back. The second suspect got away.


"The fact that your car is being stolen isn't a legal justification for killing somebody," Deputy District Attorney Frank Somes said. "Generally, you're not allowed to kill people unless they are committing a violent felony or you are acting in self defense."


Somes said police initially focused on Song as a crime victim but "essentially began questioning whether he was the victim or a suspect when they learned the person stealing the car had been shot in the back."


An attorney for Song, who was expected to make his first court appearance in the case as early as Wednesday, could not be reached for comment

 

[_dmp_]

Ludacris

 

[NewGuy]

"The fact that your car is being stolen isn't a legal justification for killing somebody," Deputy District Attorney Frank Somes said. "Generally, you're not allowed to kill people unless they are committing a violent felony or you are acting in self defense."

In California, you can't even use the gun in self defense or the violent felony.

In actuality, you have to be in your home, not outside.

You have to be under the unmistaken belief that your life IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING TAKEN, and THEN you are absolved from responsibility in using the gun.

Insane.

 

[acludem]

I'd have to see more specific facts to pass judgement. Did he shoot them as they were running away? Were they armed? These are significant questions, both from a legal and moral standpoint.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
I'd have to see more specific facts to pass judgement. Did he shoot them as they were running away? Were they armed? These are significant questions, both from a legal and moral standpoint.

acludem

Prosecutors say Song came out of his house to find two car thieves pushing his customized Honda out of his driveway in the predawn hours on Monday

1. On his property
2. Stealing his property
3. 2 against one.

That is enough to justify anything in any logic.

 

[acludem]

You think you should be able to shoot someone simply because they walk on to your property?!?! I deliver newspapers as part of my job, that attitude scares the hell out of me. You cannot condone vigilantism in a civilized society. Regardless of whether these guys were trying to steal his car, he shot the guy in the back. By the code of the old west, he'd be getting strung up right about now.

acludem

 

[_dmp_]

I think it's good to shoot criminals. It keeps them from reproducing NEW criminals.

(shrug).

Do I feel 'sorry' for the guy who died? Nope.
Do I feel 'appropriate' levels of force were used to protect a 'f-ing' car? No way...

Aim for the kneecaps...that's my advice.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
You think you should be able to shoot someone simply because they walk on to your property?!?!

They didn't just walk onto his property. They were in the midst of committing a felony. If you were delivering a paper to my house, and tried to steal my car as you left, I'd shoot your ass in a heartbeat.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
They didn't just walk onto his property. They were in the midst of committing a felony. If you were delivering a paper to my house, and tried to steal my car as you left, I'd shoot your ass in a heartbeat.

ditto

 

[acludem]

Then I would charge you with murder as a prosecutor. You can't shoot someone who is unarmed and running away because you don't like what they were doing a few minutes ago. Would it change your opinion any if they were no longer on his property when he shot at them? Did you all miss the part where it says he shot the guy in the BACK??????????

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
You think you should be able to shoot someone simply because they walk on to your property?!?! I deliver newspapers as part of my job, that attitude scares the hell out of me. You cannot condone vigilantism in a civilized society. Regardless of whether these guys were trying to steal his car, he shot the guy in the back. By the code of the old west, he'd be getting strung up right about now.

acludem

:

Dude, use some common sense.

Did I say that you should shoot someone for walking on your property? No.



If you do not realize the law entitles a person to defend their property, you had better learn about it.

If you go onto their property for delivering a newspaper, you suck. I had a route for 3 years with over 100 deliveries and hit every doorstep which was less than 1x2 feet in size. -FROM THE STREET ON A MOVING BIKE.


RE: "vigilantism in a civilized society", Exactly how do you want to define those words?

If you call civilized letting these guys do what they did because one got shot, you need to redifine your terms.

If you call vigilantism the act of being independently responsible for your own safety, you are in the same crowd of those who demand safety instead of liberty and deserve neither.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by acludem
Then I would charge you with murder as a prosecutor. You can't shoot someone who is unarmed and running away because you don't like what they were doing a few minutes ago. Would it change your opinion any if they were no longer on his property when he shot at them? Did you all miss the part where it says he shot the guy in the BACK??????????

acludem

was he still trying to push the car out of the driveway or was he busted and running down the street?

 

[acludem]

I deliver on average 75-100 papers a day on different routes. I have to porch every paper unless the customer requests otherwise. On weekends, very early in the morning, I walk up to the customers porch and place the paper, rather than throwing it, so as not to wake them up. I very well may look I'm breaking in, so to encourage everyone to start shooting at everyone who looks suspicious on their property scares me yes.

acludem

 

[acludem]

We don't know that, that's my point. We can't make crass judgements based on a sketchy media report. My first post was that I was reserving judgement until I saw more details. Isn't that fair?

acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
Then I would charge you with murder as a prosecutor. You can't shoot someone who is unarmed and running away because you don't like what they were doing a few minutes ago. Would it change your opinion any if they were no longer on his property when he shot at them? Did you all miss the part where it says he shot the guy in the BACK??????????

acludem

In the back, in the forehead, what's the difference? These scumbags wouldn't have been in a position to be harmed if they followed the laws of the USA.

 

[acludem]

Back in history, if you shot someone in the back you were considered a coward, and YOU were then hanged or shot. The guy was probably unarmed and was running away, out comes the rightfully pissed car owner and starts firing, hitting the guy in the back as he was running away. That's my best guess. However, since I have not seen all the facts, I will not pass judgement, other than to say, I do not like violent vigilantism that you all seem to have no problem with.

acludem

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by acludem
We don't know that, that's my point. We can't make crass judgements based on a sketchy media report. My first post was that I was reserving judgement until I saw more details. Isn't that fair?

acludem

simple forensics should provide enough evidence as to where the person was when he was shot and what he was doing at the time.

This is a case thats going to define the property rights of all americans and their ability to protect that property

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
I do not like violent vigilantism that you all seem to have no problem with.

Paul Kersey and Dirty Harry are my heroes.

 

[acludem]

And what if forensics proves the guy was far away when he was shot? What if there is a witness that says the guys running away as the owner opened fire? Will that change your opinion?

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
Back in history, if you shot someone in the back you were considered a coward, and YOU were then hanged or shot. The guy was probably unarmed and was running away, out comes the rightfully pissed car owner and starts firing, hitting the guy in the back as he was running away. That's my best guess. However, since I have not seen all the facts, I will not pass judgement, other than to say, I do not like violent vigilantism that you all seem to have no problem with.

acludem

1. You have seen too many movies about the old west. It isn't/wasn't really that way.

2. You have seen facts. You haven't seen all the details, but the facts have been presented.