The shooter should be punished in some way, but I think murder is too steep of a charge. He reacted to a situation caused by two other individuals. Had they not been on his stealing his property he wouldn't have been shooting anyone. Yes, maybe he delt with the situation in the wront way, manslaughter may be a more appropiate charge. But to call his actions murder is bullshiet if you ask me. To each his own...

Next time aim for their legs and ankles.

Here in AZ a guy was at home when a dude broke into his house. The guy got out his gun and chased the perp two blocks before killing him.

Cops took his statement and left, never to be heard from again.

Welcome to the Wild West!

Then the thief would turn around and sue the shooter. Ironically, the thief would end up owning the car he was robbing....and probably the guys house too.

So it is ok for cops to drop a criminal (Hey I meant to shoot him the leg) but if some one is protecting their own property they get hit for murder.

Murder 1. So the DA claims the victim (the shooter) woke up in the morning intending to kill a criminal. I do not see how what happened could be considered premeditated murder.

I like most of the people on this board work hard for my money. If some one wants to take it from me they better be ready for a fight. Would I shoot the guy. I don't know, If I did and I killed him I am sure I would feel bad as I 100% sure taking a life is hard to do and feels like crap

Do I feel the criminal should have lost his life over a car - probably not but he made a decision to take another's property and he must face the consequence of doing so.

Not long after 9/11 a Greyhound bus got hijacked in my area. The criminal was killed by the passengers. He was armed with a small knife of some sort and stabbed the driver. The passengers all stuck together and no one was charged.

Let's see now...can I have your addresses...I'll be over later to steal your stuff...U boyz are a bunch of wimps...

More like he's gonna be grabbing his ankles if he gets sent to the big house. 50 years is harsh. He'll probably get it knocked down I presume.

Sad but true. How the F do these criminals get the right to sue when they are injured commiting a crime?

I just heard a story about cops shooting 20-something shoots at a guy as he drove-off from a traffic stop.

I guess that's okay though, cuz the cops missed the guy. . .and his wife and 3 children in the car. . . oh, and they are cops; so, no doubt a "justified shooting" . . . unlike that Murderer with the Honda. :rolleyes:

We can only hope the cops take that dangerous Honda owning Murderer off the streets. . .er-a . . off his driveway.:rolleyes:

I have to give a little here. He really should not have shot him once he was out of the driveway. Your also right about loosing the car, what's the big deal? But, in my driveway and trying to get into or away with something of mine, I will perceive this as a threat. We live out in the sticks so, I act first, ask questions later.

If a cop shot a person in the back who was fleeing the scene with no weapon, he'd likely be in some serious trouble.

property is property. a life is a life. A life isn't property (unless we've dropped back a hundred or so years...).

not in texas.

good point. I stand corrected.

So let me get this straight. A couple guys attempt to steal Yoon Ho Song's POS honda, they fail, he goes outside and shoots one of them to death.

Let's say his Honda is worth $22,000 just for fun.

If Yoon Ho Song (defendant) were wearing a $22,000 Rolex President and somebody grabbed at it, would he be justified in taking the person's life for attempted robbery? This may even be a better fact pattern because the would-be robber actually touched defendant during the attempt, which could have placed defendant in apprehension of death or grevious bodily injury. Certainly a lot more than trying to steal his car without touching him.

What if someone sent him an email from Nigeria attempting to swindle him out of $22,000? Would he be justified in killing the person if he could identify him to his satisfaction? Or does the fact that the robbery is remote in location and remote in time change your answer? What would your answer be if it were $220,000?

There are two points here. One is that California Penal Law 187 says it's murder, so there's nothing to argue there.

The second point is whether inflicting death or grevious bodily injury is justified in defense of property. The consensus here seems to be that it would be.

To be continued. . .

Criminal Homicide: Homicide is defined under California law as the unlawful killing of another human being. Under the umbrella of homicide are the crimes of murder and manslaughter. Murder is the killing of another human being with malice and with specific intent to kill. Murder is further divided into subcategories:

1. Murder in the first degree is defined in the Penal Code as premeditated and deliberate, or during the commission of a felony.

2. Murder in the second degree is similar to first-degree murder except that premeditation is not an element of the crime.

3. Manslaughter, under California law, is the killing of another human being without having malice and manslaughter is also separated by degrees: voluntary manslaughter is when the intent to kill is present; involuntary manslaughter does not include the element of intent. (PC Sections 187-199)

nostatic there have been too many cases of cops empting their weapons on people with screw drivers for me to buy "well if the cop shot somebody in the back line"

Case in point. About 7 years ago a guy holds up a Shoney's here in Charlotte. Cops stop him on I-77

Guy is surrounded by 10 to 12 cops. Finally the guy reaches into his pocket and pulls out a screw driver. All but a few of the cops empty their guns on the guy.

So lets say 8 cops went trigger happy. 8 x 9 = 72 rounds going into or towards the criminal.

Bit excessive don't you think. Anyone get in trouble.... Nope. They came up with a catchy phrase "Suicide by Cop".

One shot to the back is more justified than 72+ rounds into a guy holding a screw driver. If some one violates my home they better be ready to pay the ultimate price.

In both cases neither of those thugs will commit another crime.

In Singapore the cops armed with M16's would have shot the thief if the guy hadn't already.
And guess what... they have virtually no car theft in Singapore.

Hmm, I wonder why?

Is this true? Maybe someone in Singapore will chime in with the facts, but this is what i've heard.

dont waste my tax money defending these criminals.

kill them all.

end of story

Don't they still cane people in Singapore for vandalisim?

Obviously in California, but not necessarily if it happend in Colorado.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/13/1068674285957.html?from=storyrhs
http://www.knotmag.com/?article=965

Here in florida and most other states deadly force can only be used to defend your life or the life of others when no other option is available to avoid the threat.

It doesn't matter if you shoot at their head or at their feet, deadly force is deadly force and your aim is moot.

About a year ago a pizza delivery man here in Tampa was charged with murder after he shot a kid in the ghetto. Apparantly the kid grabbed his pizza and started to run off with it so the guy started shooting at him. I think the pizza guy is currently a fugitive since he knows he has no chance in hell of beating the charges.

At least here in Florida and most other states you can use 'reasonable' force to defend your property.

For example you could legally put some theiving bastard in the hospital after subduing him with a baseball bat because you caught him trying to take your stuff and he refused to stay put untill the police got there.

Then when the police and EMT's arrive they will practically pin a medal on you cause you personally kept yet another scumbag from moving on to his next target.

Shooting car thieves in the back is a major no-no, Soon-to-be-somebodies-biatch should have known this. This is not exactly an unforseen circumstance, in fact it's about as forseen as circumstances come when you own a kitted-out Honda and a gun. Give me a frikkin' break here, people, toss me a bone or something, this guy deserves to be locked up just for being the stupidest SOB ever to tie on a pair of shoes.

I mean come on, it's either the day you buy the gun or the car, (both on the same day?), when your little birdbrain says to you, "there might come a time when some other little enthusiast wants my aftermarket Honda parts, or maybe even the whole car, what am I gonna do? Shoot him? Better plan this out. Don't want to meet his homies in County." :rolleyes:

Signed, A gun and car owner. :cool: