Posted on 04/08/2004 8:05:51 AM PDT by joesnuffy
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.
I don't think that muddies the waters it just changes the parameters of discussion. News articles are usually incomplete. We can either take them (here on this forum) and talk about what is presented at any given time or we can ramble off on endless 'what-ifs' and 'might-be's.' There are also a lot of directions a discussion can go depending on the story also. It can be a sounding board for personal P'sOV (like this one) or it can be about a vital political issue that we can actively effect like legislation or an opportunity to FReep a person or event. And there's a lot of overlap.
If there's new info on this story then it is a different story in terms of POV and discussion. Undoubtedly there will be those who try to hold others statements, made based on the initial info, up to a critical standard coming out of the light of new info. That's lame and hardly worth responding to.
Mine for one. My property is worth considerably more than the life of a thief.
Well there's a standard we can all hold dear, the Little Ray Coda of Moral Equity. Did you get that on a cloud shrouded mountain? A peyote induced vision? Or did it just come to you as you were daydreaming in 7th grade science class? What else have you got? Let's start a Little Ray cult.
Talk about your straw man arguements... Its not even worth responding to...
But you did.
It does not,however, fit the definition of a 'straw-man argument.' It is based directly on the logic presented by other posters. A straw-man is bringing an unrelated subject-object into play in substitution for the actual subject-object and holding it up as equivalent. I didn't do that.
Is that the best you can do, Marine? That's the most nutless reply I've had in months. : )
Nothing personal intended toward you, my friend.
I do tend to paint with a rather broad brush, this is true.
Find myself getting into trouble from time to time with the [few] good conservatives living in New York State -- *especially* NYCity -- when I rag on the home of Chuck-E-Schumer & the old bat.
"We had a situation here in Modesto a few years back where a homeowner discovered someone stealing his car, fired two rounds through the windshield at the perp, and then pulled the guys body out so he wouldn't bleed all over the upholstery. The only thing he received was a warning about moving bodies and disturbing crime scenes."
HA!!
If justice -- at times -- can be funny then that'd be it.
Sounds like this guy would've made a splendid governor.
"In another situation a few years ago, another homeowner came home to find three unarmed teenage boys burgling and vandalizing his house. He opened fire and killed all of them, including one as he was running out the back door. Again, no prosecution."
Odd [we] out here in flyover never hear about those instances, don'tcha think?
Wonder *why* the Associated Press would pass over such a great example of citizen justice. (~just kidding, we all know why the AP et al ignore everything good & dear...)
"The whole state isn't screwed up...just most of it."
Well the DA's office in LA County is for absolutely certain & CA's rags are in a league all their own, the sewer league.
I'm saddened to hear what's happened to much -- mostly east & south of Reno, NV -- of CA over the past few decades.
My days spent living in beautiful Susanville California are treasured memories, believe me.
...among the best days of my life.
The police seem to do it all the time.
I don't think Rosa Park shot anyone. The forefathers who founded the country shot a bunch of English people, though.
You're all over the road & you're obviously not a CCW holder.
Of course not. I live in Los Angeles. I believe the issued a grand total of 20 such permits last year ... in a city of 4 million. It is nearly impossible to get a CCW permit in LA.
am happy that you admire the shooting of criminals who steal...not rape, or murder..but steal. You'll go far.
I've always admired and respected those who protect their life, family, AND PROPERTY (which represents a part of their productivity). I don't know "how far" that is going to take me, but to be honest, it's really been a non-issue since it rarely comes up in job interviews and business dealings. They don't even ask me when I open a bank account or rent a car. And my family is well provided for. I sincerely doubt it has effected my success one way or the other.
Have a happy Easter
You do the same.
Here, i'll quote post #152. I don't see any admission of blowing smoke.
"You are right about me. I don't have a gun. But if I saw it in the process, I would pick up a stick, rock, and do everything in my power to stop it.
The cops (tax collectors) won't do anything.
I have had numerous bicycles stolen over the years. They aren't cheap to replace. It's just another tax on top of the 50%+ we already pay.
For those that have the nads to shoot 'em, I salute you.
One remaining question is how they know the gun wasn't Martinez's, which means they likely found prints on it. If it's a drop gun tied to Song, then the 1st degree murder charge makes sense. If it's not tied to Song, I can't imagine how he was charged with anything.
Can you make a point without ad-hominems? Personal attacks are a sign of insecurity. Surely you can state your disagreement without personal insults.
can't diferentiate between using a firearm to defend property and shooting a man in the back.
If he is in the commission of a felony, I don't know that I care where you shoot them. Back, front, top, bottom, left, right.
If the guy didn't want to be in the line of fire, he could have excercised that option by leaving the car he didn't own ... alone.
Cowards and non Christians shoot people in the back when they are attempting to steal cars and present no physical threat to humans.
I live in Los Angeles. These people do present a physical threat to humans. I see it all the time. And property, which is the product of one's livelihood, is also threatened.
Again. If you don't want to be shot in someone's driveway ... don't try to steal their car. It's not like you aren't giving the victim a choice here. It's not like the guy was driving around looking for people to shoot. The theives had the choice as to whether the theft of a car was worth getting shot over, and they decided that it was. And so one of them was.
Oh, and do notice that they did not capture his accomplice. That car would be in Tiaujana by now, and the guys would probably have paid a housecall to someone else the next night. This probably would have repeated itself 100 times before the perps slipped up and got caught, and cost us tens of thousands of dollars more to process.
And someone here posted a verse from the Bible which supports this action. Then, someone else posted a verse from the Bible which contradicted it. It's one of those "Turn the other cheek" vs. "An eye for an eye" thing. You can find sections of the Bible so support both sides of the issue.
...snip...
But that's all beside the point. Under California law, this is as close to an open-and-shut case as you're gonna get.
Maybe not.
"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and PROTECTING PROPERTY, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."
Or we could direct ad-hominem attacks against those we disagree with.
Sound familiar?
Post #184 (the one I replied to) describes a scene involving imminent physical threat. I didn't see a post from either one of them that indicated they were against using force in such a situation. In fact Mineralman specifically said he would. That was the situation you were addressing and your response to it was what I was addressing. You do have a problem being specific and your logic is shaky because of it.
The two people I listed have said several times on this thread that one should not use a firearm to protect property. This is is exactly what I claimed. You even quoted it verbatim. Scroll up and read what you quoted of my post. That was the issue I was addressing.
I made a claim. The claim was true.
If you consider that shaky logic, so be it.
Yes it does. I've received a bit of it. You are pretty think skinned if you think I did that to you.
In a post that specifically described a situation involving imminent physical threat. Neither one advocated passivity in a situation like that. If they did direct me to the post.
If that's the way you read my post then it'll be tough to have an intelligent conversation with you. Your last post to me was already a good indication of that. Were you or weren't you espousing the notion that it is fine to kill over property? You were using the original story as a jumping off point for that view weren't you? Or are you just dancing around this thread for fun not meaning to seriously get involved in the discussion? Probably best for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.