Sullivan posts bail for theft victim

[radiovictim]

In case you didn't hear about this on the news, a South Sacramento resident awoke the other night to discover some young men trying to break into his car. Apparently not aware of California law (disallowing "deadly force" or the use of a firearm to protect property), the homeowner allegedly shot at the suspects, striking one in the chest. From what I gather, the thief is still alive and in the hospital. The homeowner was arrested and taken to jail.

My first reaction to this was dismay. How typical of our "justice" system to protect criminals and persecute honest citizens who are tired of being victims. But my next thought was of how frightening it would be if every citizen who percieved being the victim of theft (to even the most minor degree) was allowed or believed that it was appropriate to use deadly force. This is where I'm torn.

I don't feel the homeowner is the criminal. However, if he's not charged on some level, this situation might make others assume it is acceptable for them to do the same and next time it could be over something as simple as stealing a drink of water from a garden hose. I'm for the right to bear arms and feel our society is far too lenient on criminals. I also feel that we have too many laws dictating the correct way to lead our lives. But the distinction between protecting property and human life via a firearm is a law with which I hesitantly agree. Therefore, I think the best possible outcome would be for the homeowner to be charged... but found innocent. This would emphasize the parameters of the law, yet still grant justice to the homeowner/victim. Too bad the homeowner didn't tell police that he thought one of the thieves was pointing a gun at him. Perhaps then the correct people would be in jail.

Anyway, kudos to Tom Sullivan who came to the aid of the homeowner. I'm so glad that someone in the media had the backbone to not only stand up for this man, but to put his money where his mouth is in the amount of $3k bail. Whether it was prompted by his beliefs about justice or a desire for publicity or a mixture of both, he did the right thing.

Your thoughts?

 

[calguy]

In case you didn't hear about this on the news, a South Sacramento resident awoke the other night to discover some young men trying to break into his car. Apparently not aware of California law (disallowing "deadly force" or the use of a firearm to protect property), the homeowner allegedly shot at the suspects, striking one in the chest. From what I gather, the thief is still alive and in the hospital. The homeowner was arrested and taken to jail.

My first reaction to this was dismay. How typical of our "justice" system to protect criminals and persecute honest citizens who are tired of being victims. But my next thought was of how frightening it would be if every citizen who percieved being the victim of theft (to even the most minor degree) was allowed or believed that it was appropriate to use deadly force. This is where I'm torn.

I don't feel the homeowner is the criminal. However, if he's not charged on some level, this situation might make others assume it is acceptable for them to do the same and next time it could be over something as simple as stealing a drink of water from a garden hose. I'm for the right to bear arms and feel our society is far too lenient on criminals. I also feel that we have too many laws dictating the correct way to lead our lives. But the distinction between protecting property and human life via a firearm is a law with which I hesitantly agree. Therefore, I think the best possible outcome would be for the homeowner to be charged... but found innocent. This would emphasize the parameters of the law, yet still grant justice to the homeowner/victim. Too bad the homeowner didn't tell police that he thought one of the thieves was pointing a gun at him. Perhaps then the correct people would be in jail.

Anyway, kudos to Tom Sullivan who came to the aid of the homeowner. I'm so glad that someone in the media had the backbone to not only stand up for this man, but to put his money where his mouth is in the amount of $3k bail. Whether it was prompted by his beliefs about justice or a desire for publicity or a mixture of both, he did the right thing.

Your thoughts?

Well I pretty much agree with you, but the proper course of action would have been to immediately call the police. That being said, I'm wondering if just confronting the thieves at a distance and brandishing the gun just might have scared them off. This is why shotguns are great. Just sound of the pump as you load the shell is usually said to be a good deterrent. I would think that it a chilling sound to any bad guy.

It's obvious the homeowner didn't understand the law or he may have taken that route. Too bad too because he'll pay for this dearly thanks to the anti-gun leaning justice system in California.

Kudos to Tom Sullivan for stepping up. It's pretty rare to see that done. I just hope it's not for publicity...

 

[RealTime]

ARE YOU KIDDING? OF COURSE IT'S FOR PUBLICITY!

Will Tom Sullivan be posting bail for all the "Charles Bronson Yahoos" who shoot at people for TPing somebody's house?

 

[rickradio]

ARE YOU KIDDING? OF COURSE IT'S FOR PUBLICITY!

Uh, OK...how do you know this, Chase? Did Sullivan tell you? Maybe Tom saw this as a miscarriage of justice, as I did.

As for comparing someone who's simply trying to defend his property to "Charles Bronson Yahoos," and comparing criminals to TPers, what would YOU have done if you caught someone in the act of burglarizing YOUR car and had the legal weaponry to stop them? Brought out coffee and donuts and ragchew with them until law enforcement got around to arriving an hour and a half later (and that's NOT a swipe at them: they're extremely busy, especially in the middle of the night)? He wasn't roaming the neighborhood with his 22, they came to HIS property. This shouldn't even have to be explained. I applaud Sullivan for this and am not ashamed to say it. The law stipulates that deadly force is to be used only to defend life, not property. This law notwithstanding, if I found myself in the same situation, I might have very well done the same thing Mr. Saechin did. This law is ridiculous. He was THERE, the cops weren't.

Tell me this: do you think these cockroaches would have picked Mr. Saechin to victimize had they known that one of them would have part of his chest blown into the street? Do you think they'll be going back to his house anytime soon?

I'm sure you're a nice guy, Chase, and you are entitled to your opinion, but, and you'll pardon me, sir, your post struck me as cynical and childish, unless you were kidding, but it didn't sound like it to me.

DA Jan Scully has decided not to prosecute Sou Saechin: no one else was injured and Mr. Saechin has no criminal record.

Thanks for coming to the rescue of one of the good guys, Mr. Sullivan.

Have a nice day.

 

[RealTime]

So is Tom Sullivan going to post bail for all the nitwits who take the law into their own hands with a gun? Is he going to spearhead a change in the law? If so, then he wasn't doing it for publicity. Lets wait and see.


I had somebody steal my brand new Honda Civic. Right from the drive-way. It's a car. Big deal. A life is worth more than a car. It was 4 in the morning and they got away. It sucked, but I don't believe in people taking the law into their own hands for this type of crime. I root for a civil society. Was this a trigger happy gun owner? Of course it was.

Maybe rickradio should also defend Phil Specter as well. "That cockroach of a woman" tried to steal one of his Gold Records off the wall"...she deserved to have her face blown off!

 

[MPWard]

A brief note about my former co-worker and this whole story...

I happened to stumble upon it in the Sacramento Bee, as I'm nowhere near Sactown these days.

I found the story fascinating, so I subscribed to Tom's podcast and listened to the idea develop live on his show. And like many, many other things that have grown out of The Tom Sullivan Show over the years, this came out of nowhere.

Listen to the very first mention of the news story on Tom's show, that first day. It was not even the topic he expected to be discussing most of the hour! He mentioned it, once, the first hour, and I think somewhere in the middle of the second hour, it started picking up steam.

The idea to post bail for this guy was basically just something Tom thought about while talking about the story while on the air. He spent much of the following half hour or so simply trying to figure out if he could even DO it, then contacting a bail bondsman/friend to ask if he could do it.

Tom didn't do this "for the publicity". OK, so everything he does, as a popular local media personality, gets publicity...but saying he did it "just to get publicity" makes it sound like he planned all this...which, from listening to the show (and from my own knowledge of Tom and what he does)... he did not.

It's actually fairly out of character for him to "cross that line", aside from stuff like doing charity work associated with his show - which is usually well planned and organized - or stuff like honoring veterans or the like - ditto.

(Er...that's his friend on before him, sorry. )

As someone who had literally a front row seat watching Tom's show every single weekday afternoon for seven-plus years, I think I can speak with some authority here. Watching an "idea" develop live on the air on Tom's show, with no earlier planning, was something that happened often...the show is pretty much a live "stream of consciousness" coming out of Tom's head.

Mike Ward
KFBK reporter/anchor/editor 1994-2001

 

[coppersmom]

I thought he pulled it out of his butt. this dude kept firing ...chasing the guys..more firing...claiming he was "just trying to mark the bumper". Luckily no one else was shot as he was blasting bullets all over the neighborhood.