Million dollar bail for man that shoots intruder.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/gardena-shooting.html

Frustrated that kids were using his property as a shortcut, a Gardena resident shot a teenager in his driveway, police said.The teenager survived and the property owner was arrested.
Eiji Takara, 36, called 911 shortly after 10 p.m. Monday to report that he had shot an “intruder” at his home in the 18000 block of Curt Place, said Lt. Steve Prendergast of the Gardena Police Department.
Officers found a 17-year-old boy who had been shot once in the upper torso in Takara's driveway, Prendergast said. The boy was treated and released from a hospital.
Takara’s home is on a cul de sac and shares a wall with the Gardena Valley Assembly church and the Gardena Valley Christian School on 182nd Street. Gardena High School is also nearby.

Takara had previously complained to authorities that neighborhood teens were cutting through his property by jumping over the wall, Prendergast said. He apparently caught the 17-year-old on the wall Monday night.
“The victim was asked to come off the wall and was on the driveway when he was shot,” Prendergast said. Takara was taken into custody on suspicion of attempted murder and was being held at the Gardena Police Department in lieu of $1 million bail.

I hope he gets life in prison.

The kid did nothing worse than minor trespassing. Annoying to the owner perhaps, but doesn't rise to the level of a need for any level of force.

Send the shooter to jail.

I googled, but was unable to find whether or not Eiji Takara had any prior convictions. I would not be surprised to find that he has a history of trouble.

just not as well connected.

does not suggest that Takara was in any danger, however it (as far as I have been able to find) is quite limited.

I don't know that I would feel comfortable with the little info available, in concluding that he was not in any danger though.


Iether the shooter is a heartless nutball that should not have had a gun to begin with, or theres more to this story.


Neither would surprise me at this point, but I am inclined to suspect strongly that there is far more to this story. Takara pled not guilty, which may or may not indicate such a thing.

Complete idiot, hope he ends up in for a few years...

I guess it makes him feel like a man to shoot an unarmed kid in the back.

funny that Americans that have a Constitutional Right to posses a firearm are either branded as nuts or some other mindless insult. I suppose anyone that exercises their right to freedom of speech that you disagree with is also a nut.

The Constitution does not say that. It clearly states that only the National Guard can own one of those dangerous things. Your lies are dangerous.

Guard is not mentioned in the second amendment.

Its the Bill of rights, that says that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

Declaratory clause:A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...It declares the purpose of the restrictive clause (restrictive clause - applicable to government) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

That backs up the afforementioned claim.


Incidentally, that game has already been played in court, and your side lost.

I think Freud wrote something about that.

Anti-gun people are ignorant, repressed trash.

Wait and see how this plays out - I bet charges will be dropped, even in California.

mark

Just look at your own post. It's full of a major one.

Brush up on your reading skills. You may also want to read the Federalist Papers to get a better idea of what the Founding Fathers thought about private gun ownership.

You haven't a clue. Get one.

You mean the N.G. that didn't exist until some 140 years AFTER the Bill of Rights was ratified?{/i} Are you naturally stupid or just a garden-variety, over-educated moron?

You fail at history.

has the right to own a gun, you could say that and be correct.

Not "the national guard" or "the militia"

The Bill of rights says quite plainly and clearly that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org /

Declaratory clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"...It declares the purpose of the restrictive clause (restrictive clause - applicable to and binding of government) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Reading and interpreting it as it was intended to be read and interpreted, is in no way shape size or form twisting its meaning. And its the bill of rights, specifically btw.

Contemporary writings back that up


The game has already been played in court, and your side lost. If your side had been more reasonable from the get go, and not been so pushy about banning anything and everything it could, and pissing off the most energized and motivated voters by the millions in the process, it might not have happened in our lifetime, or happened the way it did.

The collectivist and "militia" interpretations of amendment 2 are dead, and no amount of hand wringing, foot stomping, out and out whining, or even voodoo, is going to bring them back to life. Your side got pushy and made this bed, and now you, and they, will quite appropriately be sleeping in it.

Deal with it.

that declare their intention that every citizen should have the right to own guns. It was cleary their intent for people to have guns.

Would you like to see a bunch of quotes? Here are just a few:

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest. -- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." -- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. <...> To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

"The great object is, that every man be armed. <...> Every one who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... -- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution,

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

I can easily provide lots more quotes from the time of the framing of the constitution and early America to prove that it was intended and viewed as protecting an individual right.

Although not from the founding fathers, I like these quotes and will add them to the pile:

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." --Aristotle

"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." <...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.> -- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD), (That is ancient Roman for: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.)

The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose. -- James Earl Jones

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

"Gun control" is a job-safety program for criminals.

I guess all you gun nuts like to stick together. I'm a (responsible) gun owner myself but I would never defend this trigger-happy lunatic in a million years, in any way shape or form.

I read it as him taking a ******** to task for implying that all gun owners are nuts. I guess you get to read whatever you want into things....

EDIT: I was mistaken, the person he was directly replying to was making a commentary about gun owners and "small penis syndrome," and that person was you, so I removed my remark so you couldn't cry about my calling you a nasty, though fitting name. But my commentary about your getting to read whatever you want into things still stands, however.

I read the article, but didn't see that.

Where did you see it?

He is going to want to shoot someone.

I don't recall any reports of bloodshed.

Information about this is short on details...Meaning:

Maybe he simply shot the kid after escorting him to the driveway

Or

Possibly the kid made a threatening move toward him.


Waiting for more and better information before I can feel that I can formulate an informed opinion about this.

right in the very first sentence of the article.

"Frustrated that kids were using his property as a shortcut, a Gardena resident shot a teenager in his driveway, police said. The teenager survived and the property owner was arrested."



The last time I checked, being "frustrated" by typical annoying but harmless teenage behavior is not a justifiable reason to shoot them.

I understand what the article says. I also understand that details change, are often added as more information comes to light, and subtracted as things are often misreported, people misquoted, etc etc.

It happens all the time.


I also understand that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and I presume you have no issue with that.

I also understand that there is about 1 version of this event that I have seen searching google, and that it sorely lacks details.




"The last time I checked, being "frustrated" by typical annoying but harmless teenage behavior was not a valid reason to shoot them."

Last time I checked, nobody HERE claimed that being "frustrated" by typical annoying but harmless teenage behavior was a valid reason to shoot them.



I have also seen articles in which it is "given" that saddam had WMDs. I did not rush to judgement after reading those iether, and FWIW, where shootings are concerned, whether justified or unjustified, one is likely to be arrested iether way.

Maybe he did exactly as the article said he did, and simply attempted to murder a kid.

Maybe the article doesn't have all the facts. If The shooter exercised his right to remain silent, which is a distinct possibility, then we have here something less than both sides of the story, and far less than a detailed account of the entire incident. Its entirely possible that the kid is a gang banger and/or made a threatening move such as charging the homeowner. We don't know the facts. You don't, and I don't. You weren't there, and I wasn't there. Thats where the rubber meets the road.

IF, I repeat IF, the limited information that is available is accurate, then the shooter belongs in jail. Did you really think my position would be something other than that? Time will tell if the information is accurate...or not.

That being the case, As I said, I am withholding judgment until a clearer picture manifests itself.

Last time I checked, thats not an unreasonable position.



Maybe they should just execute the shooter and not bother any fact finding eh? :sarcasm:

Well said indeed! It's amazing how somebody who may be totally rational with other issues will become very irrational when it comes to the issue of defensive firearm usage, or just firearms in general. Yes, on the face of it, it does look like this guy really screwed up, but we do NOT have all the facts in yet, and wishing to wait for such a time when we do have all (or at least most) of the facts before passing judgment is NOT an irrational position to take in the least.

you actually compare the WMD story to this? that's bizarre. its a much more complex international issue and there's no comparison to this local story that involves just two people.

the newspapers may get the facts wrong on big complex issues on occasion, but they are rarely wrong when it comes to these everyday local stories. we'll see what happens when the verdict is reached, but like I said it is doubtful that there's much else to the story that wasn't mentioned. the LA Times is a pretty reputable newspaper. if there was any plausible defense for the shooting, they would have mentioned it.

Comparison, yes. And no, I don't believe everything I read the minute I read it. I try to wait until enough facts become available to make a well informed judgement.

"its a much more complex international issue and there's no comparison to this local story that involves just two people."


And? Has not a thing to do with the simplicity or complexity of a story. It has to do with reliability of media in reporting the facts correctly, AND those of us seeming in a rush to jump to a conclusion before any detailed account of the story become available. The only fact we really know for sure at this point, is that someone was shot. If I were to ask you if the kid made some sort of threatening move toward the homeowner, would your answer be "no" because the media didn't report it, or "I don't know"? And there it is. We don't know. As I previously stated, if the homeowner exercised his right to remain silent - as I and most others with any real understanding of thier rights would do - then the only thing we have is what police are saying, which is(and this is no shot at law enforcement) as everyone knows or should know - building a case against a percieved law breaker - and thier job to do.

"the newspapers may get the facts wrong on big complex issues on occasion, but they are rarely wrong when it comes to these everyday local stories."

And you know this how? Newspapers do not determine fact, and rarely have the facts 100% correctly reported. Courts determine fact. Thats thier job, amongst other things, and even THEY do not have a 100% success rate, in spite of most often having near limitless resources with which to find those facts - something newspapers and media most definitely do not have.


"we'll see what happens when the verdict is reached"

A sensible statement. I'd even settle for "well see what facts start coming to the surface when the trial begins and is underway".

"but like I said it is doubtful that there's much else to the story that wasn't mentioned."

Doubtful to you perhaps. Not to me. You just don't see people attempting to murdering others in cold blood that often, and then immediately dialing 911 to get the cops to come. That happening in itself is usually indicative of someone that was not trying to break a law in the first place.


Well see.

but it is possible that the teenager may have done any number of things that might result in a justifiable shooting.

I could paint a few scenarios for you, but I'll just wait till a grand jury gets done with him. Speculation is unhelpful.


Based on nothing more than the information in the story, I totally agree with you. However, reality may not reflect the events in the story.

Had one upset parent call when her kid got scratched up. My wife suggested she ask her son what he was doing in our backyard after dark.

Some of the trees around here have some kind of creeper growing on them with clumps of 2.5 inch, needle-sharp woody thorns. I've been trying to find a way of cultivating it for this exact purpose.

The shooter will still get his chance to defend himself, but there are no details in that story that would lead me to think the shooting was in self-defense.

the judge wouldn't have set the bail so high (one million dollars).

Generally bail is based on things like the risk of the defendant fleeing, the type of crime alleged, the "dangerousness" of defendants, and the safety of the community.


Legal justification for breaking a law is not something that is discussed at a bail hearing.

That would be something discussed at the trial itself.

Im also going to venture a guess that for any given crime one is accused of, there is (generally) a minimum standard for bail.


I bet paulsby would know, and likely quite a few other DUers in the legal arena as well.

the lawyer would have have brought up mitigating circumstances for lowering the bail, if there were any. by mitigating circumstances I mean explaining to the judge how it was an act of self-defense, for example. that would have made a big difference in the amount of the bail set. but obviously, the defendant didn't even attempt to give the police any reason to shoot the kid, other than being on his property.

We don't know that the defendant stated ANY reason for the shooting. Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. You and I don't know that though. All that is known is what the POLICE were quoted as stating, not how they came to that conclusion. Fact finding actually means finding of fact, rather than speculation.

All we have is the word of the police, whos job it is to - pragmatically speaking - build a case against the defendant.

Who was the judge? Does he/she have a history of anti-gun bias? Does he/she not have such a history?

Those are omly two of the pertinent questions I'd ask given the (seemingly) large bail amount.

too dumb to be in a neighborhood. If he took the time to get to know these teens and waved at them he would have been a lot better neighbor.

shouldn't be allowed to free-range until they have manners and decency. Don't want your kids to get shot? Teach'em to respect other peoples' property and to not tresspass. Seems simple enough to me.

no matter how good a parent you are. even the smartest well behaved kids will do stupid things. you can't just go around shooting people for every stupid thing that they do, otherwise most youngsters wouldn't grow up to survive past puberty or adolescence.

what made you so bitter?

Now reside where-ever the USAF requires me. Currently Arizona.

Why do you think I am bitter? Cranky, maybe...

I was raised to not mess with other peoples' property. I did plenty of silly and stupid things with my own belongings, and on my family's land, but it was well understood (and demonstrated, via my stupid younger brother :evilgrin: ), that being inconsiderate with other folks stuff was beyond the pale, and if we collected a dose of rock salt (or worse) for our troubles, there would be no sympathy.

As my teacher parents were fond of pointing out, "No-one learns about burns by touching a cold stove" (we heated and cooked almost year-round with wood stoves).