To shoot or not to shoot? One California homeowners fate is being decided.

After reading all the comments on this subject I have come to a conclusion:

Old man was in wrong(law wise) and probably doesn't personally give a #. A criminal that more than likely had been terrorizing various law abiding citizens(possibly the old man) for some time is now off streets.

He will probably get sent to jail. He's 80 years old and in all honestly probably doesn't give two flying monkey #s about it one way or the other. After all, what's the difference between a nursing home and a prison?

Seriously.

1. Don't break into anyone's house in America. We have guns here. If it is my house I will shoot you. My instincts don't know the difference between your front and your back. After all, what's to stop you from running out the door and doubling back around only to hurt me?
2. Don't assume that old people are idiotic, weak, and useless. If their old fingers can find the revolver you're #ed.
3. 80 year olds don't give a # about being sent to prison. They are about to be sent to a nursing home anyway. Don't rob/abuse 80 year old assholes who have been bored for the last ten years. They were waiting for you. They have time on their side, you don't.
4. Don't be a terrorist.
5. Don't be a terrorist.

a reply to: OrphanApology

A criminal that more than likely had been terrorizing various law abiding citizens(possibly the old man) for some time is now off streets.

Fantastic solution to crime, just kill people that break the law repeatedly.

After all, what's to stop you from running out the door and doubling back around only to hurt me?

The gun that you said you had??? Why do you get to assume that the person is going to come back. Is that all we need now to kill people? A gut feeling and it is within my right to end your life?
If shoot then in your house, fine, if you let them get out and they are running away, you are no longer in danger

a reply to: Sremmos80

If you have already assaulted someone, common sense would say that you are not into peaceful solutions.

For the record, I have never killed someone. I have also never been in a physical fight.

I do have the means and the ability to defend myself. I do not go out looking for fights. But if someone broke into my home and assaulted me, I would fight back with everything I have.

Sorry we don't see eye to eye on this.

I also am a very safe driver and have never been arrested.

originally posted by: WanDash
We apparently see these matters differently. What you see as blue, I see as yellow...and so on.
Maybe I need a new prescription.

And that's fine, but let me try and put it one more way before you totally disagree with me.

Lets say these guys had robbed and beat this man, and he hadn't shot them. The police then catch them a few hours later down the street. Would they be allowed to shoot them? If this went to court, would you support the death sentence as being fitting for the crime?

If you answer no to either of those two questions, then we are not as far apart as you may think. Its simply a matter of understanding the exact legal syntax of the law in this instance.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
When it comes to self-defense against assault, the law here again is quite clear: if the person is under the belief that he or she will suffer bodily injury. (Which that fact was established by being beaten and ultimately having his collar bone broken.) NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal penalties .

Its a matter of timing here.
If he shot them before or while being beaten then he'd be in the right. However, was there any reason for him to believe that the fleeing criminals were going to turn around and come back and beat him again? The answer here is no, and so his shooting them at this point during the event changed a reasonable defensive action into an action based on retribution.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The moment they attacked him they lost all right to life....
So now we have reached that aassault equals death.

No, we have attempted murder, in the man's home. They attacked with complete disregard for human life. A simple fall can kill a person of that age. I work in geriatrics, I have seen patients die within months of a fall. They lost the right to live when their desire to steal property was more important than the human life they almost took to do it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

YOU say we have attempted murder, the cops didn't even charge him with it.
It's nice to say they attacked with complete disregard for human life but that doesn't make it true.
I agree a simple fall can kill a person of that age but so can simple cold.
It didn't kill him, it didn't even incapacitate him enough to not be able to get back up, get a gun and chase a person down and kill her.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: bigx001

on top of that the gentleman posed no threat to either of them so why choose that path when there was absolutely no reason to do so.

Unless he was in their way, in which case they threw him out of his way to get to his safe with the money in it. Money provides food and shelter just to get back to that point you made.
He sure as heck posed a threat to them when he was armed and that is when they left.
He decided that he wanted to kill them, and he showed that.

again pushing him out of the way is one thing, but he posed no threat then, slamming him to the ground with enough force to break a bone is deadly force. the fact that he did not hit his head and die of blunt force trauma is flat out luck, but then they continued to beat him, which at that point he was still not a threat.

you are trying to defend a persons who's entire point of stealing was not for the purpose of obtaining food or shelter. evidence is insurmountable that this is the case.

originally posted by: defcon5

Lets say these guys had robbed and beat this man, and he hadn't shot them. The police then catch them a few hours later down the street. Would they be allowed to shoot them? If this went to court, would you support the death sentence as being fitting for the crime?

If you answer no to either of those two questions, then we are not as far apart as you may think. Its simply a matter of understanding the exact legal syntax of the law in this instance.

If the two surrendered the police should not and can not shoot them.

I would support the death sentence for this crime, as their actions easily could have, and actually still might, result in the man's death.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

YOU say we have attempted murder, the cops didn't even charge him with it.
It's nice to say they attacked with complete disregard for human life but that doesn't make it true.

Whether our laws allow something or not does not make something true or untrue. A simple slip and fall can cause death in an 80yo, I have personally seen it. Slamming him to the ground in the manner they did is enough force to cause death. Whether you want to agree or not is irrelevant, it's a simple fact.

Conclusion

During the study period, the risk of mortality in hip fracture patients was 3-fold higher than that in the general population and included every major cause of death.

www.biomedcentral.com...

Five percent died during hospital stay; the cumulative probability of dying at 30, 180 days, and at 2 years was 7%, 18% and 30%.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I agree a simple fall can kill a person of that age but so can simple cold.

Good point. If you deliberately infect someone who is at risk for death from the common cold with the common cold in order to harm them and steal their property would you consider that attempted murder? I do.

It didn't kill him, it didn't even incapacitate him enough to not be able to get back up, get a gun and chase a person down and kill her.

What if I shoot you in the face and you survive and chase me down. Does the fact you did not die and were able to get up and chase me minimize the crime?

a reply to: bigx001

The evidence is not insurmountable in anything, have have no idea why they did what they did and neither do I.
You are the one that brought up the idea that if they were stealing for food or shelter that it would some how be different but then go on to say for 100% fact that they were not doing that.

Greer said that he was tackled and thrown to the ground but managed to get his .22-caliber revolver and confronted them as they ransacked a safe containing cash.

This was from greer himself and he says nothing about getting beat. He says he was tackled and thrown to the ground. A simple fall can break ANY one's collarbones as it is one of the easiest bones to break. Let alone a 80 year old. Every one wants to keep talking about a savage beating of the man that left it with one of the most common fall related injuries out there. At least give me some broken ribs or a broken jaw with are much more indicative of fight/beating.
www.rawstory.com...

He was mad and he wanted to prove a point, he had his chance to take care of the threat when they were still a threat in his house, he didn't. He let them become a non threat before chasing a woman down and killing her.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I said I agree that a simple fall can kill the man, that does not equate to saying they attempted to kill him by tackling him.
They COULD have killed him sure, but that is different then attempting. Unless you can prove there sole purpose of tackling him was to kill him.

What if I shoot you in the face and you survive and chase me down. Does the fact you did not die and were able to get up and chase me minimize the crime?

I don't deal in what if's feel free to get back to me what this actually happens

a reply to: Sremmos80
i give you this and it is damn funny

A home-invasion robbery in Sehome neighborhood ended early Thursday, July 24, when the robbers were stabbed with pruning shears, according to the Bellingham Police Department.

One of the gunmen pistol-whipped one of the victims, 21, three times in the head, Vander Yacht said. One gunshot - possibly fired during the beating - left a fresh bullet hole in the ceiling.


Another resident grabbed a pair of pruning shears with 3- or 4-inch blades and stabbed Wright in the back of his head and in the back. He then struck Delgado, who ran outside with a slashed face. The suspects left a trail of blood as they fled.

Both suspects were arrested when they showed up at a Skagit County hospital claiming they had been robbed, Vander Yacht said. Wright needed staples to close his wounds; Delgado had a less serious cut to his face.

Mount Vernon police responded to take victim statements but soon made the connection that Bellingham detectives were looking for Wright and Delgado. They were stitched up before being booked into Whatcom County Jail at 9:50 a.m.

Source


my point is that the majority of robberies, if not 99.9% of them, are not to obtain food, shelter, or clothing; because someone who is in that position does not beat a person when confronted with someone who they could easily maim or kill when body slamming them to the ground

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I love and own many guns. I am 100% for the 2nd and understand the real reason the founding fathers valued it so highly. That being said the only time deadly force should be used is when life is in jeopardy.



It should not be legal to shoot someone over property or trespassing. If it is life and death you should have the right to defend yourself or family with deadly force.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: bigx001

The evidence is not insurmountable in anything, have have no idea why they did what they did and neither do I.
You are the one that brought up the idea that if they were stealing for food or shelter that it would some how be different but then go on to say for 100% fact that they were not doing that.

actually we do know they were not there for the simple matter of survival since food is very, very rarely kept in a safe and we can say that with 100% certainty

and an elderly man does not need to be body slammed to the ground to be restrained

a reply to: bigx001

Great for the homeowners in the source your provided. Don't see what that has to do with anything.
YOU brought up the point about stealing for food and shelter and it somehow lessening the crime. I just replied with that you don't know that for a fact that food and shelter was not the motive of their crime. When one is lacking on either of those your turn to desperate measures to acquire them.

because someone who is in that position does not beat a person when confronted with someone who they could easily maim or kill when body slamming them to the ground

Maybe its the wording but I don't quite get what you are getting at here. Are you saying most home invaders won't use violence to get away and some how these guys are different cause they did use some?
Or are you saying that off the 99.9% of robbers, none of them would attack an old man? I think you are seriously mistaken there pal

a reply to: bigx001

But money that can be used to acquire food is almost always kept in the safe.
And I agree that they don't need to 'body slam' him and I refute they did.

a reply to: defcon5
I really don't know how far any of us would be debating these questions - If We Knew all of the facts.
Nevertheless - &, in answer to your (specific) question - I agree...
I would not be in favor of the Police exacting 'justice' at that point...with no further provocation from the alleged assailants.

Conversely - from the information available, I do not believe Mr. Greer chased these people...off his property, either.
Again - imo - I believe it was ALL 1 incident...in his mind, and in his ability to deal with the/a developing situation...NOT 2 incidents that became separated at some arbitrary point in time.

As more facts emerge, my take may be proven incorrect...
Or, as has already been established in this thread - they may be proven correct...
Only time will tell.
But - I find no reason to argue that I am right or you're wrong - with such a feeble informational foundation to rely upon.

Appreciate your time and conversation!

PS: Another point some might want to consider... There is no news, yet, that confirms what most have assumed from the early report/s - stating that Greer shot Miller "in the back"...
It should be considered - until evidence shows otherwise...that this could also mean "in the back"...of the house.
The Police still haven't confirmed that she was shot in "her" back.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I said I agree that a simple fall can kill the man, that does not equate to saying they attempted to kill him by tackling him.
They COULD have killed him sure, but that is different then attempting. Unless you can prove there sole purpose of tackling him was to kill him.

What if I shoot you in the face and you survive and chase me down. Does the fact you did not die and were able to get up and chase me minimize the crime?

I don't deal in what if's feel free to get back to me what this actually happens

Which means you hate the fact I posited a scenario that shows your point is wrong.

If you don't like attempted murder I will be happy to agree it was attempted manslaughter, which does not require intent to kill, only reasonable expectation the act can lead to death. Although California has an "implied malice" law which would actually result in this being attempted second degree murder possibly.

188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: bigx001

But money that can be used to acquire food is almost always kept in the safe.
And I agree that they don't need to 'body slam' him and I refute they did.

And the actual food is in the kitchen. So why are they in the safe not the kitchen? What food did they steal?