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

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No it just means that a situation where you shoot me in the face and I walk away from it is completely irrelevant.

You can trump up all the imaginary charges you need, but at the end of the day the police, the ones that actually investigated this and know the law decided it wasn't either.
Probably from the lack of injuries.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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?

...Really? My point was that they could have been taking the money to go buy food with it.
But money that can be used to acquire food is almost always kept in the safe.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No it just means that a situation where you shoot me in the face and I walk away from it is completely irrelevant.

You can trump up all the imaginary charges you need, but at the end of the day the police, the ones that actually investigated this and know the law decided it wasn't either.
Probably from the lack of injuries.

Broken bones is lack of injuries? There were no lack of injuries. It's completely relevant when you claim the fact he was able to get up and walk away is the sole determining factor you gave. I showed that the sole factor you used is not a relevant factor, at all.

originally posted by: Sremmos80

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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?

...Really? My point was that they could have been taking the money to go buy food with it.
But money that can be used to acquire food is almost always kept in the safe.

Which is pointless. Then the goal is stealing money, not feeding themselves. If the goal is feeding yourself then you take the food to feed yourself. No one says I am soooooo hungry, but don't give me food I only want your money. Can you imagine going to a food shelter and asking them to give you money so you can eat? No, me neither.

a reply to: Sremmos80

The police dont issue charges, the PA does.

There is a difference between police submitting a probable cause affidavit and police submitting their reports to the PA for review with the possibility of charges by the PA.

A PC is the police stating they have enough evidence for a specific charge(s) against a suspect.
A report being submitted without a PC leaves it up to the Prosecuting Attorney. They will usually have their investigators do some follow ups and go from there.

In situations like this you make sure your ducks are in a row. If you file charges and arrest the person and it turns out at the prelim hearing there is not enough evidence, charges can be dismissed with prejudice, which means the PA cannot refile charges unless they have new compelling evidence.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Either way talking about charges is pointless, I said from my first post legally the old man is guilty of murder. Ethically it's clear they had complete disregard for his life, and I would not convict him. Had they ran when he got home and he chased and shot them I would have no problem finding him guilty.

Although I posted actual California law that absolutely supports a possible attempted second degree murder charge with implied malice. No point in debating it though because it's pointless.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes a single broken bone is lack of injury when you are throwing around attempted murder/manslaughter.
That wasn't a sole factor, it was a contributing factor to the point that he wasn't savagely beaten.
You hypothetical situation is not relevant, no matter what way you spin it.
But I'll entertain you, if they shot this man in the face I would be all for attempted murder. Cause when you shoot someone in the face, you are planning to kill them. So no me getting up and chasing you would not lessen the charge in that completely made up scenario.

And I will agree that they were most likely not stealing for food or to get money for food. They were probably stealing to get money for drugs. Cause lack of those when you are addicted will make do some extreme things, even choosing them over food.
But I don't know that for sure, they still could of been stealing money to pay rent and buy groceries with the money.
No one knows but the male, the female and the big guy upstairs.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Ya your right I worded that wrong, but the male would have that charge by now as it would of been part of setting the bail

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The law you posted was about a death, not an assault.
"It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart. "

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes a single broken bone is lack of injury when you are throwing around attempted murder/manslaughter.

Maybe you need to look at the links I sent you that prove a single broken bone can be a death sentence at 80. The collar bone probably won't be, but actually still could lead to death.

You simply are not taking his age into account, and how that alters the entire situation.

Shaking a 25 year old is no big deal, shaking a baby can be attempted murder.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And it all boils down to intent.
I am taking his age into account, that is why I am saying if want to say he was beaten with no regard to his life, why is the only injury to his frail body received was one that is most commonly sustained in a fall?
I never doubted that they attacked him and took/threw him to the ground causing injury. Just can't see that as having 0 regard for his life. If they wanted to kill him, they easily could have.
The only one that showed 0 regard for a life was the man that shot the lady.
A single broken bone can kill any one if it is not treated correctly. Doesn't mean every assault with a broken bone should be attempted murder/manslaughter.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And it all boils down to intent.

Actually I already showed you the implied malice law covers that.

I am taking his age into account, that is why I am saying if want to say he was beaten with no regard to his life, why is the only injury to his frail body received was one that is most commonly sustained in a fall?

Why is anyone slamming a frail body to the ground at all?

I never doubted that they attacked him and took/threw him to the ground causing injury. Just can't see that as having 0 regard for his life. If they wanted to kill him, they easily could have.

I think maybe I found the problem. Zero regard does not mean they wanted him dead, it means they simply did not care either way.

The only one that showed 0 regard for a life was the man that shot the lady.
A single broken bone can kill any one if it is not treated correctly. Doesn't mean every assault with a broken bone should be attempted murder/manslaughter.

I agree he had no regard for her, I do not blame him. Whether the bone broke or not is not the relevant portion, HOW it was broken is. Is it reasonable the assault would cause injuries leading to death. In this case I say yes, it is.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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?

there's the reality of trying to defend the burglars as being there to just steal sustenance, they weren't. their actions indicate otherwise

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Xcathdra
Ya your right I worded that wrong, but the male would have that charge by now as it would of been part of setting the bail

No worries man... Was not trying to harp on ya or anything.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Under the current circumstances considering the beating he received combined with the adrenaline rush and understandable fear of the two returning he is justified. Yes there are laws about discharging firearms in public, outdoor populated areas. Unreasonable laws that should apply if a bystander manages to get hit. I say unreasonable because I have one experience with the matter. I'll make it quick.

Friend of mine gets his house shot up by 3 18-20 year old wanna be gangbangers over an ex girlfriend, of all things. After the shooting stops he goes outside and unloads into their car, hitting them and only them. He gets arrested. Was told he should have just sat and waited for the shooting to stop, or the next volley after they reloaded. Arrested for shooting into an occupied vehicle(occupied with 3 armed fools who proved they had intent to kill). Unreasonable.

My point with my reasoning above is simple. A person does not act rationally when they are under attack. A person cannot simply turn off his survival instincts because the law demands so. Once again, unreasonable.

Next I'll point this out solely for contemplation: An off-duty LEO performs this same shooting as the old man, under the same circumstances, they would be buying him a round of drinks and no charges would be filed.

Equal protection under the law....if only that applied to everyone..equally.

My comments on this are probably going to be unwelcome, since i'm British and our mindset and laws are subtly different, but I'm going to make them regardless.

In my opinion:
The use of deadly force during an attack, can be justified. I don't have a problem with that. The second the attackers broke off their attack and fled, then the victim was no longer defending himself. Since he is no longer defending himself, he is no longer entitled to wield deadly force.

When he pursued them, his status changed from victim to aggressor.

When he pulled the trigger outside of the self-defence scope, thats assault with a deadly weapon.

When his target died as a result of the gunshot, outside of the self-defence scope, thats murder, maybe manslaughter at best. But definitely an unlawful killing.

Those are just my opinions however.

originally posted by: BMorris
My comments on this are probably going to be unwelcome, since i'm British and our mindset and laws are subtly different, but I'm going to make them regardless.

In my opinion:
The use of deadly force during an attack, can be justified. I don't have a problem with that. The second the attackers broke off their attack and fled, then the victim was no longer defending himself. Since he is no longer defending himself, he is no longer entitled to wield deadly force.

When he pursued them, his status changed from victim to aggressor.

When he pulled the trigger outside of the self-defence scope, thats assault with a deadly weapon.

When his target died as a result of the gunshot, outside of the self-defence scope, thats murder, maybe manslaughter at best. But definitely an unlawful killing.

Those are just my opinions however.

Your opinion is welcome, and I respect it. I do however respectfully disagree ... and agree.

Legally he broke the law. I would not have done what he did. I also simply can not fault him for doing it as I personally believe the crime committed is worth the death penalty. I have no issue with anyone who disagrees with me. Especially not one of my brothers from across the pond. I really want to visit your amazing country again soon.

a reply to: BMorris

Unwelcome by some but completely correct and accurate based on law.

For a civilian use of force can be used in defense of self or a 4rd party. The level of force mused must be in proportion to whats going on. Once the aggression on the part of the suspect begins to deescalate so must the victims.

The moment the immediate threat ends, the victim must also comply. Engaging the person inside the residence is one thing. Following the threat, which is now fleeing, out the door the victim continued to force an encounter.

The courts are very clear that a person taking an action that will result in use of deadly force is a no no. Even for law enforcement. Pit maneuvers to end police pursuits are a use of deadly force in almost all states.

If police set up a road block because a motor vehicle pursuit is coming there way are required by Supreme Court ruling to leave an avenue of escape. Its also a reason why you dont see cops running in front of a suspect vehicle involved in a pursuit, gun drawn in an attempt to stop the pursuit.

Taking an action that escalates into deadly force is a no go. That includes running after the suspects and engaging a fleeing target.

If the suspects were armed and already used their firearms then chances are his action might have been lawful since it could be argued the 2 were an immediate threat to the public at large. Being its California, and they are a duty to retreat state, I doubt it, but you never know.

Prosecutors filed murder, burglary, robbery and weapons charges against Gus Adams, 26, a suspected accomplice of Miller

Police said Friday that Adams' mother, Ruby Adams, also was involved, and she was arrested Thursday night on suspicion of robbery.

"The problem here is that all this happens very fast and his legal right to use force probably ended just a few seconds before he did use deadly force," Rosenthal said. "So the question is should you charge somebody on the basis of what really was a series of split-second decisions when he's just been robbed and physically assaulted?"

Wonder what the weapon was?

Mom too, a family affair.

The grey area as discussed here.

McDonnell declined to say how many shots were fired or to confirm that Miller was shot in the back

a reply to: defcon5
And there in lies the problem how do you prove retribution of an action? He did not continue running after the male suspect, but stopped when he had killed the woman. If it was an act of retribution, would not he had gotten into his car and tried to find the male, forgoing calling the police? They fact that he did, does not necessarily show retribution on his part.

a reply to: Sremmos80
That he answered in his statement, he was under the belief that these 2 persons had broken into his home before and had stolen from him. He has stated and it should be on record, that his home was broken into at least 3 times prior, where items were stolen from the home. Even his estranged wife stated that much, as she witnessed one of the break in's first hand, watching the persons steal her jewelry.