Some states have gone further yet, eliminating the requirement that the person acting in self-defense act inside his dwelling. The use of deadly force in self-defense or defense of another sometimes may qualify as self-defense if it occurs in a workplace. Or it may qualify if it occurs in a space immediately adjacent to the dwelling, like a porch or deck. And there are states that allow deadly force in self-defense in open outside areas--i.e. public spaces--in self-defense against attackers.
I doubt California law considers it self-defense to shoot a fleeing burglar well outside your dwelling. I doubt even more it consider it that when the burglar is unarmed, has clearly submitted by pleading for her life, and is running away down an alley. One thing that looks especially bad for Greer--for at least two reasons--is that he admitted dragging the woman back onto his property after shooting her twice in the back.
First, considering that he's 80, the fact he was still able to drag her suggests the injuries the burglars inflicted on his collarbone, etc. can't have been so severe as to put a reasonable man in fear of his life. It would be interesting to know how much she weighed. And second, it strongly suggests Greer knew it was wrong of him to have shot her under the circumstances, and was trying to make himself look better.
But the D.A. knows many people don't care about illegal violence any more than these burglars did--maybe even less--as long as they think the victim got his comeuppance and it was someone else who gave it to him. So a D.A. does have some discretion in indicting people for crimes--but that should never mean letting a person get away with murder.
If you want to see the bad guys getting their just deserts from a vigilante after weak-sister politicians and shyster lawyers let them go free on technicalities, go rent a couple of Charles Bronson's Death Wish movies. I love to watch Paul Kersey track those roaches down and send them to hell.
Thank you for the pleasant tenor of your response.. no snark taken
In order to keep myself from wandering Into an abyss of rambling, I kinda' sliced and diced your comments.
I believe your above statement may be where discussions have gone askew. People have chosen to assume the party was shot solely due to the theft of property.I'm really tying to understand the justification of property as more valuable than life...... but the reality is that a culture that values property over life this kind of thing will happen everyday....Protecting ones life is one thing, but killing someone because someone stole what amounts to a few hours of my labor.....Ummmm....I'm not convinced that unilateral lethal force is the cultural direction I advocate.
Let's use a "reasonable man" consideration; bearing in mind we are not discussing my reasoning or your reasoning. The question remains:
Given the exact man, exact circumstance, the exact moment ..... was that man's responsive action, to the existing and probable retributive life endangerment, not responsible. ? Life Endangerment .... This is the motivation for the shooting... not the theft of property.
Respectfully, I disagree. There are many places to verify differences if you care to seek them out. Most LEO innocent shootings are because they have lousy aim.... private carriers are generally far more practiced.Most people that own firearms aren't capable of the mental dexterity it takes to evaluate a situation in a split second before making the determination to deploy lethal force. That's not intended to be insulting. It takes training, LOT's of training under the right circumstances. Most police don't possess the mental dexterity necessary, which is why we hear about lethal force being used when it probably shouldn't have.
And this all started with .. The mother, alone, has the onus for the child's life.
Thanks for the response CSB
Celebrate something good in the world every day
Remember, on the other side of that screen is a real person. ( Missouri Mule )
Greer intended to kill Miller.
So even if Greer had been a cop, this still would have been murder because he made no attempt to capture Miller.
But, as to TN v Garner...
The case seems to say that Greer's shooting Miller would not be a "good shoot".
TN v Garner itself deals with a burglary suspect who was shot by police while fleeing. That shooting was ruled a bad shooting.
TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
"While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous."
"Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so."
"if not now later" doesn't seem to meet the bar of "immediate".
but perhaps the mileage varies for some
I may be wrong.
I may be wrong.
Doesn't seem to change the law or the ethics of it.
There're all sorts of situations where people will do the wrong thing. No matter how many people choose to do the wrong thing, it's still wrong.
And until a large enough group of people/resources are amassed to change the law, the popularity of the choice doesn't have an impact on the law.
Certainly doesn't have an impact on the law as it stands now.
I may be wrong.
I may be wrong.