80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched [W:700]

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robber

CRUE CAB said:

So? You are the one whining about her fate. Blame her and her boyfriend, not the person they victimized.

Click to expand...

One crime doesn't excuse the other.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robber

Texmex said:

One crime doesn't excuse the other.

Click to expand...

So once you were laying there bleeding, broken and beaten. You would just watch your attackers walk away.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robber

He should have shot them while it was still self defense. When they are walking away is it no longer self defense. It is murder.

CRUE CAB said:

So once you were laying there bleeding, broken and beaten. You would just watch your attackers walk away.

Click to expand...

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robber

mak2 said:

He should have shot them while it was still self defense. When they are walking away is it no longer self defense. It is murder.

Click to expand...

Then why is he not in jail?

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robber

mak2 said:

He should have shot them while it was still self defense. When they are walking away is it no longer self defense. It is murder.

Click to expand...

According to the police chief, he did. Or rather, shot AT them. It was a continuation.

I wonder how many people have realistically placed themselves mentally in that situation. Put a timer on this process. You come home without a care in the world. Get pounced IN YOUR HOME by 2 assailants and according to the police chief, are beaten, bloodied, and bruised. You are then picked up and body slammed to the ground, breaking your collar bone. You manage to grab a weapon and fire, fire again, give chase and fire 2 more times. End of incident. The whole thing occurs literally in a matter of seconds.

Where is your adrenaline? What is your level of fear response (fight or flight)? At which point were you able to logically apply calm and reasoned thought?

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robber

Thom Paine said:

The mother cannot be removed from the situation.... the situation was created and caused by the mother.

Thom Paine

Click to expand...

I'm just curious and not trying to be snarky, but what if she had a baby in her hands and backed away using that baby as a shield....Would the old man have been justified then? If not, what is the difference?

I'm really tying to understand the justification of property as more valuable than life.

Even if I concede that shooting someone in defense of your property is permissible, can't anyone see how this cultural mindset will lead to innocent lives being lost?

Example...

High school track star shot and killed after jumping out of closet in prank gone horribly wrong: father - NY Daily News

So the response might be....Well, he should have identified his target before he shot....

Yes, that's true, but the reality is that a culture that values property over life this kind of thing will happen everyday. 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.

The problem is ALWAYS information. Do you have enough information to make a decision? Will your decision be judged in the light of the information you had, or should have considered on "Monday" when everyone reads about it?

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.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing his assailant

CRUE CAB said:

Cry a river for the low lifes that beat an old person. You are part of the problem.

Click to expand...

And what problem would that be? That a coward shooting people in the back should be legal?

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing his assailant

Black Dog said:

And what problem would that be? That a coward shooting people in the back should be legal?

Click to expand...

The part that you don't or refuse to see the reason she got shot. Basically, you don't care. All you care about is some mean old man used his gun and your anti gun stance wont allow you to give the elderly a break after being beaten severely. I suppose them killing him would have been just fine as long as he didn't fight back.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing his assailant

Anyway, I don't see in the article where he is "extremely pleased".

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing his assailant

CRUE CAB said:

The part that you don't or refuse to see the reason she got shot.

Click to expand...

I know exactly why she got shot... The man wanted to send a message. This is murder, not defence.

CRUE CAB said:

Basically, you don't care.

Click to expand...

About some coward who would shoot fleeing people in the back? You are correct, I don't. We have police to catch fleeing felons.

CRUE CAB said:

All you care about is some mean old man used his gun and your anti gun stance wont allow you to give the elderly a break after being beaten severely. I suppose them killing him would have been just fine as long as he didn't fight back.

Click to expand...

Wrong. You are however welcome to your opinion no matter how ignorant and uneducated it may sound.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing his assailant

CRUE CAB said:

Anyway, I don't see in the article where he is "extremely pleased".

Click to expand...

Watch the video. :roll:

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing his assailant

Black Dog said:

I know exactly why she got shot... The man wanted to send a message. This is murder, not defence.



About some coward who would shoot fleeing people in the back? You are correct, I don't. We have police to catch fleeing felons.



Wrong. You are however welcome to your opinion no matter how ignorant and uneducated it may sound.

Click to expand...

I guess as long as you "lean" anything other than conservative, you can call anyone anything you want. Bet I would be banned in a heart beat for calling you out as ignorant.
Either way. I have zero sympathy for the bitch.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing his assailant

CRUE CAB said:

I guess as long as you "lean" anything other than conservative, you can call anyone anything you want.

Click to expand...

I did not call you anything. I said your opinion is "your opinion no matter how ignorant and uneducated it may sound." Your view of what my statement was, or was not, is not the issue here.

And my "lean" has nothing to do with anything.

CRUE CAB said:

Bet I would be banned in a heart beat for calling you out as ignorant.

Click to expand...

This is off topic and irrelevant. If you called my statement "ignorant" I would not care and it is not against the rules.

CRUE CAB said:

Either way. I have zero sympathy for the bitch.

Click to expand...

I have no sympathy for her either. I do however know the difference between self defence and shooting an unarmed fleeing woman in the back.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing his assailant

Black Dog said:

I know exactly why she got shot... The man wanted to send a message. This is murder, not defence.

Click to expand...

Then you do not know what you think you do, as he did not say that.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing his assailant

Black Dog said:

I did not call you anything. I said your opinion is "your opinion no matter how ignorant and uneducated it may sound." Your view of what my statement was, or was not, is not the issue here.

And my "lean" has nothing to do with anything.



This is off topic and irrelevant. If you called my statement "ignorant" I would not care and it is not against the rules.



I have no sympathy for her either. I do however know the difference between self defence and shooting an unarmed fleeing woman in the back.

Click to expand...

Clearly you don't. Let me know your mind about these things when you are 80.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robber

csbrown28 said:

I'm just curious and not trying to be snarky, but what if she had a baby in her hands and backed away using that baby as a shield....Would the old man have been justified then? If not, what is the difference?

Click to expand...

Well placed head shot to mom of the year.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing his assailant

Excon said:

Then you do not know what you think you do, as he did not say that.

​

Click to expand...

He wanted to send a message or get revenge, period. He did not say it directly and I never claimed such.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing his assailant

CRUE CAB said:

Clearly you don't. Let me know your mind about these things when you are 80.

Click to expand...

When I am 80, I would still not shoot a fleeing person in the back. That is just a cowardly ***** thing to do.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing his assailant

Black Dog said:

The people in question turned to run, they were no longer a threat, period. He murdered the person. End of story. It is illegal to shoot someone fleeing because now there is no threat. It does not matter as to how many steps they took, they turned their backs to flee. At that point deadly force is no longer required.

Click to expand...

Of course you're right. That's a fair statement of the common law on the use of deadly force in self-defense. Quite a few states--maybe all--have modified that law by statute in some way. For example, the common-law rule required a person literally to have his back to the wall--even where a doorway allowed him to retreat into another room without undue risk, he had to do that to preserve his self-defense claim.

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.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robber

Thank you for the pleasant tenor of your response.. no snark taken eace

In order to keep myself from wandering Into an abyss of rambling, I kinda' sliced and diced your comments.

csbrown28 said:

I'm just curious and not trying to be snarky, but what if she had a baby in her hands and backed away using that baby as a shield....Would the old man have been justified then? If not, what is the difference?

Even if I concede that shooting someone in defense of your property is permissible, can't anyone see how this cultural mindset will lead to innocent lives being lost?
.................

The problem is ALWAYS information. Do you have enough information to make a decision? Will your decision be judged in the light of the information you had, or should have considered on "Monday" when everyone reads about it?

Click to expand...

Human shield : In my mind a human shield, in this specific situation, would likely make it a No Go. Not being there does hinder my judgement of the situation. The difference is in the event. She had injured and pummeled him into temporary submission, he had no reason to trust her statement, she may have had a weapon with which to kill him; Not being a 'High Noon on Main Street Western"... you may be dead before seeing that weapon appear.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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



Thom Paine

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robber

VanceMack said:

I see this is still going on...
So...If the 80 year old man was a cop, would this be judged a righteous shoot? Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It seems to meet criteria. The shooter (civilian or law enforcement) had just been attacked and had every reason to believe they posed a serious danger (if not now later). History proves him correct as this was not the dynamic duo's first caper.
I still think he was wrong. However...legally...I think a very strong case could be made that he acted in the same manner law enforcement has and does act in the past.

Click to expand...

First off, Greer was not trying to apprehend Miller.
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)

"if not now later" doesn't seem to meet the bar of "immediate".

but perhaps the mileage varies for some

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robber

VanceMack said:

They force him to open a safe...

Click to expand...

Greer said that he told the guy to go to Greer's garage and get some tools.
When the crooks went to go do that was when Greer got his weapon.
Greer is craftier than they were.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robber

VanceMack said:

According to the police chief, he did. Or rather, shot AT them. It was a continuation.
I wonder how many people have realistically placed themselves mentally in that situation. Put a timer on this process. You come home without a care in the world. Get pounced IN YOUR HOME by 2 assailants and according to the police chief, are beaten, bloodied, and bruised. You are then picked up and body slammed to the ground, breaking your collar bone. You manage to grab a weapon and fire, fire again, give chase and fire 2 more times. End of incident. The whole thing occurs literally in a matter of seconds.
Where is your adrenaline? What is your level of fear response (fight or flight)? At which point were you able to logically apply calm and reasoned thought?

Click to expand...

Suppose that We all did exactly this and reached the conclusion that we all would have done exactly as Greer did.
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.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robber

Simon W. Moon said:

First off, Greer was not trying to apprehend Miller.
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

Click to expand...

Where Greer would apply is in the shooting to prevent further or future harm. It could easily be argued that the shooting of these known dangerous felons fleeing the scene of this time prevented another 80 year old from getting waffle stomped and Recieving broken bones or worse. The justification is not in the prevention of future burglaries but rather the prevention of future assaults and in fact attempted murder.

Re: 80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robber

VanceMack said:

Where Greer would apply is in the shooting to prevent further or future harm. It could easily be argued that the shooting of these known dangerous felons fleeing the scene of this time prevented another 80 year old from getting waffle stomped and Recieving broken bones or worse. The justification is not in the prevention of future burglaries but rather the prevention of future assaults and in fact attempted murder.

Click to expand...

TN v Garner doesn't support the use of deadly force based on hypothetical murders at some unspecified point in time.
TNvG indicates that deadly force is justified to end existing threats, not to to prevent future threats.