If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KTLA Los Angeles)   For those who bet on "Suspect in home invasion was not pregnant," please step up to collect your prize   (ktla.com) divider line 333
    More: Followup, Long Beach, Los Angeles County District Attorney, elder abuse, weapon possession, burglary, homeowners  
•       •       •

10101 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jul 2014 at 12:13 PM (8 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



333 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-26 11:44:56 AM
Oh well in that case please, blast away with impunity!
 
2014-07-26 11:50:47 AM
whew.  guess that solves everything.
 
2014-07-26 11:52:56 AM
tribktla.files.wordpress.com
i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-07-26 11:53:23 AM
It doesn't matter to me if she was, hey tried to beat up an old man who caught them robbing his house.  She is the fault of her demise.
 
2014-07-26 11:56:28 AM
some folks just need killin'.........
 
2014-07-26 11:56:47 AM
If we're really pushing to move towards a society where it's ok for victims to execute criminals can I at least propose a compromise.

I just don't really feel comfortable with normal citizens playing judge, jury, and executioner.  Can we at least have a trained police officer perform the execution?  Once the criminal is detained, have an officer pop a bullet in the criminal's head?

Or if the whole point is to let the victim get revenge and some blood on their hands, at least have officers supervise the on the spot execution?  I'd just be more comfortable, personally, with this if we're heading there.
 
2014-07-26 11:59:25 AM

Roook: If we're really pushing to move towards a society where it's ok for victims to execute criminals can I at least propose a compromise.

I just don't really feel comfortable with normal citizens playing judge, jury, and executioner.  Can we at least have a trained police officer perform the execution?  Once the criminal is detained, have an officer pop a bullet in the criminal's head?

Or if the whole point is to let the victim get revenge and some blood on their hands, at least have officers supervise the on the spot execution?  I'd just be more comfortable, personally, with this if we're heading there.


because of course there are no crooked cops......
 
2014-07-26 12:03:44 PM
At first I was all "How could someone shoot someone in the back that was running away?"

And then i read about how they beat the shiat out of him and had robbed him multiple times so i could kinda see how in the moment with the adrenaline pumping you could do something like that with the fear that they might come back again.

Not saying its ok but its hardly 1st degree murder.
 
2014-07-26 12:09:33 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: At first I was all "How could someone shoot someone in the back that was running away?"

And then i read about how they beat the shiat out of him and had robbed him multiple times so i could kinda see how in the moment with the adrenaline pumping you could do something like that with the fear that they might come back again.

Not saying its ok but its hardly 1st degree murder.


The old man hasn't been charged.
This is the USA.
In Canada the old guy would be charged with manslaughter
 
2014-07-26 12:12:46 PM
If only there had been a bad guy with a gun.   Let this be a lesson to all the bad people, don't break into a house unless you are well armed, and prepared to shoot.
 
2014-07-26 12:16:02 PM
It's a good thing the shooter gave her a pee test before firing the second shot.
 
2014-07-26 12:16:17 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: At first I was all "How could someone shoot someone in the back that was running away?"

And then i read about how they beat the shiat out of him and had robbed him multiple times so i could kinda see how in the moment with the adrenaline pumping you could do something like that with the fear that they might come back again.

Not saying its ok but its hardly 1st degree murder.


Actually, it looks very much like first degree murder. Shooting an unarmed person in the back. Twice.
I shake my head when I've been reading the comments on these articles. So many claim "they may have been going to get guns and come back" as some kind of defense for this guy. REALLY? You'd think that if they had guns, they'd have brought them to the robbery in the first place.
 
2014-07-26 12:18:45 PM

vudutek: Actually, it looks very much like first degree murder. Shooting an unarmed person in the back. Twice.


No, it doesn't.  2nd degree at most.  People don't instantly calm down and become rational when the person who just broke your bones turns to run.
 
2014-07-26 12:20:28 PM
So not only is she a repeat burglar, but she's a LIAR too.Stop doing stupid shiat if you don't want to pay the penalty. Was the penalty overly harsh in this situation? Probably, yea. But for the life of me I can't imagine why anyone feels sorry for her. It's a very simple concept. Don't repeatedly rob people and you might not get executed in an alley.
 
2014-07-26 12:20:39 PM
maybe she should pick another line of work. not biatch and blame about where her choices landed her. pregnant or not I would have shot, why should I have more concern for her pregnancy than she did?

yes feel the same way about dale whatever in nascar or who ever dies at their job that has very high risks and isn't necessary, racing cars isn't necessary, it's a paid hobby. you knew it going in, take responsibility, I'm not crying because your choice, I feel bad for the parent who dies on the freeway going to work.
 
2014-07-26 12:21:23 PM

plmyfngr: Roook: If we're really pushing to move towards a society where it's ok for victims to execute criminals can I at least propose a compromise.

I just don't really feel comfortable with normal citizens playing judge, jury, and executioner.  Can we at least have a trained police officer perform the execution?  Once the criminal is detained, have an officer pop a bullet in the criminal's head?

Or if the whole point is to let the victim get revenge and some blood on their hands, at least have officers supervise the on the spot execution?  I'd just be more comfortable, personally, with this if we're heading there.

because of course there are no crooked cops......


A bet you think Jonathan Swift ate babies.
 
2014-07-26 12:21:28 PM

plmyfngr: Roook: If we're really pushing to move towards a society where it's ok for victims to execute criminals can I at least propose a compromise.

I just don't really feel comfortable with normal citizens playing judge, jury, and executioner.  Can we at least have a trained police officer perform the execution?  Once the criminal is detained, have an officer pop a bullet in the criminal's head?

Or if the whole point is to let the victim get revenge and some blood on their hands, at least have officers supervise the on the spot execution?  I'd just be more comfortable, personally, with this if we're heading there.

because of course there are no crooked cops......


I'm pretty sure it was just a modest proposal.
 
2014-07-26 12:21:45 PM

brap: Oh well in that case please, blast away with impunity!


On my property, stealing my stuff and threatening my life? Absolutely. Rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6, and given that they had already beaten him and robbed him multiple times, I'd rather take the risk of a manslaughter charge than the risk of death.

I'm not saying "don't try him." I'm saying "don't try him for murder." A manslaughter charge seems appropriate here.
 
2014-07-26 12:22:07 PM
Gun laws in this country are way too confusing:
fire a warning shot - jail
starting a fight then shooting - no jail
firing on cops doing a no-knock warrent on the wrong house - jail
shooting someone turning around in your driveway - no jail
booby-traps - jail
shooting thru your door at someone in the middle of the night - no jail

We really need to be on the same page here.
 
2014-07-26 12:22:47 PM
Why did this come up in the first place? Did someone tell the police that Miller was pregnant, or was she just suspiciously fat?
 
2014-07-26 12:23:26 PM

Roook: If we're really pushing to move towards a society where it's ok for victims to execute criminals ...



How can this possibly be an issue?
 
2014-07-26 12:24:06 PM

vudutek: Doktor_Zhivago: At first I was all "How could someone shoot someone in the back that was running away?"

And then i read about how they beat the shiat out of him and had robbed him multiple times so i could kinda see how in the moment with the adrenaline pumping you could do something like that with the fear that they might come back again.

Not saying its ok but its hardly 1st degree murder.

Actually, it looks very much like first degree murder. Shooting an unarmed person in the back. Twice.
I shake my head when I've been reading the comments on these articles. So many claim "they may have been going to get guns and come back" as some kind of defense for this guy. REALLY? You'd think that if they had guns, they'd have brought them to the robbery in the first place.


Yes, clearly the guy who was robbed and beaten is the criminal here. Let's demand justice for the lady that broke into his house, assaulted him and when the consequences of such finally caught up with her, she lied about being pregnant to save her own ass.

She's obviously the victim here, the 80-year-old man that was at the end of his rope with being robbed and beaten needs to be in prison.
 
2014-07-26 12:24:56 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: At first I was all "How could someone shoot someone in the back that was running away?"

And then i read about how they beat the shiat out of him and had robbed him multiple times so i could kinda see how in the moment with the adrenaline pumping you could do something like that with the fear that they might come back again.

Not saying its ok but its hardly 1st degree murder.


I got no problem with him shooting any criminal in his house, even in the back.  But you CAN'T chase them into the alley, shoot them in the back, and then execute them on the ground.
 
2014-07-26 12:25:14 PM

Hickory-smoked: Why did this come up in the first place? Did someone tell the police that Miller was pregnant, or was she just suspiciously fat?


IIRC he told the cops she said that right before he shot her.
 
2014-07-26 12:26:08 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Doktor_Zhivago: At first I was all "How could someone shoot someone in the back that was running away?"

And then i read about how they beat the shiat out of him and had robbed him multiple times so i could kinda see how in the moment with the adrenaline pumping you could do something like that with the fear that they might come back again.

Not saying its ok but its hardly 1st degree murder.

I got no problem with him shooting any criminal in his house, even in the back.  But you CAN'T chase them into the alley, shoot them in the back, and then execute them on the ground.


Right, That's the what the police are for.
 
2014-07-26 12:26:43 PM
look folks, there are those of us living among you that can barely maintain, and the social contract is the only thing keeping us centered. Violation of this contract can result in a hell of a reaction, and just a heads up, we are very armed, and very paranoid.... but hey, if the 7 dollars in my wallet is worth your life, by all means try your luck.  I will be in your house taking anything and everything of value during your funeral.
 
2014-07-26 12:26:47 PM

Roook: If we're really pushing to move towards a society where it's ok for victims to execute criminals can I at least propose a compromise.

I just don't really feel comfortable with normal citizens playing judge, jury, and executioner.  Can we at least have a trained police officer perform the execution?  Once the criminal is detained, have an officer pop a bullet in the criminal's head?

Or if the whole point is to let the victim get revenge and some blood on their hands, at least have officers supervise the on the spot execution?  I'd just be more comfortable, personally, with this if we're heading there.


The point is so they don't come back. This was the 3rd or 4th time they were at the house. Additionally by killing the woman her accomplice is now being charged with murder, so he won't get a prison sentence for 10 years and out on parole in 2.5 for good behavior and overcrowding.

I have zero problem with beating an 80 year old man AND beating a lawful occupant of a house while committing burglary both being capital offenses. That is pretty much the definition of a dangerous criminal with vanishingly small chance of rehabilitation.
 
2014-07-26 12:26:50 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Doktor_Zhivago: At first I was all "How could someone shoot someone in the back that was running away?"

And then i read about how they beat the shiat out of him and had robbed him multiple times so i could kinda see how in the moment with the adrenaline pumping you could do something like that with the fear that they might come back again.

Not saying its ok but its hardly 1st degree murder.

I got no problem with him shooting any criminal in his house, even in the back.  But you CAN'T chase them into the alley, shoot them in the back, and then execute them on the ground.



How can you say that?  An 80-year-old guy just did it!
Q.E.D.
 
2014-07-26 12:27:18 PM

vudutek: Doktor_Zhivago: At first I was all "How could someone shoot someone in the back that was running away?"

And then i read about how they beat the shiat out of him and had robbed him multiple times so i could kinda see how in the moment with the adrenaline pumping you could do something like that with the fear that they might come back again.

Not saying its ok but its hardly 1st degree murder.

Actually, it looks very much like first degree murder. Shooting an unarmed person in the back. Twice.
I shake my head when I've been reading the comments on these articles. So many claim "they may have been going to get guns and come back" as some kind of defense for this guy. REALLY? You'd think that if they had guns, they'd have brought them to the robbery in the first place.


your Florida is showing
 
2014-07-26 12:27:28 PM

vudutek: Doktor_Zhivago: At first I was all "How could someone shoot someone in the back that was running away?"

And then i read about how they beat the shiat out of him and had robbed him multiple times so i could kinda see how in the moment with the adrenaline pumping you could do something like that with the fear that they might come back again.

Not saying its ok but its hardly 1st degree murder.

Actually, it looks very much like first degree murder. Shooting an unarmed person in the back. Twice.


My intensive legal training (Law & Order, Seasons 1 through 15) leads me to believe this counts as second-degree murder. First-degree involves some premeditation and planning. This was deliberate, but also heat of the moment.
 
2014-07-26 12:27:33 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Doktor_Zhivago: At first I was all "How could someone shoot someone in the back that was running away?"

And then i read about how they beat the shiat out of him and had robbed him multiple times so i could kinda see how in the moment with the adrenaline pumping you could do something like that with the fear that they might come back again.

Not saying its ok but its hardly 1st degree murder.

I got no problem with him shooting any criminal in his house, even in the back.  But you CAN'T chase them into the alley, shoot them in the back, and then execute them on the ground.


Nonono... you CAN. That's the thing. You are confusing "Shouldn't" with can't"
 
2014-07-26 12:27:41 PM

basemetal: It doesn't matter to me if she was, hey tried to beat up an old man who caught them robbing his house.  She is the fault of her demise.


I can't say I feel very sorry for her.

But in some countries, shooting dead a burglar in the back when they've left your property isn't actually deemed "reasonable force". And is illegal. Really quite illegal.
 
2014-07-26 12:28:34 PM

Yogimus: Roook: If we're really pushing to move towards a society where it's ok for victims to execute criminals ...


How can this possibly be an issue?


Because Fark has decided that the correct penalty for every crime is pretty much "death". Because your average joe or Jane will have more issues than they think they will when they pull the trigger on another person. Because people have faked crime scenes to get away with murder before.
 
2014-07-26 12:29:25 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Doktor_Zhivago: At first I was all "How could someone shoot someone in the back that was running away?"

And then i read about how they beat the shiat out of him and had robbed him multiple times so i could kinda see how in the moment with the adrenaline pumping you could do something like that with the fear that they might come back again.

Not saying its ok but its hardly 1st degree murder.

I got no problem with him shooting any criminal in his house, even in the back.  But you CAN'T chase them into the alley, shoot them in the back, and then execute them on the ground.


Oh that's definatly true.

You just can't treat someone who just went through a brutal home invasion as being in a rational mental state.
 
2014-07-26 12:29:26 PM
Holy shiat that guy's mom just made me blind.
 
2014-07-26 12:30:39 PM
The mother's dead eyes are going to haunt my nightmares.

I'm still not sorry she's dead, and I'm glad they didn't charge the old trigger-happy coot.  Yes, I already know I'm a terrible person.
 
2014-07-26 12:31:03 PM
A woman lied about pregnancy in an attempt to manipulate a man? GTFO
 
2014-07-26 12:31:06 PM

BSABSVR: Holy shiat that guy's mom just made me blind.


yeah that's a tough 49 years
 
2014-07-26 12:31:09 PM

vudutek: Actually, it looks very much like first degree murder. Shooting an unarmed person in the back. Twice.


The thing is, they don't know when she was hit--he was shooting at them inside the house too. If he made the shot that killed her while they were still in his house, then it's self-defense. He admits to shooting her again while she was outside, but did he hit her twice while she was lying there, begging for her life? Or did she fail to get away because she'd been shot once already? That's not for certain. The police probably know by now, if they did even piss-poor CSI work, but they aren't saying.

And let's face it, there's not much sympathy for the two crooks here. Two wrongs don't make a right, but they might make an old guy with a busted collarbone a little right-er.
 
2014-07-26 12:31:35 PM

Roook: If we're really pushing to move towards a society where it's ok for victims to execute criminals can I at least propose a compromise.

I just don't really feel comfortable with normal citizens playing judge, jury, and executioner.  Can we at least have a trained police officer perform the execution?  Once the criminal is detained, have an officer pop a bullet in the criminal's head?

Or if the whole point is to let the victim get revenge and some blood on their hands, at least have officers supervise the on the spot execution?  I'd just be more comfortable, personally, with this if we're heading there.


Frail old guy, they injured him, these people robbed him twice before.  The odds aren't in his favor that the next time they rob him, they don't kill him.  Knowing he's armed, they might just come back with a gun for revenge, because he made them run like schoolgirls with their hair on fire.

I'm not saying that what happened here was ideal, but it is understandable to me.  Screw people who prey on the most vulnerable in our society.

Vigilante justice thrives when the police aren't doing their jobs.  Maybe you should go to the equivalent of your local town meeting and vote for more police funding/training/operations dollars?
 
2014-07-26 12:32:17 PM

BSABSVR: Yogimus: Roook: If we're really pushing to move towards a society where it's ok for victims to execute criminals ...


How can this possibly be an issue?

Because Fark has decided that the correct penalty for every crime is pretty much "death". Because your average joe or Jane will have more issues than they think they will when they pull the trigger on another person. Because people have faked crime scenes to get away with murder before.


Death may not be the CORRECT penalty, per se, but it sure as shiat needs to be on the table, at least from the criminal's point of view. Any crime that has an actual victim should have the potential to be a life ending experience.
 
2014-07-26 12:33:54 PM

vudutek: Actually, it looks very much like first degree murder. Shooting an unarmed person in the back. Twice.
I shake my head when I've been reading the comments on these articles. So many claim "they may have been going to get guns and come back" as some kind of defense for this guy. REALLY? You'd think that if they had guns, they'd have brought them to the robbery in the first place.


The old man did not have motive. He did wake up that morning hoping to kill somebody that day. After they beat him up his intentions were to stop it from happening again.

He was minding his own business. They got up that morning and planned a burglary.

Why is the old man responsible for exercising self control to judge when she's no longer a threat and stop shooting? In the heat of the moment when you've been beaten up and you're angry and fearful they will come back that is no small task. He never asked for that responsibility or put himself in a position where that should be expected of him (e.g. law enforcement).
 
2014-07-26 12:35:09 PM

whither_apophis: Gun laws in this country are way too confusing:
fire a warning shot - jail


A warning shot just doesn't dissipate into the air, you know.  It will come down somewhere.  And if you're careless enough not to consider that you quite frankly deserve a little time in the pokey.
 
2014-07-26 12:35:34 PM
The woman was obviously wrong for beating and attempting to rob an old man.

The old man is wrong because assault and robbery are not capital crimes. We could, as a society, make them such but we have chosen to impose lesser penalties. The old man shot a fleeing person (who was no immediate threat to him) in the back twice. That is straight up second degree murder.
 
2014-07-26 12:35:59 PM
Sad story.
 
2014-07-26 12:36:52 PM
I'd definitely say manslaughter. Let a jury decide if it's reprehensible. Two people break into your home, beat you up and rob you . . . if you shoot them in the next hour, I think that reasonably falls under a normal reaction to extreme duress.

This is nothing like a police shooting. The average person has not been trained to deal with this kind of situation. Firearm training doesn't do it, either. The amount of justified anger and adrenaline in your system . . . rational decision-making may be impossible, and judging right from wrong, too. If I were on the jury, absolutely I'd be disposed to vote for a temporary insanity defense.
 
2014-07-26 12:37:08 PM
Good. Dig her up and shoot her again.
 
2014-07-26 12:37:38 PM

vegaswench: The mother's dead eyes are going to haunt my nightmares.

I'm still not sorry she's dead, and I'm glad they didn't charge the old trigger-happy coot.  Yes, I already know I'm a terrible person.


No, your not a terrible person. Your putting the blame on the right person. Only the robber is at fault.
 
2014-07-26 12:38:59 PM

FormlessOne: brap: Oh well in that case please, blast away with impunity!

On my property, stealing my stuff and threatening my life? Absolutely. Rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6, and given that they had already beaten him and robbed him multiple times, I'd rather take the risk of a manslaughter charge than the risk of death.

I'm not saying "don't try him." I'm saying "don't try him for murder." A manslaughter charge seems appropriate here.


He should have kept his mouth shut about the rest and forced ballistics to try to sort out what happened.

hohoho now i have a shotgun
 
2014-07-26 12:39:07 PM
Good news for conservatives who won't have defend their hero for performing an abortion.
 
Displayed 50 of 333 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report