Do you have adblock enabled?
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 330
    More: Followup, Long Beach, Los Angeles County District Attorney, elder abuse, weapon possession, burglary, homeowners  
•       •       •

10234 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jul 2014 at 12:13 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



330 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2014-07-26 12:39:42 PM  

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


You are very good at typing.
 
2014-07-26 12:40:07 PM  

Prophet of Loss: 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.


Death by Misadventure
 
2014-07-26 12:40:26 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.


Dredd? Is that you?
 
2014-07-26 12:41:19 PM  
Chris Rock "but I understand..."
 
2014-07-26 12:41:39 PM  
Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.

YMMV but your patriotism does not exceed mine.
 
2014-07-26 12:43:02 PM  
Think of it as evolution in action.
 
2014-07-26 12:43:19 PM  

RandomAxe: 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.


In the video that is somewhere, the old guy is talking about how he came in on them, and they just ignored him and kept right on going through his safe. That was either before or after they threw him to the ground, probably after. I don't know, I'm a pretty pacifistic person, but if some farkers were in my house robbing me AGAIN, and they didn't even have the decency to run away when I caught them, just kind of stood there and laughed at my oldness and frailty, after beating me up.....I might do the same thing.
 
2014-07-26 12:43:33 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.


I agree with you. its not like we are running low on home invasion robbers who beat down their elderly victims. Losing one wont make them endangered or in need of protection.
 
2014-07-26 12:43:50 PM  

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


As someone who has been a victim of a home invasion, I agree.  Someone violates my home in the commission of a crime and I don't care why they are there.  If you are then forced to defend yourself as a result, it is perfectly acceptable for him/her/them to never get up again.
 
2014-07-26 12:43:59 PM  

Repack Rider: Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.

YMMV but your patriotism does not exceed mine.


I would much rather you kill them then have them rob me the day after
 
2014-07-26 12:45:50 PM  

Repack Rider: Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.

YMMV but your patriotism does not exceed mine.


Having gone through that while I was living alone, I won't tolerate the possibility of that happening to my family.

I'd rather live with the knowledge that I shot someone to death than live with the knowledge that my wife was beaten or killed because I couldn't or didn't stop it.
 
2014-07-26 12:45:57 PM  

whither_apophis: 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.


It's pretty straightforward actually. Do the opposite of how the rest of the developed world operates.
 
2014-07-26 12:46:20 PM  

Repack Rider: Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.



No wonder we lost in Iraq.
 
2014-07-26 12:47:16 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.


Its not so much that its the correct punishment, more of an occupational hazard catching up with someone. If your occupation is breaking into houses, you just may run into someone that takes offense at that. That just might mean getting hurt or killed.

If you get hurt doing honest work, I'll feel bad. Get hurt digging coal or falling off a ladder or something, you have at least my sympathy. Get shot running away from a burglary where you brutally beat an old man? It may not be legal, may not even be moral, but I'm struggling to care.
 
2014-07-26 12:48:05 PM  
RandomAxe: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.

That brings up an interesting point. If he was better trained and a better shot, they'd both be lying in the coroner's office with head shots after being scraped off the livingroom floor and we wouldn't be having this debate at all. I guess the NRA is right that it's worth the time and money to visit your local shooting range.
 
2014-07-26 12:49:18 PM  
I have no sympathy for the crooks, even if she was pregnant.  If she was, I'd just count that as a service to society because you know that kid would grow up living off the government and continuing in mom's footsteps.  Probably running outside and executing her isn't a good idea, but nothing will happen to him because he is old, and old people get a pass for everything.
 
2014-07-26 12:50:27 PM  

Eirik: Get shot running away from a burglary where you brutally beat an old man? It may not be legal, may not even be moral, but I'm struggling to care.


I'm failing to see how spending $50,000 a year to imprison an 80 year old man who is not a threat to the general public is a valuable use of resources.
 
2014-07-26 12:50:29 PM  

Repack Rider: Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.

YMMV but your patriotism does not exceed mine.


where do you live??...you sound like an easy mark.......
 
2014-07-26 12:52:07 PM  
How do you know random people breaking into your house are gonna stop at beating you up a little?

I'm confused
 
2014-07-26 12:53:03 PM  

plmyfngr: Repack Rider: Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.

YMMV but your patriotism does not exceed mine.

where do you live??...you sound like an easy mark.......


Some people value the life of another above their own. This is admirable. Some value the life of another at... oh, about a buck fifty. This is notable
 
2014-07-26 12:53:18 PM  

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

As someone who has been a victim of a home invasion, I agree.  Someone violates my home in the commission of a crime and I don't care why they are there.  If you are then forced to defend yourself as a result, it is perfectly acceptable for him/her/them to never get up again.


Rock on Mr. Bronson.  My worldview differs from yours!   You should try consider Jainism.  It helps you let go of the "stuff" in the world.
 
2014-07-26 12:54:25 PM  
I hope you all are getting an understanding of how the criminal element gets away with so much shiat.

Nothing was done to stop these people from assaulting and robbing the old man repeatedly.

Then he finally decides if he doesn't shoot to kill they'll probably come back and injure him to the point where he will be hospitalized and lose his home.

So he did what he had to do. And the cops and prosecutors didn't do what they had to do to keep these people away from an old man.

I'm sorry he killed someone but a patrol car parked on the neighborhood street and routine patrols and zero tolerance enforcement would have gone a long way to protecting that old man.
 
2014-07-26 12:54:41 PM  
not only would I follow you into an alley....I'd follow you home and shoot you in your kitchen if that's what it took.......
 
2014-07-26 12:54:53 PM  
i say we drag out her decomposing carcass and use it for target practice.
 
2014-07-26 12:55:04 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.


Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Just like Hamas.
 
2014-07-26 12:55:47 PM  

beany: 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.


In the original thread one of Fark's prominent actual lawyers explained how the courts actually do consider what he did to fall under 1st degree murder.

Because as she lay wounded, laying on the ground begging for her life he listened to her then intentionally executed her - he stopped and took the time to contemplate his actions. That the courts generally consider to be enough to be pre-meditation.

Personally, my thoughts on the whole thing... Nothing of value was lost. Her and her accomplice were unrepentant scumbags. I don't mourn their passing... But that still doesn't make it right to execute her like he did.

He chased her down and wounded her already. If he had stopped there, even though he had chased her down, I'd be on his side completely. But he then stood over her as she literally - according to his own admission - lay there bleeding and begging him desperately for her life. He thought about it and deliberately decided to take it upon himself to execute her. Not kill in self defense, not kill out of fear... To look her in the eyes, listen to her pleas and end her instead of letting the police handle things from there out. Hell, they might have gotten the accomplice too if he hadn't killed her and she could name him.

I hope he is charged with her murder (what degree I don't care), I hope her accomplice is found and charged for his involvement in her death as well as his burglary and battery charges too. They all farked up big time.
 
2014-07-26 12:55:59 PM  

vegaswench: 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.

i.imgur.com


Precisely. I prefer the person in the midst of getting attacked and robbed to defend him/herself rather than the State. The State shouldn't have the power to give/take life because it can't be held responsible for it. Only individuals can be responsible for actions, not some nebulous social concept.That's just evading responsibility that should be tied to individuals.
 
2014-07-26 12:57:14 PM  

Yogimus: plmyfngr: Repack Rider: Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.

YMMV but your patriotism does not exceed mine.

where do you live??...you sound like an easy mark.......

Some people value the life of another above their own. This is admirable. Some value the life of another at... oh, about a buck fifty. This is notable


I figure YOU decided the value of your life when you break into my home......
 
2014-07-26 12:57:51 PM  

One Bad Apple: Repack Rider: Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.

No wonder we lost in Iraq.


www.reactiongifs.com
 
2014-07-26 12:58:43 PM  

plmyfngr: Yogimus: plmyfngr: Repack Rider: Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.

YMMV but your patriotism does not exceed mine.

where do you live??...you sound like an easy mark.......

Some people value the life of another above their own. This is admirable. Some value the life of another at... oh, about a buck fifty. This is notable

I figure YOU decided the value of your life when you break into my home......


Yep.
 
2014-07-26 12:59:35 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.


No, it looks NOTHING like first degree murder. Old guy minding his own business gets robbed and beaten. He's been victimized before by the same couple. He gets angry because they made him angry, and he blasts her because he had a delectable gun treat. She was cruisin for a bruisin. At worst its manslaughter. He premeditated nothing. He reacted in delicious retribution. She will never hurt another person. Hope he walks and they charge her accomplice with murder.
 
2014-07-26 12:59:51 PM  

mongbiohazard: He chased her down and wounded her already. If he had stopped there, even though he had chased her down, I'd be on his side completely. But he then stood over her as she literally - according to his own admission - lay there bleeding and begging him desperately for her life. He thought about it and deliberately decided to take it upon himself to execute her. Not kill in self defense, not kill out of fear... To look her in the eyes, listen to her pleas and end her instead of letting the police handle things from there out.


Shame he didn't jerk off on her face.
 
2014-07-26 01:00:25 PM  

AngryDragon: Someone violates my home in the commission of a crime and I don't care why they are there.  If you are then forced to defend yourself as a result, it is perfectly acceptable for him/her/them to never get up again.

i.imgur.com


The assailants demonstrated that they were quite comfortable with potentially killing him. In that situation, whatever force needed to neutralize the assailants is fine with me.
 
2014-07-26 01:01:21 PM  
Even if she was pregnant, the kid would have just turned into another junkie thief. The only sad part about this story is that the old codger didn't kill the guy, too.
 
2014-07-26 01:02:32 PM  

whither_apophis: 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.


You need to make two columns. "White" and "Non-White". The results are drastically different.
 
2014-07-26 01:02:32 PM  

pueblonative: 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.


What if I did consider it and don't care? Hah! checkmate libby

/warning shots are at the feet anyway
 
2014-07-26 01:03:43 PM  
IF THE RICH PEOPLE WOULD JUST GIVE THE POOR PEOPLE MORE MONEY THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO STEAL........

//that's sarcasm by the way...
 
2014-07-26 01:03:44 PM  
Is this a follow up of the old fark who executed the woman in an alley outside the house?

If it is I don't give a flying fark if she was pregnant or not,  that old bastard needs to hang.

If it isn't,  then carry on.
 
2014-07-26 01:04:06 PM  
One Bad Apple:  No wonder we lost in Iraq.

kristinhoppe.files.wordpress.com

I was against the Iraq war from the beginning. But damn.
 
2014-07-26 01:05:46 PM  
Doesn't matter. He executed her.
 
2014-07-26 01:06:41 PM  

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

so what you do hotshot?  apologize for in the house when the two career criminals robbed a senior citizen baby boomer multiple times and beat the shiat out of him?  Is that okay?   It must be okay because we all know that FarkliberalsTM hate baby boomers and want them all dead because they farked the economy and are living too long, and they are in the process of farking up social security.

amirite?



i253.photobucket.com
 
2014-07-26 01:07:40 PM  

Bonobo62: Good. Dig her up and shoot her again.


So brave.
 
2014-07-26 01:07:45 PM  

mongbiohazard: He thought about it and deliberately decided to take it upon himself to execute her. Not kill in self defense, not kill out of fear... To look her in the eyes, listen to her pleas and end her instead of letting the police handle things from there out. Hell, they might have gotten the accomplice too if he hadn't killed her and she could name him.


He himself said he killed her to send a message to her accomplice to not come back.

They found her accomplice with her being dead.

The police already repeatedly failed him. And look, they finally pulled their shiat together AFTER he created a body. By killing her he finally got the attention from law enforcement he wanted.

Accomplice goes to prison longer now because the murder is on him.
 
2014-07-26 01:08:05 PM  

Repack Rider: Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.

YMMV but your patriotism does not exceed mine.


I don't want to own a gun because I wouldn't want to kill someone.....were I an 80-y/o repeat victim I would likely  opt to shoot for the kneecaps......some say an eye for an eye....how about limited mobility and join pain for life - much like the senior you targeted?

This makes me a bad Christian, apparently. Only love of Apple Pie marks me as a patriot.
 
2014-07-26 01:08:07 PM  

whither_apophis: 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 depends on where you live
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 01:08:13 PM  

Coming on a Bicycle: Doesn't matter. He executed her.


Hell yeah he did, any local Farkers should buy this guy a beer.
 
2014-07-26 01:09:16 PM  
how come y'all are so upset about a guy shooting a criminal who robbed and beat him but you don't get your panties in a wad about all the shootings in Chicago??.....BY CRIMINALS
 
2014-07-26 01:10:07 PM  

MBrady: for in the house when the two career criminals robbed a senior citizen baby boomer multiple times and beat the shiat out of him? Is that okay?


He's 10-15 years too old to be a Boomer.
 
2014-07-26 01:11:56 PM  

Clint_Torres: whither_apophis: 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 depends on where you live
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.


See! My point exactly. We need standards... a common core if you will.
 
2014-07-26 01:12:11 PM  

parasol: Repack Rider: Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.

YMMV but your patriotism does not exceed mine.

I don't want to own a gun because I wouldn't want to kill someone.....were I an 80-y/o repeat victim I would likely  opt to shoot for the kneecaps......some say an eye for an eye....how about limited mobility and join pain for life - much like the senior you targeted?

This makes me a bad Christian, apparently. Only love of Apple Pie marks me as a patriot.


you obviously don't know what you're talking about...ANY self defense course will tell you to aim for body mass...kneecaps and arm shots are for the movies..
 
2014-07-26 01:12:25 PM  

plmyfngr: how come y'all are so upset about a guy shooting a criminal who robbed and beat him but you don't get your panties in a wad about all the shootings in Chicago??.....BY CRIMINALS


maybe more people can relate to being the victim of crime in their own home than being in Chicago?
maybe more people have debated the "castle doctrine" than have witnessed a drive by?

maybe the two things aren't related in any but the most tenuous of ways and the analogy is bad?
 
2014-07-26 01:14:35 PM  

parasol: plmyfngr: how come y'all are so upset about a guy shooting a criminal who robbed and beat him but you don't get your panties in a wad about all the shootings in Chicago??.....BY CRIMINALS

maybe more people can relate to being the victim of crime in their own home than being in Chicago?
maybe more people have debated the "castle doctrine" than have witnessed a drive by?

maybe the two things aren't related in any but the most tenuous of ways and the analogy is bad?


so shootings by criminals is okay.....gotcha..
 
2014-07-26 01:14:47 PM  

plmyfngr: how come y'all are so upset about a guy shooting a criminal who robbed and beat him but you don't get your panties in a wad about all the shootings in Chicago??.....BY CRIMINALS


Because nobody is saying shooters in Chicago should go free. It's not that hard.
 
2014-07-26 01:15:54 PM  
From the looks of this crew, that non-existent fetus was lucky what with all that DNA to work with.

tribktla.files.wordpress.com
tribktla.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-07-26 01:16:14 PM  

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


Mom, I thought that was Rik Flair.
 
2014-07-26 01:16:48 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?


No.
 
2014-07-26 01:16:49 PM  
If societal values are such that they protect home invasion robbers to a greater degree than they protect the victims of those robberies then that society cannot long stand or advance until its values have changed.
 
2014-07-26 01:18:29 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.


No it's not but definitely 2nd degree.
 
2014-07-26 01:19:08 PM  

mikaloyd: If societal values are such that they protect home invasion robbers to a greater degree than they protect the victims of those robberies then that society cannot long stand or advance until its values have changed.


She was still in his home and threatening him when he killed her, this wouldn't even be a story.
 
2014-07-26 01:19:54 PM  

birchman: mikaloyd: If societal values are such that they protect home invasion robbers to a greater degree than they protect the victims of those robberies then that society cannot long stand or advance until its values have changed.

She was still in his home and threatening him when he killed her, this wouldn't even be a story.


*If she was

FTFM
 
2014-07-26 01:20:33 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: 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.

No it's not but definitely 2nd degree.


Jury nullification.

Old man did everyone a favor by putting some chlorine in the gene pool.
 
2014-07-26 01:21:24 PM  
When you rob and assault someone, you take your chances.  I'm not saying the old guy was right or wrong for following her into an alley and killing her, but when people are pushed to their limit you can't exactly rely on them thinking about the consequences of their own actions to keep you from harm.
 
2014-07-26 01:22:40 PM  

mongbiohazard: He chased her down and wounded her already. If he had stopped there, even though he had chased her down, I'd be on his side completely. But he then stood over her as she literally - according to his own admission - lay there bleeding and begging him desperately for her life. He thought about it and deliberately decided to take it upon himself to execute her. Not kill in self defense, not kill out of fear... To look her in the eyes, listen to her pleas and end her instead of letting the police handle things from there out. Hell, they might have gotten the accomplice too if he hadn't killed her and she could name him.


I cannot find any link that says this is what happened.

In fact, the physical facts do not agree with your portrayal of the events: "he stood over her and looked her in the eyes while she begged for her life and then shot her" is physically impossible. She was shot in the back twice - I am having a hard time conceiving of a scenarios where you could look someone in the eyes while shooting them in the back. In fact, his own story makes it sound like she said "don't shoot I'm pregnant" before or while she ran out into the alley. He says when he drug her back by his house she was already dead, so he didn't move her and then shoot her closer to the house.

And I still can't find a link that describes anything even resembling your version actually happening.

So what I'm getting at is this: source your version of the story. Otherwise, you're knowingly making up bullshiat fantasies to support your views and anything you say can be disregarded, now and in the future.
 
2014-07-26 01:22:42 PM  

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

so what you do hotshot?  apologize for in the house when the two career criminals robbed a senior citizen baby boomer multiple times and beat the shiat out of him?  Is that okay?   It must be okay because we all know that FarkliberalsTM hate baby boomers and want them all dead because they farked the economy and are living too long, and they are in the process of farking up social security.

amirite?


[i253.photobucket.com image 421x600]

so you would just call the cops instead and plead for your life?  yea, you probably would.

whiny little biatch, right?


You're calling a mod a whiny little biatch?  Shouldn't you be teaching a Rex Kwon do jo class.
/forget about it
 
2014-07-26 01:22:44 PM  
Don't start no shiat won't be no shiat. He didn't start no shiat...so you must acquit.
 
2014-07-26 01:22:46 PM  

mikaloyd: If societal values are such that they protect home invasion robbers to a greater degree than they protect the victims of those robberies then that society cannot long stand or advance until its values have changed.


That's just the way it is. People hate guns that much.
 
2014-07-26 01:22:52 PM  

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

Mom, I thought that was Rik Flair.


No rick flair is much more attractive,  and that's coming from a straight male!
 
2014-07-26 01:23:28 PM  
I'm sure if the situation were different conservative DAs would love to charge the shooter with attempted murder since he was notified she was with child but shot anyway.
 
2014-07-26 01:23:41 PM  

plmyfngr: parasol: Repack Rider: Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.

YMMV but your patriotism does not exceed mine.

I don't want to own a gun because I wouldn't want to kill someone.....were I an 80-y/o repeat victim I would likely  opt to shoot for the kneecaps......some say an eye for an eye....how about limited mobility and join pain for life - much like the senior you targeted?
,
This makes me a bad Christian, apparently. Only love of Apple Pie marks me as a patriot.

you obviously don't know what you're talking about...ANY self defense course will tell you to aim for body mass...kneecaps and arm shots are for the movies..


actually, you don't know what I know - or how

my post was rather tongue-in-cheek - a fark-hued ITG response that wasn't intended as workable method of self-defense - do note it began "i wouldn't want to kill someone"
 
2014-07-26 01:23:51 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?


When she was lying in the alley wounded, the elderly guy walked up and pointed this gun. He told a reporter that she said "I'm pregnant. I'm going to have a baby." Then he shot her in the head.
 
2014-07-26 01:24:17 PM  
So, why was the other robber charged with murder?

Aren't all you lawyers saying that it requires premeditation or something? He didn't shoot her, he was just along for the crime.
 
2014-07-26 01:25:20 PM  

Elegy: I cannot find any link that says this is what happened.


Its fan fiction.

Just like klansman zimmerman and the fetus of saint Traytray
 
2014-07-26 01:25:25 PM  

Friction8r: Don't start no shiat won't be no shiat. He didn't start no shiat...so you must acquit.


This... This is good
 
2014-07-26 01:27:08 PM  

beakerxf: 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?

When she was lying in the alley wounded, the elderly guy walked up and pointed this gun. He told a reporter that she said "I'm pregnant. I'm going to have a baby." Then he shot her in the head.


It would have been awesome if he has said, "Not anymore, biatch" right before he blasted her, 70's action movie style
 
2014-07-26 01:28:49 PM  

plmyfngr: parasol: plmyfngr: how come y'all are so upset about a guy shooting a criminal who robbed and beat him but you don't get your panties in a wad about all the shootings in Chicago??.....BY CRIMINALS

maybe more people can relate to being the victim of crime in their own home than being in Chicago?
maybe more people have debated the "castle doctrine" than have witnessed a drive by?

maybe the two things aren't related in any but the most tenuous of ways and the analogy is bad?

so shootings by criminals is okay.....gotcha..


what we have here....is failure to communicate......
 
2014-07-26 01:28:51 PM  

lucksi: So, why was the other robber charged with murder?

Aren't all you lawyers saying that it requires premeditation or something? He didn't shoot her, he was just along for the crime.


There is precendent and case law that covers accomplices where if an accomplice is killed during the commission of a crime you get charged with their murder.


If Trayvon had a partner who was helping to beat up Zimmerman, Trayvons accomplice would be charged with Trayvons murder.
 
2014-07-26 01:28:55 PM  

beakerxf: 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?

When she was lying in the alley wounded, the elderly guy walked up and pointed this gun. He told a reporter that she said "I'm pregnant. I'm going to have a baby." Then he shot her in the head.


So a reporter was talking to the guy before he shot her in the head? Timing is everything! But you are right, she was "lying" in the alley!
 
2014-07-26 01:30:22 PM  

Friction8r: beakerxf: 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?

When she was lying in the alley wounded, the elderly guy walked up and pointed this gun. He told a reporter that she said "I'm pregnant. I'm going to have a baby." Then he shot her in the head.

So a reporter was talking to the guy before he shot her in the head? Timing is everything! But you are right, she was "lying" in the alley!


Maybe that's why he had to shoot her.

"Damn, this biatch is pregnant. Gotta stop the spread"
 
2014-07-26 01:30:50 PM  

mongbiohazard: beany: 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.

In the original thread one of Fark's prominent actual lawyers explained how the courts actually do consider what he did to fall under 1st degree murder.

Because as she lay wounded, laying on the ground begging for her life he listened to her then intentionally executed her - he stopped and took the time to contemplate his actions. That the courts generally consider to be enough to be pre-meditation.

Personally, my thoughts on the whole thing... Nothing of value was lost. Her and her accomplice were unrepentant scumbags. I don't mourn their passing... But that still doesn't make it right to execute her like he did.

He chased her down and wounded her already. If he had stopped there, even though he had chased her down, I'd be on his side completely. But he then stood over her as she literally - according to his own admission - lay there bleeding and begging him desperately for her life. He thought about it and deliberately decided to take it upon himself to execute her. Not kill in self defense, not kill out of fear... To look her in the eyes, listen to her pleas and end her instead of letting the police handle things from there out. Hell, they might have gotten the accomplice too if he hadn't killed her and she could name him.

I hope he is charged with her murder (what degree I don't care), I hope her accomplice is found and charged for his involvement in her death as well as his burglary and battery charges too. They all farked up big time.


This.

And her accomplice was caught and has been charged with murder, which is appropriate.

But yeah, the old guy executing her on the ground. We can't tolerate that in a civilized society.
 
2014-07-26 01:32:07 PM  
Agreed, he should be charged, and let the jury decide.
 
2014-07-26 01:32:48 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: mikaloyd: If societal values are such that they protect home invasion robbers to a greater degree than they protect the victims of those robberies then that society cannot long stand or advance until its values have changed.

That's just the way it is. People hate guns that much.


In a more perfect world we'd all get together to give the geezer a public service medal and pay for the ammunition he used.
 
2014-07-26 01:33:12 PM  

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

As someone who has been a victim of a home invasion, I agree.  Someone violates my home in the commission of a crime and I don't care why they are there.  If you are then forced to defend yourself as a result, it is perfectly acceptable for him/her/them to never get up again.

Rock on Mr. Bronson.  My worldview differs from yours!   You should try consider Jainism.  It helps you let go of the "stuff" in the world.


Actually it was my wife that grabbed the first gun to hold them off (she woke up faster than I did).  I joined with the shotgun shortly after.  While my son called the police.

All three of us were under threat by three people who just picked our house at random at 5:00 in the morning.  Luckily, no one was injured and those three are now behind bars.

I would say that I hope it happens to you so that you understand, but I can't.  It shouldn't happen to anyone.  If it does though, you should be afforded the right of self-defense by the most effective means possible.

Yes, even you.
 
2014-07-26 01:33:32 PM  

sithon: 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


No he wouldn't have been. Maybe a weapons charge depending on the legality of the weapon.

The idea that you aren't allowed to defend yourself in Canada is retarded. You absolutely can.
 
2014-07-26 01:33:54 PM  

mongbiohazard: beany: 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.

In the original thread one of Fark's prominent actual lawyers explained how the courts actually do consider what he did to fall under 1st degree murder.

Because as she lay wounded, laying on the ground begging for her life he listened to her then intentionally executed her - he stopped and took the time to contemplate his actions. That the courts generally consider to be enough to be pre-meditation.

Personally, my thoughts on the whole thing... Nothing of value was lost. Her and her accomplice were unrepentant scumbags. I don't mourn their passing... But that still doesn't make it right to execute her like he did.

He chased her down and wounded her already. If he had stopped there, even though he had chased her down, I'd be on his side completely. But he then stood over her as she literally - according to his own admission - lay there bleeding and begging him desperately for her life. He thought about it and deliberately decided to take it upon himself to execute her. Not kill in self defense, not kill out of fear... To look her in the eyes, listen to her pleas and end her instead of letting the police handle things from there out. Hell, they might have gotten the accomplice too if he hadn't killed her and she could name him.

I hope ...


Except we don't know that it happened that way.  We were operating under the assumption that he shot her twice outside in the alley in the back based on the media interview. In the police news conference it appeared that they are operating under a different set of facts with shooting taking place inside the house as well as outside after the shooter was knocked down and beaten by the two burglars. We don't know what shots fired where and determining that may take some effort due to the fact that the .22 revolver he used doesn't eject shell casings which provide a clue where the shots were fired, and the .22 round may not reveal a lot in terms of blood splatter when the hits took place. Life isn't CSI and making that determination can be more difficult than you imagine. Also note the charges filed against the accomplice included grand theft firearm and felon with a firearm so the deceased woman and accomplice caught later may have armed themselves from getting in his gun safe which changes the calculations and reasonableness of fear the 80 year old may have had even outside his home.

The 80 year old certainly could still be charged with murder.  The shooter running outside the home pursuing someone after the fact is a very stupid idea in California, especially in Los Angeles county. However with the DA apparently throwing the book at the accomplice, it appears they are going to throw all the responsibility on the dead womans accomplice and let the 80 year old slide.  If they charge the 80 year old as well, then they would undermine the case against the male accomplice as he can easily point to the 80 year old for responsibility creating reasonable doubt.  That isn't to say he won't anyway, but when the person you are pointing to is criminally charged for the conduct, it carries a bit more weight.
 
2014-07-26 01:36:31 PM  
... but with her dead, who will cure cancer?
 
2014-07-26 01:37:36 PM  
I am disgusted by the "sympathy" expressed for the killer. Assault, battery and burglary are not, as others have noted, capital crimes. Therefore, deadly force is never a valid response to any of them. A victim of such crimes should simply call the police and allow the police to perform their duty of protecting the public.

Being a criminal is not itself a waiver to the right to a safe work environment.
 
2014-07-26 01:38:44 PM  

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

Mom, I thought that was Rik Flair.

No rick flair is much more attractive,  and that's coming from a straight male!


I can see the Rick Flair vibe, but he had better makeup I guess.
 
2014-07-26 01:39:33 PM  

Yogimus: ... but with her dead, who will cure cancer?


Well, the old guy cured one kind of cancer, that's for sure
 
2014-07-26 01:41:31 PM  

LavenderWolf: The idea that you aren't allowed to defend yourself in Canada is retarded. You absolutely can.


The only time in my recent memory in which a victim of a home robbery was charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm was when he called up his neighbours after the perps fled and they hunted them down via snowmobile. Two of the bad guys caught buckshot in the legs. The farmer got probation and a firearm ban. Had he shot them in the home, I really doubt he would have been charged at all, unless one died. And in this particular rural community, the jury would have been hung at best.
 
2014-07-26 01:41:47 PM  
I predict they will charge the old guy with 2nd-degree murder and then offer voluntary manslaughter with time served and probation if he pleads guilty. If it goes to trial he probably won't be convicted by a jury of peers.

/L&O chung-chung
 
2014-07-26 01:42:12 PM  

parasol: plmyfngr: parasol: plmyfngr: how come y'all are so upset about a guy shooting a criminal who robbed and beat him but you don't get your panties in a wad about all the shootings in Chicago??.....BY CRIMINALS

maybe more people can relate to being the victim of crime in their own home than being in Chicago?
maybe more people have debated the "castle doctrine" than have witnessed a drive by?

maybe the two things aren't related in any but the most tenuous of ways and the analogy is bad?

so shootings by criminals is okay.....gotcha..

what we have here....is failure to communicate......


Yeah there are the people saying he had every right to defend himself and his property with his firearm that no one is disputing.

Then the people who read the article and know that's not what anyone is talking about.
 
2014-07-26 01:42:36 PM  

Dimensio: I am disgusted by the "sympathy" expressed for the killer. Assault, battery and burglary are not, as others have noted, capital crimes. Therefore, deadly force is never a valid response to any of them. A victim of such crimes should simply call the police and allow the police to perform their duty of protecting the public.

Being a criminal is not itself a waiver to the right to a safe work environment.


these ARE capital crimes at my house......sorry about yours..
 
2014-07-26 01:43:13 PM  

lucksi: So, why was the other robber charged with murder?

Aren't all you lawyers saying that it requires premeditation or something? He didn't shoot her, he was just along for the crime.


Felony murder rule.  Roughly speaking if in the commission of crime someone is killed, those who participate in the crime can be held liable under the theory that the death wouldn't have occurred but for the crime taking place regardless of the intent of the particular participates in the crime. The most common application is when police shoot and kill one of the suspects during a crime, the offenders are usually charged with the murder because they put the cop in the position where he killed someone. There is a discussion of the theory and the potential application in the other thread if you are interested but it probably won't be rehashed here. It certainly may be applicable but there are potential problems with it in what we think the facts of the case are.
 
2014-07-26 01:43:41 PM  

beakerxf: 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?

When she was lying in the alley wounded, the elderly guy walked up and pointed this gun. He told a reporter that she said "I'm pregnant. I'm going to have a baby." Then he shot her in the head.


And then he said a clever pun, lit a cigar with a piece of burning wreckage and stepped onto a ladder dropped by a helicopter that was waiting to extricate him from the country.
 
2014-07-26 01:44:04 PM  
i.ytimg.com
 
2014-07-26 01:45:36 PM  

Dimensio: I am disgusted by the "sympathy" expressed for the killer. Assault, battery and burglary are not, as others have noted, capital crimes. Therefore, deadly force is never a valid response to any of them. A victim of such crimes should simply call the police and allow the police to perform their duty of protecting the public.

Being a criminal is not itself a waiver to the right to a safe work environment.


Somebody kicks the crap out of you in your own home and you are gonna have a rational response? What..run to the computer and post on Fark pleading for help? Hell I think the old man's attorney may have a great case to plead temporary insanity. If someone soaks you in gasoline and lights you on fire, you probably wont react in a rational manner.
 
2014-07-26 01:46:31 PM  

Daedalus27: lucksi: So, why was the other robber charged with murder?

Aren't all you lawyers saying that it requires premeditation or something? He didn't shoot her, he was just along for the crime.

Felony murder rule.  Roughly speaking if in the commission of crime someone is killed, those who participate in the crime can be held liable under the theory that the death wouldn't have occurred but for the crime taking place regardless of the intent of the particular participates in the crime. The most common application is when police shoot and kill one of the suspects during a crime, the offenders are usually charged with the murder because they put the cop in the position where he killed someone. There is a discussion of the theory and the potential application in the other thread if you are interested but it probably won't be rehashed here. It certainly may be applicable but there are potential problems with it in what we think the facts of the case are.


The felony murder rule is quite honestly bullshiat.  Has no backing in logical thought other than another law on the books to get people with technicalities.

This guy didn't just shoot an intruder (which would have been fine)  This guy chased down someone and shot them in cold blood while she was already injured (no longer a threat) and begging for her life.
 
2014-07-26 01:46:39 PM  

plmyfngr: Dimensio: I am disgusted by the "sympathy" expressed for the killer. Assault, battery and burglary are not, as others have noted, capital crimes. Therefore, deadly force is never a valid response to any of them. A victim of such crimes should simply call the police and allow the police to perform their duty of protecting the public.

Being a criminal is not itself a waiver to the right to a safe work environment.

these ARE capital crimes at my house......sorry about yours..


I fervently hope that you allow members of the jury to use the good towels in the guest bath....
 
2014-07-26 01:47:23 PM  
Raw video of Greer's interview.
 
2014-07-26 01:48:44 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: 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.


Not legally.
This case seems to be one where they were in his sight the whole time but there's a common enough case where you run outside with your gun and people see you and start running away. It the heat of the moment are you sure enough to fire? I hope not, unless of course they are wearing a hoodie because I've been told that the universal signal for "I confess, it was me".
 
2014-07-26 01:49:02 PM  

Yogimus: ... but with her dead, who will cure cancer?


Well, he cured a bit of societys cancer.
 
2014-07-26 01:49:06 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Daedalus27: lucksi: So, why was the other robber charged with murder?

Aren't all you lawyers saying that it requires premeditation or something? He didn't shoot her, he was just along for the crime.

Felony murder rule.  Roughly speaking if in the commission of crime someone is killed, those who participate in the crime can be held liable under the theory that the death wouldn't have occurred but for the crime taking place regardless of the intent of the particular participates in the crime. The most common application is when police shoot and kill one of the suspects during a crime, the offenders are usually charged with the murder because they put the cop in the position where he killed someone. There is a discussion of the theory and the potential application in the other thread if you are interested but it probably won't be rehashed here. It certainly may be applicable but there are potential problems with it in what we think the facts of the case are.

The felony murder rule is quite honestly bullshiat.  Has no backing in logical thought other than another law on the books to get people with technicalities.

This guy didn't just shoot an intruder (which would have been fine)  This guy chased down someone and shot them in cold blood while she was already injured (no longer a threat) and begging for her life.


Well then there is nothing for you to worry about...unless breaking into an old mans home, beating him up and stealing his property is one of your hobbies.
 
2014-07-26 01:50:15 PM  

AngryDragon: I would say that I hope it happens to you so that you understand, but I can't.  It shouldn't happen to anyone.  If it does though, you should be afforded the right of self-defense by the most effective means possible.

Yes, even you.


I can talk to you about how I came to my worldview if you would like to listen.  I used to be a brawler, one of those guys that would punch people's faces in at anything I perceived as an injustice until one time I really, really, really farked up a guy.  Anyway, when I saw what I had done I felt absolutely horrible and vowed to never hurt anyone like that again. I'm really glad I didn't kill him because I was really close to doing it.

Anyhew, that's my self-defense story.  I admit I get a little soap boxy about the gun thing, know too many people that have died by gunfire.  What I'm saying I DO completely understand.  I just came to an entirely different conclusion.

I could never EVER shoot somebody in the back, especially a woman.  As for Mbrady you can continue to call me a whiny little biatch until your He-Man Tough Guy Of The Internet sash arrives in the mail.

That's my perspective, take it or leave it.
 
2014-07-26 01:50:45 PM  

plmyfngr: Dimensio: I am disgusted by the "sympathy" expressed for the killer. Assault, battery and burglary are not, as others have noted, capital crimes. Therefore, deadly force is never a valid response to any of them. A victim of such crimes should simply call the police and allow the police to perform their duty of protecting the public.

Being a criminal is not itself a waiver to the right to a safe work environment.

these ARE capital crimes at my house......sorry about yours..


I didn't realize "your house" extended to public streets where said condemned person lay injured and begging for her life.
 
2014-07-26 01:51:17 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Raw video of Greer's interview.


Well, I didn't know he was ugly, wrinkled, and couldn't make it as a public speaker to save his life.

/hang the bastard for his imperfections
 
2014-07-26 01:51:31 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.


Thankfully in Texas you can shoot someone anywhere, even in the back, if they are still in the process of committing a crime against you.  so running away WITH my shiat means I am clear to fire.
 
2014-07-26 01:52:22 PM  

Giltric: Warlordtrooper: Daedalus27: lucksi: So, why was the other robber charged with murder?

Aren't all you lawyers saying that it requires premeditation or something? He didn't shoot her, he was just along for the crime.

Felony murder rule.  Roughly speaking if in the commission of crime someone is killed, those who participate in the crime can be held liable under the theory that the death wouldn't have occurred but for the crime taking place regardless of the intent of the particular participates in the crime. The most common application is when police shoot and kill one of the suspects during a crime, the offenders are usually charged with the murder because they put the cop in the position where he killed someone. There is a discussion of the theory and the potential application in the other thread if you are interested but it probably won't be rehashed here. It certainly may be applicable but there are potential problems with it in what we think the facts of the case are.

The felony murder rule is quite honestly bullshiat.  Has no backing in logical thought other than another law on the books to get people with technicalities.

This guy didn't just shoot an intruder (which would have been fine)  This guy chased down someone and shot them in cold blood while she was already injured (no longer a threat) and begging for her life.

Well then there is nothing for you to worry about...unless breaking into an old mans home, beating him up and stealing his property is one of your hobbies.


Of course I don't do that,  however those are not capital crimes.  I was simply pointing out that I think the felony murder rule is BS because murder should require intent.  In every other crime intent is a huge part of the crime.
 
2014-07-26 01:53:22 PM  

brap:

I can talk to you about how I came to my worldview if you would like to listen.  I used to be a brawler, one of those guys that would punch people's faces in at anything I perceived as an injustice


And that's what makes you a Fark mod.
 
TWX
2014-07-26 01:55:23 PM  

Pull the Plug on Grannie: 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.


Amusing Fark handle, given the subject...

I can honestly say that if I was called to be on a jury for the 80 year old man, if it came out in trial that the "victim" had broken into his house multiple times, had violently assaulted him on those occasions, and had been killed as a direct result of doing this another time, I would not be able to convict the man. She had already established a pattern of behavior in victimizing him over and over and over again, and there was more evidence that she would continue victimizing him than that she would stop victimizing him. Given the history, I'd chock this one up to self-defense, justifiable homicide, not guilty of murder or manslaughter.
 
2014-07-26 01:57:11 PM  

One Bad Apple: brap:

I can talk to you about how I came to my worldview if you would like to listen.  I used to be a brawler, one of those guys that would punch people's faces in at anything I perceived as an injustice

And that's what makes you a Fark mod.


I'd like to think it's my cool-headed pledge to pacifism and inurement to name calling and calls to internet toughguy throwdown challenges but I am available for light consensual domination and boxing about the ears - my rates are reasonable.
 
2014-07-26 01:57:21 PM  

Dimensio: I am disgusted by the "sympathy" expressed for the killer. Assault, battery and burglary are not, as others have noted, capital crimes. Therefore, deadly force is never a valid response to any of them. A victim of such crimes should simply call the police and allow the police to perform their duty of protecting the public.

Being a criminal is not itself a waiver to the right to a safe work environment.


3/10

But you'll catch a bunch.
 
2014-07-26 01:58:40 PM  

Prophet of Loss: The old man is wrong because assault and robbery are not capital crimes.


Try it on, say, a policeman and we will establish whether this statement is true or false.
 
2014-07-26 01:58:56 PM  
So the house thieving skank was also a lire.
 
2014-07-26 01:59:24 PM  

Khazar-Khum: Dimensio: I am disgusted by the "sympathy" expressed for the killer. Assault, battery and burglary are not, as others have noted, capital crimes. Therefore, deadly force is never a valid response to any of them. A victim of such crimes should simply call the police and allow the police to perform their duty of protecting the public.

Being a criminal is not itself a waiver to the right to a safe work environment.

3/10

But you'll catch a bunch.


I have already "caught" two.

/Not quite at my best this week.
 
2014-07-26 01:59:47 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Daedalus27: lucksi: So, why was the other robber charged with murder?

Aren't all you lawyers saying that it requires premeditation or something? He didn't shoot her, he was just along for the crime.

Felony murder rule.  Roughly speaking if in the commission of crime someone is killed, those who participate in the crime can be held liable under the theory that the death wouldn't have occurred but for the crime taking place regardless of the intent of the particular participates in the crime. The most common application is when police shoot and kill one of the suspects during a crime, the offenders are usually charged with the murder because they put the cop in the position where he killed someone. There is a discussion of the theory and the potential application in the other thread if you are interested but it probably won't be rehashed here. It certainly may be applicable but there are potential problems with it in what we think the facts of the case are.

The felony murder rule is quite honestly bullshiat.  Has no backing in logical thought other than another law on the books to get people with technicalities.

This guy didn't just shoot an intruder (which would have been fine)  This guy chased down someone and shot them in cold blood while she was already injured (no longer a threat) and begging for her life.


Except we don't know if that is how it happened. The media interview didn't exactly have a firm timeline of what happened when and he jumped around quite a bit.  Based on what the police released in their press conference and what the DA charged the accomplice based on the police investigation, I tend to think that what you are suggesting happened didn't actually occur.  If it did, we would have probably seen charges against the 80 year old on Friday as well. Of course they could just be taking their time with the 80 year old given they know where he is and he isn't a threat to flee so there is no need to rush things.  The media interview was damning, but is probably a little inaccurate as it occurred after he got back from the hospital and was probably on pain medication for his injuries and not as clear as he could have been.
 
2014-07-26 02:01:34 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?


No, the female burglar said, "Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant. I'm going to have a baby" to the home owner just before he shot her.
 
2014-07-26 02:03:42 PM  

Daedalus27: Warlordtrooper: Daedalus27: lucksi: So, why was the other robber charged with murder?

Aren't all you lawyers saying that it requires premeditation or something? He didn't shoot her, he was just along for the crime.

Felony murder rule.  Roughly speaking if in the commission of crime someone is killed, those who participate in the crime can be held liable under the theory that the death wouldn't have occurred but for the crime taking place regardless of the intent of the particular participates in the crime. The most common application is when police shoot and kill one of the suspects during a crime, the offenders are usually charged with the murder because they put the cop in the position where he killed someone. There is a discussion of the theory and the potential application in the other thread if you are interested but it probably won't be rehashed here. It certainly may be applicable but there are potential problems with it in what we think the facts of the case are.

The felony murder rule is quite honestly bullshiat.  Has no backing in logical thought other than another law on the books to get people with technicalities.

This guy didn't just shoot an intruder (which would have been fine)  This guy chased down someone and shot them in cold blood while she was already injured (no longer a threat) and begging for her life.

Except we don't know if that is how it happened. The media interview didn't exactly have a firm timeline of what happened when and he jumped around quite a bit.  Based on what the police released in their press conference and what the DA charged the accomplice based on the police investigation, I tend to think that what you are suggesting happened didn't actually occur.  If it did, we would have probably seen charges against the 80 year old on Friday as well. Of course they could just be taking their time with the 80 year old given they know where he is and he isn't a threat to flee so there is no need to rush things.  The media interview w ...


The media love a good story, even if they have to make one up.
 
2014-07-26 02:07:13 PM  
He may be able to make an argument that even shooting them in the back was self defense. The argument would be that if they had robbed him three times already, it was surely only a matter of time before they hospitalized him or killed him.
 
2014-07-26 02:08:38 PM  

Dimensio: A victim of such crimes should simply call the police and allow the police to perform their duty of protecting the public.


Oh, such a good idea! Like he did the other two times we was robbed. And now they stole a gun from him and beat him up, but I'm sure this is the time the cops will pull it together. He can sleep tight knowing LA's finest are all over it like a bad suit, especially based on their past performance 2x.

Other sources say this was actually the 4th robbery. He didn't bother to report the 3rd.


Being a criminal is not itself a waiver to the right to a safe work environment.

Right. So if a robber twists their ankle in a pot hole in your drive way, they should be able to sue you?
 
2014-07-26 02:08:46 PM  

Yogimus: 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.


Really? Any crime that has a victim? So fenderbender=death? 10 year old pockets a candybar at the store=death? Negligence for not shoveling your sidewalk after a snowstorm?
 
2014-07-26 02:13:43 PM  

plmyfngr: how come y'all are so upset about a guy shooting a criminal who robbed and beat him but you don't get your panties in a wad about all the shootings in Chicago??.....BY CRIMINALS


Minimum trolling.
 
2014-07-26 02:14:02 PM  

Khazar-Khum: Dimensio: I am disgusted by the "sympathy" expressed for the killer. Assault, battery and burglary are not, as others have noted, capital crimes. Therefore, deadly force is never a valid response to any of them. A victim of such crimes should simply call the police and allow the police to perform their duty of protecting the public.

Being a criminal is not itself a waiver to the right to a safe work environment.

3/10

But you'll catch a bunch.


oh shiat, I fell for it
 
2014-07-26 02:15:49 PM  

Dimensio: Khazar-Khum: Dimensio: I am disgusted by the "sympathy" expressed for the killer. Assault, battery and burglary are not, as others have noted, capital crimes. Therefore, deadly force is never a valid response to any of them. A victim of such crimes should simply call the police and allow the police to perform their duty of protecting the public.

Being a criminal is not itself a waiver to the right to a safe work environment.

3/10

But you'll catch a bunch.

I have already "caught" two.

/Not quite at my best this week.


Well you almost had me as well. I was so worked you reading your post. Then I got to the last bit... "hey, wait a minute."

I would give you at least a 7/10.
 
2014-07-26 02:16:04 PM  

brap: I can talk to you about how I came to my worldview if you would like to listen.  I used to be a brawler, one of those guys that would punch people's faces in at anything I perceived as an injustice until one time I really, really, really farked up a guy.  Anyway, when I saw what I had done I felt absolutely horrible and vowed to never hurt anyone like that again. I'm really glad I didn't kill him because I was really close to doing it.

Anyhew, that's my self-defense story.  I admit I get a little soap boxy about the gun thing, know too many people that have died by gunfire.  What I'm saying I DO completely understand.  I just came to an entirely different conclusion.

I could never EVER shoot somebody in the back, especially a woman.  As for Mbrady you can continue to call me a whiny little biatch until your He-Man Tough Guy Of The Internet sash arrives in the mail.

That's my perspective, take it or leave it.


Here's a perspective even a Buddhist would consider: they already beat up an 80 year old man. It's not unreasonable to conclude they are likely to continue hurting people. By taking them out you very well could be sparing someone a horrible death.
 
2014-07-26 02:16:29 PM  
I haven't seen or read anywhere that he stood over her as she begged for mercy and then shot her in the head. The police said the old man fired at the couple in his house and outside as they ran from him. The old man said he shot her twice in the back. "and she was dead?: Yeah I shot her twice, she best be dead."

So I think some of you guys are making shiat up. He shot a fleeing woman in the back, not cool.

colleenfriesen.com
 
2014-07-26 02:17:56 PM  
tribktla.files.wordpress.com
api.ning.com
 
2014-07-26 02:20:40 PM  
Her last words were a lie.

Not as good as "Rosebud"
 
2014-07-26 02:20:59 PM  

Jocktopus: He may be able to make an argument that even shooting them in the back was self defense. The argument would be that if they had robbed him three times already, it was surely only a matter of time before they hospitalized him or killed him.


Such an argument is a legal failure. Self-defense does not include hypothetical threats at a future date. Just being afraid is not the same as an actual threat, otherwise many a woman could readily just kill her ex because she felt afraid.

It simply can't be self-defense when someone is running away. You may think it's still justified but it is no longer self-defense.
 
2014-07-26 02:21:05 PM  

Warlordtrooper: This guy didn't just shoot an intruder (which would have been fine) This guy chased down someone and shot them in cold blood while she was already injured (no longer a threat) and begging for her life.


Are you certain she was no longer a threat?  She seemed to have a habit of breaking into his home that she was having a difficult time in kicking.   Had he attempted to render her aid, she might have taken his gun and shot him, or just slugged him in the head.  The boyfriend could have been waiting around the corner for her and come back to check on her, finishing him off.

We can all play the "what if" game all day, but we weren't in his head, wounded, adrenalin pumping.  It's a lot easier to second guess from the safety of our desk chairs.

What difference does begging make?  Beggars beg hoping to take advantage of twisting the heartstrings.
 
2014-07-26 02:23:13 PM  
Pull the Plug on Grannie:

Here's a perspective even a Buddhist would consider: they already beat up an 80 year old man. It's not unreasonable to conclude they are likely to continue hurting people. By taking them out you very well could be sparing someone a horrible death.

No, that's a perspective only an idiot would consider. What you're saying is it's OK to shoot people if you think they might commit a crime in the future, which is just damned stupid.
 
2014-07-26 02:24:03 PM  
I say build this man a statue and hire some able body security or a dog or two. Maybe a picture of the thief he whacked with a big red X on it posted outside his residence. He did what he had to do, people are only going to allow themselves to be victimized only so much.
 
2014-07-26 02:24:20 PM  
Funny, I just read where some fleeing violent robbers ran over and killed three kids. Things like that happen when you let violent criminals get away.
 
2014-07-26 02:28:03 PM  
Funny to see the dickless wonders here fuming at the notion that our society might frown on persons of low character being eliminated at the whim of their betters.
 
2014-07-26 02:28:58 PM  

InsaneJelloTroll: Pull the Plug on Grannie:

Here's a perspective even a Buddhist would consider: they already beat up an 80 year old man. It's not unreasonable to conclude they are likely to continue hurting people. By taking them out you very well could be sparing someone a horrible death.

No, that's a perspective only an idiot would consider. What you're saying is it's OK to shoot people if you think they might commit a crime in the future, which is just damned stupid.


No, you're stupid.
 
2014-07-26 02:29:27 PM  

slave2grind: Funny, I just read where some fleeing violent robbers ran over and killed three kids. Things like that happen when you let violent criminals get away.


She was a little heavy but I don't think she would have flattened anybody she ran over.
 
2014-07-26 02:32:28 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.


Most civilized places forbid the murder of a fleeing criminal- even by cops.
 
2014-07-26 02:33:57 PM  

wademh: slave2grind: Funny, I just read where some fleeing violent robbers ran over and killed three kids. Things like that happen when you let violent criminals get away.

She was a little heavy but I don't think she would have flattened anybody she ran over.


We dont have to worry about it now though. Thanks to the hero of our story, she's graveyard dead and will never harm another living being.
 
2014-07-26 02:34:04 PM  
The initial, prior FA:
"They jump on him, as he describes, and they beat him with their fists... and then throw him-body slam him, basically-onto the floor. "He sustains a broken collar bone, cuts and bruises, as a result of that beating. They leave him... he's able to get up, and at that point he goes into another room, retrieves a gun and comes back and confronts them once again"

He's 80 years old. Any jail time at all would most likely be a death sentence....

While I understand the idea that he shouldn't run after someone and kill them in the alley. The fact he did anything at all other than die right then from shock is amazing. I just don't see a DA thinking he could ever convince a jury that the old man should go to jail. The DA only wants cases he thinks he can win.
 
2014-07-26 02:34:58 PM  
slave2grind: No, you're stupid.

Really? You're not even trying.
 
2014-07-26 02:35:20 PM  

wademh: slave2grind: Funny, I just read where some fleeing violent robbers ran over and killed three kids. Things like that happen when you let violent criminals get away.

She was a little heavy but I don't think she would have flattened anybody she ran over.


A little heavy!? The first bullet didn't even make it through her adipose tissue!
 
2014-07-26 02:38:22 PM  

InsaneJelloTroll: slave2grind: No, you're stupid.

Really? You're not even trying.


Neither are you.
 
2014-07-26 02:47:32 PM  
A manslaughter charge would be appropriate, and if I was on the jury I would vote not guilty.  This guy has been victimized before, these were not mere "burglars," as the bleeding hearts would have you believe.  They violently assaulted an 80-year old in his own home, causing injuries that are life-threatening given the age of the victim, and that he will likely never fully recover from.

This is why you keep your mouth shut until you've talked to a lawyer.
 
2014-07-26 02:49:46 PM  

Daedalus27: mongbiohazard: beany: 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.

In the original thread one of Fark's prominent actual lawyers explained how the courts actually do consider what he did to fall under 1st degree murder.

Because as she lay wounded, laying on the ground begging for her life he listened to her then intentionally executed her - he stopped and took the time to contemplate his actions. That the courts generally consider to be enough to be pre-meditation.

Personally, my thoughts on the whole thing... Nothing of value was lost. Her and her accomplice were unrepentant scumbags. I don't mourn their passing... But that still doesn't make it right to execute her like he did.

He chased her down and wounded her already. If he had stopped there, even though he had chased her down, I'd be on his side completely. But he then stood over her as she literally - according to his own admission - lay there bleeding and begging him desperately for her life. He thought about it and deliberately decided to take it upon himself to execute her. Not kill in self defense, not kill out of fear... To look her in the eyes, listen to her pleas and end her instead of letting the police handle things from there out. Hell, they might have gotten the accomplice too if he hadn't killed her and she could name him.

I hope ...

Except we don't know that it happened that way.  We were operating under the assumption that he shot her twice outside in the alley in the back based on the media interview. In the police news conference it appeared that they are operating under a different set of facts with shooting taking place inside the house as well as outside after the shooter was knocked down and beaten by the two burglars. We don't know what shots fired where and determining that may take some effort due to the fact that the .22 revolver he used doesn't eject shell casings which provide a clue where the shots were fired, and the .22 round may not reveal a lot in terms of blood splatter when the hits took place. Life isn't CSI and making that determination can be more difficult than you imagine. Also note the charges filed against the accomplice included grand theft firearm and felon with a firearm so the deceased woman and accomplice caught later may have armed themselves from getting in his gun safe which changes the calculations and reasonableness of fear the 80 year old may have had even outside his home.

The 80 year old certainly could still be charged with murder.  The shooter running outside the home pursuing someone after the fact is a very stupid idea in California, especially in Los Angeles county. However with the DA apparently throwing the book at the accomplice, it appears they are going to throw all the responsibility on the dead womans accomplice and let the 80 year old slide.  If they charge the 80 year old as well, then they would undermine the case against the male accomplice as he can easily point to the 80 year old for responsibility creating reasonable doubt.  That isn't to say he won't anyway, but when the person you are pointing to is criminally charged for the conduct, it carries a bit more weight.


Just an FYI:

Charging a senior citizen with anything while defending his property from home invasion is not the way to get re-elected DA
 
2014-07-26 02:49:56 PM  

filter: 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.

Most civilized places forbid the murder of a fleeing criminal- even by cops.


Clint: "Civilized places got nothing to do with it."
 
2014-07-26 02:49:59 PM  
So, like, criminals lie about stuff?   :  /
 
2014-07-26 02:52:12 PM  
The intent element of felony murder is intent to commit a crime. From that intent, you become responsible for most consequences.

For example, if the man had beaten the old man to death, the female burglar could have been charged with felony murder.

I think a lot of the resistance here comes from the fact that the man with the hideous mother obviously didn't want his companion dead. But the logic is that he unleashed a chaotic situation by burglarizing and assaulting someone and the consequences that occurred were not unforeseeable.

Imagine the old man had killed her with one shot, in the house, as she was attacking him (let's make it unquestionably self-defense). It was not unforeseeable that one of the burglars would end up dead, particularly once they significantly assaulted the old man.

It has been too long since I took crim law for me to really apply the limits of the felony murder doctrine to this case (and the laws differ by state anyway), but I am definitely not surprised by the charge.
 
2014-07-26 02:53:23 PM  

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

On my property, stealing my stuff and threatening my life? Absolutely.


Yeah, about that:

"y his own account, [Greer] chased the burglars and fired at them outside his home as they were fleeing."

and

"[Greer admits] he shot the woman in the back as she fled his home and ran down an alley."

So, neither on his property, stealing his stuff, or threatening his life: all three of those were no longer the case. Yet he shot her. In the back. Twice.
 
2014-07-26 02:53:42 PM  

VTGremlin: 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.


I hate everyone involved in this story. Remind to never liver wherever the heck they live
 
2014-07-26 02:54:06 PM  
HTML fail. Plus grammar fail.
 
2014-07-26 02:54:23 PM  

Snarfangel: 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.


If an 80 yo guy can chase you down after you did a home invasion on him, you deserve a second shot.  Biitches.
 
2014-07-26 02:54:48 PM  

birchman: birchman: mikaloyd: If societal values are such that they protect home invasion robbers to a greater degree than they protect the victims of those robberies then that society cannot long stand or advance until its values have changed.

She was still in his home and threatening him when he killed her, this wouldn't even be a story.

*If she was

FTFM


But she wasn't. She was fleeing, wounded, and no longer a real threat. He should have called the cops at that point.

It would be different if she was still threatening his life at the time he shot her. Self defense is completely acceptable. What he did was not an act of self defense but one of revenge. Even if she did lie about being pregnant the fact he shot her anyway is particularly egregious. We have a justice system for a reason. Vigilante justice is not acceptable. You don't get to be judge, jury, and executioner.
 
2014-07-26 02:55:06 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: I hate everyone involved in this story. Remind to never liver wherever the heck they live


Why would you ever want to undergo irreversible thickening, where they live or otherwise?
 
2014-07-26 02:55:30 PM  

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

On my property, stealing my stuff and threatening my life? Absolutely.

Yeah, about that:

"y his own account, [Greer] chased the burglars and fired at them outside his home as they were fleeing."

and

"[Greer admits] he shot the woman in the back as she fled his home and ran down an alley."

So, neither on his property, stealing his stuff, or threatening his life: all three of those were no longer the case. Yet he shot her. In the back. Twice.


Does it matter when the thins happened? They broke into his house, tried to steal his stuff, assaulted him and threatened his life. So what if she was waddling away when she got what was coming.
 
2014-07-26 02:56:06 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Funny to see the dickless wonders here fuming at the notion that our society might frown on persons of low character being eliminated at the whim of their betters.


If in this case you think that our society is going to give the situation a frown with much more than a slightly downturned bottom lip, then the society you think we live in is just another one of your dickless delusions.
 
2014-07-26 02:56:39 PM  
Then he's still in the running for NRA member of the year.
 
2014-07-26 02:57:43 PM  

gnadfly: If an 80 yo guy can chase you down after you did a home invasion on him, you deserve a second shot. Biitches.


This really should be the story here.  What deplorable shape our nation's criminals are in, that an eighty year old man can run them down.
 
2014-07-26 03:02:24 PM  

MechaPyx: birchman: birchman: mikaloyd: If societal values are such that they protect home invasion robbers to a greater degree than they protect the victims of those robberies then that society cannot long stand or advance until its values have changed.

She was still in his home and threatening him when he killed her, this wouldn't even be a story.

*If she was

FTFM

But she wasn't. She was fleeing, wounded, and no longer a real threat. He should have called the cops at that point.

It would be different if she was still threatening his life at the time he shot her. Self defense is completely acceptable. What he did was not an act of self defense but one of revenge. Even if she did lie about being pregnant the fact he shot her anyway is particularly egregious. We have a justice system for a reason. Vigilante justice is not acceptable. You don't get to be judge, jury, and executioner.


His home had been burglarized before, possibly by the two home invaders who attacked him in his house.  The belief by the victim that the suspects (though fleeing) continued to pose a threat to his property, as well as life and limb, is not an unreasonable one.  The suspect's continued existence was a threat to this man.

What are the cops going to do about a burglary and assault?  They're there to take pictures.

The DA has a responsibility to represent law and order.  The old man should be charged with manslaughter.  He had no way of knowing if they would come back with weapons or more accomplices.  We as citizens have a responsibility to protect our weakest fellow citizens from the human garbage that prey on them.  The jury should find him not guilty.
 
2014-07-26 03:06:46 PM  
I sincerely hope that this man gets off scot-free.

Not because he isn't a murdering old piece of shiat, because he totally is. I just think it'll be funny when robbers realize that there is no real downside to blowing the homeowner's brains out to protect their own asses. Sure I guess if they get caught after the fact, that's another (huge) charge to tack on, but most criminals don't operate under the assumption that they are going to get caught so this is a moot point.

I mean, if I'm a robber and I know that homeowners are allowed to shoot criminals as they flee with no real punishment, I'm not going to waste time with namby-pamby half-assed solutions like beating the guy up. That will just make him want to get back at me more. I'm going to cap him in the face and then take his shiat. One less witness, and I'm also less likely to get shot in the back as I'm leaving.

We end up with the society we deserve. If vigilante justice is seen to be tolerated by the authorities, it isn't going to make criminals more docile or less common, even though that's what the nutbars with permanent boners for their gun collection want you to think. The criminals will just become more violent and more thorough about the process in response.
 
2014-07-26 03:07:21 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.


They should not be in the house.
 
2014-07-26 03:10:00 PM  

smerfnablin: Just an FYI:

Charging a senior citizen with anything while defending his property from home invasion is not the way to get re-elected DA


In this case, yes, because all the parties involved are white (well the mother of the accomplice might by Hobbit or Oopa Loompa).   Change the racial dynamic and have a African American or Hispanic shooter and white burglars or white shooter and African American or Hispanic burglar, and things may change a bit based upon interest groups that get involved.  The only interest group that may insert themselves here is the NRA.  However you get community activists from various racial communities involved and DA pressure to charge gets difficult to resist.
 
2014-07-26 03:10:21 PM  
So the guy snapped, that's what happens when you get repeatedly robbed and beaten.  I think any jury would agree he wasn't in his right mind at the time.
 
2014-07-26 03:11:51 PM  

Plastic Trash Vortex: I sincerely hope that this man gets off scot-free.

Not because he isn't a murdering old piece of shiat, because he totally is. I just think it'll be funny when robbers realize that there is no real downside to blowing the homeowner's brains out to protect their own asses. Sure I guess if they get caught after the fact, that's another (huge) charge to tack on, but most criminals don't operate under the assumption that they are going to get caught so this is a moot point.

I mean, if I'm a robber and I know that homeowners are allowed to shoot criminals as they flee with no real punishment, I'm not going to waste time with namby-pamby half-assed solutions like beating the guy up. That will just make him want to get back at me more. I'm going to cap him in the face and then take his shiat. One less witness, and I'm also less likely to get shot in the back as I'm leaving.

We end up with the society we deserve. If vigilante justice is seen to be tolerated by the authorities, it isn't going to make criminals more docile or less common, even though that's what the nutbars with permanent boners for their gun collection want you to think. The criminals will just become more violent and more thorough about the process in response.


Ideally the robber gets shot in the face on the way in or hit with a bat. If people know they will be shot for home invasion they won't do it. I suppose you would make them a sandwich and help load your shiat in their car.
 
2014-07-26 03:14:02 PM  

mayIFark: whither_apophis: 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.

It's pretty straightforward actually. Do the opposite of how the rest of the developed world operates.


You mean the part of the world that robbed and colonized the third world?
 
2014-07-26 03:14:37 PM  

Ker_Thwap: 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.


To me, the problem isn't just that he shot her as she was fleeing.  Or even that after he had shot her and she was down, pleading for her life, he shot her one or two more times to finish her off--even as sickening as that is.  It's that now he's giving interviews on TV where he's talking about executing this woman as flippantly as you might the weather.  Most people who are forced to kill someone, whether in a line of duty or in self-defense, generally feel something about taking another human's life.  This old guy is one cold, ruthless motherfarker.
 
2014-07-26 03:16:45 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 you're not. You are being quite reasonable. He is not trigger happy, He should be commended.

Inflicting a major broken bone on a senior is likely a death sentence for the man. The average life expectancy for anyone over 60 who has a injury like the one that animal inflicted is 3 to 5 years. I said and meant animal and one who deserved to be put down. She will never victimize anyone weaker than her again. Anyone having even the least bit of sympathy for this animal is insane.

The comments here are revolting and represent one of the reasons our society is on the verge of collapse. One of the major reasons for a civilization to exist is the protection of its weakest members. The young, the old, the infirm. People are being continually bombarded by the media telling them that there is no excuse good enough to allow you to protect yourself and really saying that you don't own your own life, we do.
 
2014-07-26 03:18:04 PM  
Nobody else has pointed out an interesting side note. He claims these were the same who robbed him before and who knew he had a gun safe. So the fact that he owned a gun was apparently not a deterrent to thieves. Oh you might say but these were stupid thieves and most would agree they are, but then most thieves are pretty stupid. Anyway, one strike against guns having deterrent value.
 
2014-07-26 03:20:21 PM  

smells_like_meat: 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 you're not. You are being quite reasonable. He is not trigger happy, He should be commended.

Inflicting a major broken bone on a senior is likely a death sentence for the man. The average life expectancy for anyone over 60 who has a injury like the one that animal inflicted is 3 to 5 years. I said and meant animal and one who deserved to be put down. She will never victimize anyone weaker than her again. Anyone having even the least bit of sympathy for this animal is insane.

The comments here are revolting and represent one of the reasons our society is on the verge of collapse. One of the major reasons for a civilization to exist is the protection of its weakest members. The young, the old, the infirm. People are being continually bombarded by the media telling them that there is no excuse good enough to allow you to protect yourself and really saying that you don't own your own life, we do.


Well said. The majority of this country agrees with you they just don't have as big of mouths as the others.
 
2014-07-26 03:20:44 PM  

wademh: Nobody else has pointed out an interesting side note. He claims these were the same who robbed him before and who knew he had a gun safe. So the fact that he owned a gun was apparently not a deterrent to thieves. Oh you might say but these were stupid thieves and most would agree they are, but then most thieves are pretty stupid. Anyway, one strike against guns having deterrent value.


Right, but USING them will be.
 
2014-07-26 03:21:03 PM  

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

On my property, stealing my stuff and threatening my life? Absolutely.

Yeah, about that:

"y his own account, [Greer] chased the burglars and fired at them outside his home as they were fleeing."

and

"[Greer admits] he shot the woman in the back as she fled his home and ran down an alley."

So, neither on his property, stealing his stuff, or threatening his life: all three of those were no longer the case. Yet he shot her. In the back. Twice.


"An 80 year old man shoots at a fleeing target, moving away from him, with a low velocity handgun, scoring two hits, including a head shot. Where did he learn to do this?"

/the "you will hesitate at the moment of truth" speech works too
 
2014-07-26 03:21:08 PM  

WraithSama: Most people who are forced to kill someone, whether in a line of duty or in self-defense, generally feel something about taking another human's life.


Not everybody believes that human life has inherent value....
 
2014-07-26 03:21:11 PM  

wademh: Nobody else has pointed out an interesting side note. He claims these were the same who robbed him before and who knew he had a gun safe. So the fact that he owned a gun was apparently not a deterrent to thieves. Oh you might say but these were stupid thieves and most would agree they are, but then most thieves are pretty stupid. Anyway, one strike against guns having deterrent value.


The bullet seems to work though.
 
2014-07-26 03:21:11 PM  

WraithSama: This old guy is one cold, ruthless motherfarker.


Which is what his defenders fantasize about being.

Did he ever say why he moved the body?
 
2014-07-26 03:22:51 PM  

Friction8r: beakerxf: 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?

When she was lying in the alley wounded, the elderly guy walked up and pointed this gun. He told a reporter that she said "I'm pregnant. I'm going to have a baby." Then he shot her in the head.

So a reporter was talking to the guy before he shot her in the head? Timing is everything! But you are right, she was "lying" in the alley!


Yes, she was both lying on the ground and about the baby.
 
2014-07-26 03:22:57 PM  

wademh: Nobody else has pointed out an interesting side note. He claims these were the same who robbed him before and who knew he had a gun safe. So the fact that he owned a gun was apparently not a deterrent to thieves. Oh you might say but these were stupid thieves and most would agree they are, but then most thieves are pretty stupid. Anyway, one strike against guns having deterrent value.


Apparently he is also against door and window locks.
 
2014-07-26 03:25:49 PM  

whither_apophis: wademh: Nobody else has pointed out an interesting side note. He claims these were the same who robbed him before and who knew he had a gun safe. So the fact that he owned a gun was apparently not a deterrent to thieves. Oh you might say but these were stupid thieves and most would agree they are, but then most thieves are pretty stupid. Anyway, one strike against guns having deterrent value.

Apparently he is also against door and window locks.


And here comes the victim-blaming....
 
2014-07-26 03:28:24 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.


So....Judge Dread?
 
2014-07-26 03:29:04 PM  

catusr: 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.


How about, "don't break into houses?"
 
2014-07-26 03:30:27 PM  
A woman lying about being pregnant , well . I never heard of such a thing!

Dr. frkk U  Sarcasm
 
2014-07-26 03:30:34 PM  
Bunch of trigger happy motherfarkers in here.

Prolly shoot someone for knocking on the door to ask directions.
 
2014-07-26 03:30:38 PM  

wademh: Nobody else has pointed out an interesting side note. He claims these were the same who robbed him before and who knew he had a gun safe. So the fact that he owned a gun was apparently not a deterrent to thieves. Oh you might say but these were stupid thieves and most would agree they are, but then most thieves are pretty stupid. Anyway, one strike against guns having deterrent value.


Maybe they figured since he didnt shoot them the first 2 or 3 times he wasnt going to shoot them the last time they robbed him.
 
2014-07-26 03:31:00 PM  

whither_apophis: wademh: Nobody else has pointed out an interesting side note. He claims these were the same who robbed him before and who knew he had a gun safe. So the fact that he owned a gun was apparently not a deterrent to thieves. Oh you might say but these were stupid thieves and most would agree they are, but then most thieves are pretty stupid. Anyway, one strike against guns having deterrent value.

Apparently he is also against door and window locks.


Well now there's a point. Do despite having been broken into twice before, and maintaining a large stash of cash in his safe, he did not adequately secure his home. This sounds like an attractive nuisance case.

\am I doing the troll thing right?
 
2014-07-26 03:34:53 PM  

wademh: Nobody else has pointed out an interesting side note. He claims these were the same who robbed him before and who knew he had a gun safe. So the fact that he owned a gun was apparently not a deterrent to thieves. Oh you might say but these were stupid thieves and most would agree they are, but then most thieves are pretty stupid. Anyway, one strike against guns having deterrent value.


Seems like she's pretty farking deterred now.

Seriously, if anyone is squirting tears because this piece of shiat is room temperature, they're retarded.
 
2014-07-26 03:34:58 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Does it matter when the thins happened?


Legally: yes.

Morally: yes. I can't think of a single time when shooting someone in the back wasn't considered cowardly.
 
2014-07-26 03:35:51 PM  
When I first read this story two days ago, I thought it said that he shot her in the back as she fled. Then he followed her into the alley and after she begged him not to shoot, he fired a second shot which hit her in the head.

Apparently, I was reading the news drunk because I can't find that version of the story anywhere.
 
2014-07-26 03:38:56 PM  

LavenderWolf: sithon: 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

No he wouldn't have been. Maybe a weapons charge depending on the legality of the weapon.

The idea that you aren't allowed to defend yourself in Canada is retarded. You absolutely can.


You can't shoot a fleeing robber in
the back . He was no longer in imminant danger. When you shoot someone running away pleading for their life ,you are a muderer. Reasonable force is the rule in Canada.
 
2014-07-26 03:40:00 PM  
Satanic_Hamster:
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.

This.  You should have the ability to defend yourself in your home, and if you wave a gun around and scare the burglar off, what's to say that he wouldn't come back next time armed and ready to shoot first?

I don't think that there's one sane gun owner that would agree that chasing them into an alleyway, shooting them once in the back, then walking up and executing them would constitute "self-defense".
 
2014-07-26 03:40:40 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: WraithSama: This old guy is one cold, ruthless motherfarker.

Which is what his defenders fantasize about being.

Did he ever say why he moved the body?


Why don't you go ask him? I'm sure the docs have reset his collarbone and he's up for an inquisitive badgering from a supercilious ass. Be sure to shake the hell out of his hand, the sling is just a prop.
 
2014-07-26 03:41:58 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Does it matter when the thins happened?

Legally: yes.

Morally: yes. I can't think of a single time when shooting someone in the back wasn't considered cowardly.


Depends. There's a John Wayne, Matt Dillion, Paladin, Randolf Scott sort of morality and then there's a Clint Eastwood, Paul Kersey morality. Lynch mob mentality has always been there, we just tended to look down on it in the open light and only go there under torch light when faces were hidden in shadows.
 
2014-07-26 03:42:19 PM  

sithon: LavenderWolf: sithon: 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

No he wouldn't have been. Maybe a weapons charge depending on the legality of the weapon.

The idea that you aren't allowed to defend yourself in Canada is retarded. You absolutely can.

You can't shoot a fleeing robber in
the back . He was no longer in imminant danger. When you shoot someone running away pleading for their life ,you are a muderer. Reasonable force is the rule in Canada.


TFA says nothing about that being the case.
 
2014-07-26 03:42:54 PM  
If you're going to assault and rob a retiree, it's best to check first what job they retired from.

img.fark.net
 
2014-07-26 03:43:01 PM  

violentsalvation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: WraithSama: This old guy is one cold, ruthless motherfarker.

Which is what his defenders fantasize about being.

Did he ever say why he moved the body?

Why don't you go ask him? I'm sure the docs have reset his collarbone and he's up for an inquisitive badgering from a supercilious ass. Be sure to shake the hell out of his hand, the sling is just a prop.


Sorry about your penis.
 
2014-07-26 03:49:22 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: violentsalvation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: WraithSama: This old guy is one cold, ruthless motherfarker.

Which is what his defenders fantasize about being.

Did he ever say why he moved the body?

Why don't you go ask him? I'm sure the docs have reset his collarbone and he's up for an inquisitive badgering from a supercilious ass. Be sure to shake the hell out of his hand, the sling is just a prop.

Sorry about your penis.


Hefty burden it is, having one.
 
2014-07-26 03:49:25 PM  
Someone needs to do a study of website comment boards to determine the value of a human life* from site to site. I'm guessing Fark is somewhere in the mid-range. Maybe $2,200.

*Not including a fetus.
 
2014-07-26 03:50:25 PM  

Fark It: whither_apophis: wademh: Nobody else has pointed out an interesting side note. He claims these were the same who robbed him before and who knew he had a gun safe. So the fact that he owned a gun was apparently not a deterrent to thieves. Oh you might say but these were stupid thieves and most would agree they are, but then most thieves are pretty stupid. Anyway, one strike against guns having deterrent value.

Apparently he is also against door and window locks.

And here comes the victim-blaming....


Hey women dress slutty right?
 
2014-07-26 03:52:35 PM  

Plastic Trash Vortex: I mean, if I'm a robber and I know that homeowners are allowed to shoot criminals as they flee with no real punishment, I'm not going to waste time with namby-pamby half-assed solutions like beating the guy up. That will just make him want to get back at me more. I'm going to cap him in the face and then take his shiat. One less witness, and I'm also less likely to get shot in the back as I'm leaving.


You assume entirely too much thought by the criminal element.  Criminals capable of insight are almost never caught, and people that can follow a logic trail usually find gainful employment.

There is no universal character trait among criminals, but low intelligence is the closest thing to it.
 
2014-07-26 03:53:03 PM  
Even if the guy is changed and convicted it will be a life sentence. He's so old he'd be lucky to survive a trial.

Do I have sympathy for the burglars? Nope. Do I think he was in the wrong shooting them as they ran away. Absolutely. Would I be tempted to want to do the same in a similar situation. Absolutely.
 
2014-07-26 03:53:34 PM  

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


The homeowners amazing x-ray vision saves the day!
 
2014-07-26 03:58:41 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: violentsalvation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: WraithSama: This old guy is one cold, ruthless motherfarker.

Which is what his defenders fantasize about being.

Did he ever say why he moved the body?

Why don't you go ask him? I'm sure the docs have reset his collarbone and he's up for an inquisitive badgering from a supercilious ass. Be sure to shake the hell out of his hand, the sling is just a prop.

Sorry about your penis.


Your obsession with the genitalia of others is not an appropriate topic of discussion.
 
GBB
2014-07-26 04:03:41 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.


In most states, the use of deadly force is allowed to prevent death or great bodily harm to oneself or others.  Also, the use of deadly force is allowed during the commission of a forcible felony or in the apprehension of or during the escape of a person that might reasonably further commit a forcible felony (this is the provision that allows prisoners to be killed while escaping).  I have a feeling that this provision, if established in California, will be this guy's defense.  If he was robbed multiple times by the same suspects, and they beat him this time, then it is reasonable that they might come back again and either cause great bodily harm or death.  Therefore, he could be justified in using deadly force to prevent their escape.

/not anywhere close to being a lawyer.
 
2014-07-26 04:04:30 PM  

MechaPyx: Bunch of trigger happy motherfarkers in here.

Prolly shoot someone for knocking on the door to ask directions.


Only if they're Jehovah's Witnesses and they tell me they're preggers.
 
2014-07-26 04:07:48 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: But you CAN'T chase them into the alley, shoot them in the back, and then execute them on the ground.


I'd think that if that happened more often, there' d be fewer criminals.

But who wants that?
 
2014-07-26 04:08:28 PM  
I don't have to outrun the old man. I just have to outrun you.
 
2014-07-26 04:10:11 PM  
I once left a ham sammich in a toaster oven too long that ended up looking like this
tribktla.files.wordpress.com
 
GBB
2014-07-26 04:11:52 PM  
Anyone who seeks to deprive others of their rights, forfeits their own.
 
2014-07-26 04:20:41 PM  

GBB: Anyone who seeks to deprive others of their rights, forfeits their own.


So when is Obama being incarcerated again..... I kid, I kid.
 
2014-07-26 04:22:37 PM  
From what I've read, Your first kill is quite traumatic. Subsequent kills make it easier. My Government teacher in HS said,"Kill them, then drag them bac inside." I'm not a fan of that, just nonlethal methods. The worst I can think of, is maim them. Wing 'em. then wait for their cohorts to come back to assist them.
 
2014-07-26 04:34:45 PM  
That still doesn't excuse what he did. He should be given a couple hundred dollar fine and a few hours of community service to think long and hard about what he did.
 
2014-07-26 04:35:53 PM  
Off topic but...  My first greenlight!!!

/subbie
//slashies!!
 
2014-07-26 04:45:27 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.


It may not have been premeditated but it was clear his intent was to kill, he even said as much. That's murder isn't it?
 
2014-07-26 04:57:58 PM  

jst3p: 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.

It may not have been premeditated but it was clear his intent was to kill, he even said as much. That's murder isn't it?


No. You can intend to kill when acting in self-defense and it is not murder. Murder is an illegal type of killing and it does not require intent to kill. By definition, if someone is killed as a consequence of you committing a felany, say a copy shot by another cop in the crossfire when pursuing you after you rob a bank, you are technically guilty of murdering that cop.

Of course, what he did was not self-defense. He was not legally in the right, he intended to kill, and succeeded, so it is legally murder. So you're conclusion is correct but your reasoning is incorrect.
 
2014-07-26 05:00:17 PM  

InsaneJelloTroll: Pull the Plug on Grannie:

Here's a perspective even a Buddhist would consider: they already beat up an 80 year old man. It's not unreasonable to conclude they are likely to continue hurting people. By taking them out you very well could be sparing someone a horrible death.

No, that's a perspective only an idiot would consider. What you're saying is it's OK to shoot people if you think they might commit a crime in the future, which is just damned stupid.


We're perfectly fine using that reasoning to give people life sentence w/o possibility of parole and the death sentence.

Let me anticipate your retort: yeah sure the guy is acting as judge, jury and executioner. But that was not the concept (whether or not it is just to kill someone to keep them from harming others) under discussion.

But you are right, I actually am profoundly retarded. I wake up every morning and hate myself a little more and more of me dies as a result.
 
2014-07-26 05:00:27 PM  
Dammit! Another botched abortion!
 
2014-07-26 05:05:09 PM  

jst3p: 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.

It may not have been premeditated but it was clear his intent was to kill, he even said as much. That's murder isn't it?


He even chuckles about it in the raw video interview. He essentially says he killed the guy's wife or girlfriend so that the guy would think twice about coming back. He says it with a chuckle, just as he chuckles a bit when he describes killing the girl after she plead with him not to.

He admits they ran when they saw the gun. He admits she had her back to him and was begging for her life. He admits he dragged her corpse back to his house after shooting her. He admits he did it to give her partner "something to think about".

This is cold-blooded. This is revenge killing. This is not justice.

She was an addict. She should have been sent to jail and put into a drug rehab program. She was the police's problem after the man secured his own immediate safety. I do not want a society where one man can decide to execute people by shooting them in the back as they flee. Even cops get in trouble when they shoot people in the back.

He should be punished. I don't think prison is right, but he needs some form of punishment. Maybe they can force him to work in a drug rehab facility as a greeter or something. If he showed ANY remorse after shooting a fleeing woman in the back, I might not be quite as incensed, but the man laughed about it and said he had no regrets.

I'd have regrets. Any sane person should regret having to kill another person. Any sane person should REALLY regret pulling the trigger when your target is running away, back to you, begging for their life.
 
2014-07-26 05:07:13 PM  

LavenderWolf: You can't shoot a fleeing robber in
the back . He was no longer in imminant danger. When you shoot someone running away pleading for their life ,you are a muderer. Reasonable force is the rule in Canada.

TFA says nothing about that being the case.



This one doesn't, but that's what happened. According to other articles and his own statements
 
2014-07-26 05:09:53 PM  

Plastic Trash Vortex: I mean, if I'm a robber and I know that homeowners are allowed to shoot criminals as they flee with no real punishment, I'm not going to waste time with namby-pamby half-assed solutions like beating the guy up. That will just make him want to get back at me more. I'm going to cap him in the face and then take his shiat. One less witness, and I'm also less likely to get shot in the back as I'm leaving.


The pros don't like to shoot people
1. Makes noise and the neighbors call the cops
2. Murder >>>> burglary in terms of police resources
 
2014-07-26 05:10:53 PM  

lostcat: Someone needs to do a study of website comment boards to determine the value of a human life* from site to site. I'm guessing Fark is somewhere in the mid-range. Maybe $2,200.

*Not including a fetus.


Don't be ridiculous. If they're HIV- one kidney is worth at least that much.
 
2014-07-26 05:13:11 PM  

sithon: LavenderWolf: You can't shoot a fleeing robber in
the back . He was no longer in imminant danger. When you shoot someone running away pleading for their life ,you are a muderer. Reasonable force is the rule in Canada.

TFA says nothing about that being the case.


This one doesn't, but that's what happened. According to other articles and his own statements


Then, in that case, you're right. My mistake.
 
2014-07-26 05:15:24 PM  

wademh: jst3p: 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.

It may not have been premeditated but it was clear his intent was to kill, he even said as much. That's murder isn't it?

No. You can intend to kill when acting in self-defense and it is not murder. Murder is an illegal type of killing and it does not require intent to kill. By definition, if someone is killed as a consequence of you committing a felany, say a copy shot by another cop in the crossfire when pursuing you after you rob a bank, you are technically guilty of murdering that cop.

Of course, what he did was not self-defense. He was not legally in the right, he intended to kill, and succeeded, so it is legally murder. So you're conclusion is correct but your reasoning is incorrect.


I don't see shooting someone in the back as they run away yelling "please don't kill me! I am pregnant!" as self defense.
 
2014-07-26 05:18:59 PM  

The Man With Crazy Super Animal Powers: He should be punished. I don't think prison is right, but he needs some form of punishment. Maybe they can force him to work in a drug rehab facility as a greeter or something. If he showed ANY remorse after shooting a fleeing woman in the back, I might not be quite as incensed, but the man laughed about it and said he had no regrets.


Emotional incontinence. Possibly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudobulbar_affect

The cardinal feature of the disorder is a pathologically lowered threshold for exhibiting the behavioral response of laughter, crying, or both. An affected individual exhibits episodes of laughter and/or crying without an apparent motivating stimulus or in response to stimuli that would not have elicited such an emotional response before the onset of the underlying neurological disorder.

At 80 he has about 15% chance of having dementia. Higher chance of having impairment not reaching criteria for dementia.
 
2014-07-26 05:21:10 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: 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.


Run after them and empty an entire pistol into their back before they hit the ground?  I could agree with your claim.

But chasing after, shooting, then walking up and executing?  Sorry, that's crossing into murder.
 
2014-07-26 05:27:01 PM  
Even though we have Detroit, Saginaw and Flint, Michigan can be a nice place to live.
http://lawfuluse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/People-v.-Couch-Mich .1 990use-of-deadly-force-in-citizen-arrest.pdf
 
2014-07-26 05:30:43 PM  

jst3p: No. You can intend to kill when acting in self-defense and it is not murder. Murder is an illegal type of killing and it does not require intent to kill. By definition, if someone is killed as a consequence of you committing a felany, say a copy shot by another cop in the crossfire when pursuing you after you rob a bank, you are technically guilty of murdering that cop.

Of course, what he did was not self-defense. He was not legally in the right, he intended to kill, and succeeded, so it is legally murder. So you're conclusion is correct but your reasoning is incorrect.


I don't see shooting someone in the back as they run away yelling "please don't kill me! I am pregnant!" as self defense.


That may have been why I wrote, "Of course, what he did was not self-defense. He was not legally in the right, he intended to kill, and succeeded, so it is legally murder. So you're conclusion is correct but your reasoning is incorrect. "
 
2014-07-26 05:44:03 PM  

wademh: jst3p: No. You can intend to kill when acting in self-defense and it is not murder. Murder is an illegal type of killing and it does not require intent to kill. By definition, if someone is killed as a consequence of you committing a felany, say a copy shot by another cop in the crossfire when pursuing you after you rob a bank, you are technically guilty of murdering that cop.

Of course, what he did was not self-defense. He was not legally in the right, he intended to kill, and succeeded, so it is legally murder. So you're conclusion is correct but your reasoning is incorrect.


I don't see shooting someone in the back as they run away yelling "please don't kill me! I am pregnant!" as self defense.

That may have been why I wrote, "Of course, what he did was not self-defense. He was not legally in the right, he intended to kill, and succeeded, so it is legally murder. So you're conclusion is correct but your reasoning is incorrect. "


Yeah, I should have kept reading my bad. But since that was exactly my reasoning I don't see how my reasoning was incorrect.
 
2014-07-26 05:46:41 PM  
If you're going to shoot someone in the back you should use the Louis Gosset Jr. defense:

i.imgur.com
 
2014-07-26 05:47:19 PM  
What if the old guy was in this house?...
Sad & scary. Kansas home invasion gone bad
 
2014-07-26 05:50:47 PM  

Dave0422: Off topic but...  My first greenlight!!!

/subbie
//slashies!!


Congratulations.  Now, try not to wait another dog year for your next one.
 
2014-07-26 06:08:08 PM  

Dave0422: Off topic but...  My first greenlight!!!

/subbie
//slashies!!



demonsresume.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-07-26 06:14:01 PM  

Dave0422: Off topic but...  My first greenlight!!!

/subbie
//slashies!!


The second is usually a bit easier, but the first can be a pain in the butt as you are aware.
 
2014-07-26 06:15:22 PM  

Daedalus27: The second is usually a bit easier, but the first can be a pain in the butt as you are aware.


Go on...
 
2014-07-26 06:28:39 PM  

All_Farked_Up: So the guy snapped, that's what happens when you get repeatedly robbed and beaten.  I think any jury would agree he wasn't in his right mind at the time.


Also senile agitation may come into play here .
 
2014-07-26 06:29:30 PM  

jst3p: wademh: jst3p:
Yeah, I should have kept reading my bad. But since that was exactly my reasoning I don't see how my reasoning was incorrect.


The "incorrect" reasoning related to saying that because he intended to kill, it was murder. I illustrated a case where you could intend to kill but it would not be murder, demonstrating the fallacy of the logic by counter-example. So intent to kill is neither necessary(other example) or sufficient to conclude murder.
 
2014-07-26 07:00:04 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: 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.


Obviously, you can.  He did.  And so far, at least, he hasn't been charged.

In Texas, I'm pretty sure this is legal.  Section 9.42.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

I don't understand what everyone is so upset about.  A violent criminal got killed.  Boo hoo.  The guy who shot her isn't a risk to anyone so long as they don't break into his house.

So as best I can tell, the only problem is people whining that criminals shouldn't have to risk getting shot when they break into houses and start beating on the occupants.
 

smerfnablin: Charging a senior citizen with anything while defending his property from home invasion is not the way to get re-elected DA


Truth.
 
2014-07-26 07:12:56 PM  

wademh: jst3p: wademh: jst3p:
Yeah, I should have kept reading my bad. But since that was exactly my reasoning I don't see how my reasoning was incorrect.

The "incorrect" reasoning related to saying that because he intended to kill, it was murder. I illustrated a case where you could intend to kill but it would not be murder, demonstrating the fallacy of the logic by counter-example. So intent to kill is neither necessary(other example) or sufficient to conclude murder.


My reasoning wasn't only that there was intent, my reasoning also included that it was not self-defense. I realize I didn't state it in that post but it has been covered several times in multiple threads. I never said that in all cases intent to kill and then killing is murder, just that in this case it was. My reasoning and conclusion are both sound.
 
2014-07-26 07:14:46 PM  
But it seems like no one is asking the real question here -

What the hell are people doing with 22 revolvers for protection?

You cant hardly stop anyone with a 22, you need to be at close range and need a head or chest shot for maximum effect.

It makes a great execution piece, one shot to the head, minimal entry point, no exit - no fuss no muss, just ask the KGB.

But for self defense? - just a bad idea. You really have to squeeze off alot of rounds and hope for the best.

Hell the police had to ditch 38's because there wasn't enough stopping power in them either.

A 9 or 40 with good hollow-points make an effective self protection unit.

If he were to have shot her in the house with the right gun/ammo - this would be a non story.


/Yea - he definitely executed her
 
2014-07-26 07:25:12 PM  

nanim: What if the old guy was in this house?...
Sad & scary. Kansas home invasion gone bad


Who needs a gun?  Horrors like that never happen.
 
2014-07-26 07:36:37 PM  

wademh: jst3p: wademh: jst3p:
Yeah, I should have kept reading my bad. But since that was exactly my reasoning I don't see how my reasoning was incorrect.

The "incorrect" reasoning related to saying that because he intended to kill, it was murder. I illustrated a case where you could intend to kill but it would not be murder, demonstrating the fallacy of the logic by counter-example. So intent to kill is neither necessary(other example) or sufficient to conclude murder.


No, YOU are incorrect in your understanding of self-defense.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought; malice is defined as an actual intent to kill. Therefore in this case, the fact that he intended to kill MEANS that it was murder.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense which negates one element of the offense--in this case, not the intent; because he clearly intended the killing, but the unlawfulness. An affirmative defense is one which the defendant must prove ("burden-shifting"), in this case, because the defendant is claiming he was in fear of his life, the "unlawful" element of murder is partially removed and his killing is now justified.

The only affirmative defense that removes INTENT is insanity, by removing the ability to form intent. Self-defense removes unlawfulness, by making the killing justified.
 
2014-07-26 07:39:05 PM  
I can't remember if I posted it at the time but I questioned whether she was pregnant.

Still, no excuse to kill someone begging for their life (even if later they will sue you can destroy everything you have ever done.
 
2014-07-26 07:40:02 PM  
The law takes a very dim view of shooting people in the back. It takes an even dimmer view of shooting someone begging for their life a second time.
 
2014-07-26 07:42:38 PM  

EffervescingElephant: But it seems like no one is asking the real question here -

What the hell are people doing with 22 revolvers for protection?

You cant hardly stop anyone with a 22, you need to be at close range and need a head or chest shot for maximum effect.

It makes a great execution piece, one shot to the head, minimal entry point, no exit - no fuss no muss, just ask the KGB.

But for self defense? - just a bad idea. You really have to squeeze off alot of rounds and hope for the best.

Hell the police had to ditch 38's because there wasn't enough stopping power in them either.

A 9 or 40 with good hollow-points make an effective self protection unit.

If he were to have shot her in the house with the right gun/ammo - this would be a non story.


/Yea - he definitely executed her


A .38 JHP +P has plenty of stopping power.  A .357 more so, though you may incinerate them with the muzzle flash.  I'm partial to revolvers because no matter what happens in a self-defense situation they will always fire.  Even if they don't, just pull the trigger again.  Very good for high-stress scenarios.
 
2014-07-26 07:42:40 PM  

Gyrfalcon: wademh: jst3p: wademh: jst3p:
Yeah, I should have kept reading my bad. But since that was exactly my reasoning I don't see how my reasoning was incorrect.

The "incorrect" reasoning related to saying that because he intended to kill, it was murder. I illustrated a case where you could intend to kill but it would not be murder, demonstrating the fallacy of the logic by counter-example. So intent to kill is neither necessary(other example) or sufficient to conclude murder.

No, YOU are incorrect in your understanding of self-defense.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought; malice is defined as an actual intent to kill. Therefore in this case, the fact that he intended to kill MEANS that it was murder.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense which negates one element of the offense--in this case, not the intent; because he clearly intended the killing, but the unlawfulness. An affirmative defense is one which the defendant must prove ("burden-shifting"), in this case, because the defendant is claiming he was in fear of his life, the "unlawful" element of murder is partially removed and his killing is now justified.

The only affirmative defense that removes INTENT is insanity, by removing the ability to form intent. Self-defense removes unlawfulness, by making the killing justified.


I know that wasn't to me but that was informative and very clearly explained, thanks.
 
2014-07-26 07:46:36 PM  
How did an 80-year-old man with a broken collarbone drag anyone anywhere? Unless he kinda forced her at gunpoint while she was alive & walking?

This whole thing is bizarre.
 
2014-07-26 07:47:18 PM  

Pull the Plug on Grannie: Daedalus27: The second is usually a bit easier, but the first can be a pain in the butt as you are aware.

Go on...


You have to ease it in and you can't force it.  Whispering some sweet nothings into a mods ear can help along with plying them with alcohol and pharmaceuticals is never a bad idea.  Greenlights don't come easy but unless you try for greenlights, you will never get it.  You miss a 100% of headlines you don't submit.
 
2014-07-26 08:00:35 PM  

EffervescingElephant: But it seems like no one is asking the real question here -

What the hell are people doing with 22 revolvers for protection?

You cant hardly stop anyone with a 22, you need to be at close range and need a head or chest shot for maximum effect.

It makes a great execution piece, one shot to the head, minimal entry point, no exit - no fuss no muss, just ask the KGB.

But for self defense? - just a bad idea. You really have to squeeze off alot of rounds and hope for the best.

Hell the police had to ditch 38's because there wasn't enough stopping power in them either.

A 9 or 40 with good hollow-points make an effective self protection unit.

If he were to have shot her in the house with the right gun/ammo - this would be a non story.


/Yea - he definitely executed her


Not to turn it into a gun thread, but I agree, it is a poor choice for a weapon to be used in self-defense.  While the .22 is a decent round in terms of eventual lethality due to fact it tends to go in and stay in, there isn't much of a wound channel and overall shock and damage is low and relies on time and cumulative effects to stop someone.  The nice thing about .22 is the fact that due to the round size, generally speaking you get more rounds per magazine on a given weapon giving you more chances to hit your foe and there is no recoil giving you the best opportunity to actually hit your target in a stressful situation.  However if they are trying to kill you, most would rather neutralize them immediately before they can harm you rather than relying on eventual bleeding and shock to disable your opponent in which you could be dead before they succumb.

Virtually any caliber can be lethal with the proper type, it is just about how quickly the target will be neutralized.  Generally speaking a 9mm or .40 are popular choices.  You can go with a .357, .44, or .45 but that can be overkill and increases the risk of unintended hits if you miss your target.  Really, if you want the best home defense weapon, a shotgun is probably the gold standard.  It is a very intimidating weapon and the shot pattern gives you the best chance to actually hit something when you fire in the direction of the target.  That's not to say the shotgun doesn't have downsides in terms of weapons maneuverability and recoil (especially if the shooter is elderly as in this case).  If you choose to arm yourself for self-defense, the important thing is to actually train with the weapon so you know how to use it and you gameplan what would happen if you are forced to use it.  First call your lawyer, invoke your rights to remain silent and have your attorney present, and don't make any statements to anyone without going through the lawyer regardless of what the police may tell you. This shooter is a very good example of how NOT to act.
 
2014-07-26 08:02:26 PM  
Nice shot, sir.
 
2014-07-26 08:09:55 PM  
A lot of people seem to be picturing Hollywood version of events. A severely injured 80 year old man didn't chase the criminal down a bunch of back alleys and trap her against a fence and then shoot her with some pithy comment after she begged for her life for 5 minutes.
 
2014-07-26 08:10:03 PM  

EffervescingElephant: But it seems like no one is asking the real question here -

What the hell are people doing with 22 revolvers for protection?

You cant hardly stop anyone with a 22, you need to be at close range and need a head or chest shot for maximum effect.

It makes a great execution piece, one shot to the head, minimal entry point, no exit - no fuss no muss, just ask the KGB.

But for self defense? - just a bad idea. You really have to squeeze off alot of rounds and hope for the best.


As has been amply demonstrated, it appears to have been an effective choice for an octagenarian despite having a broken collarbone.

Hell the police had to ditch 38's because there wasn't enough stopping power in them either.

A 9 or 40 with good hollow-points make an effective self protection unit.

If he were to have shot her in the house with the right gun/ammo - this would be a non story.


/Yea - he definitely executed her


Actually, it appears that he could have brought out a cap gun with a realistic look and they would have fled the scene. Moreover, had they stolen the cap gun, they would not have been able to kill him with it.
 
2014-07-26 08:15:54 PM  

big pig peaches: A lot of people seem to be picturing Hollywood version of events.


Welcome to Fark, where real life is just like it is in the movies.
 
2014-07-26 08:25:43 PM  

Gyrfalcon: wademh: jst3p: wademh: jst3p:
Yeah, I should have kept reading my bad. But since that was exactly my reasoning I don't see how my reasoning was incorrect.

The "incorrect" reasoning related to saying that because he intended to kill, it was murder. I illustrated a case where you could intend to kill but it would not be murder, demonstrating the fallacy of the logic by counter-example. So intent to kill is neither necessary(other example) or sufficient to conclude murder.

No, YOU are incorrect in your understanding of self-defense.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought; malice is defined as an actual intent to kill. Therefore in this case, the fact that he intended to kill MEANS that it was murder.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense which negates one element of the offense--in this case, not the intent; because he clearly intended the killing, but the unlawfulness. An affirmative defense is one which the defendant must prove ("burden-shifting"), in this case, because the defendant is claiming he was in fear of his life, the "unlawful" element of murder is partially removed and his killing is now justified.

The only affirmative defense that removes INTENT is insanity, by removing the ability to form intent. Self-defense removes unlawfulness, by making the killing justified.



You might want to reread what I wrote. I did not ever say that self-defense removes intent. Instead, I was rather clear that self-defense can involve intent to kill. You have to look up one post to see where I was clear. But in the post you respond to, I did not even imply otherwise.

Again, intent  to kill is neither necessary, nor sufficient to make it murder. Committing a felony that results in a death is murder despite even a provable lack of intent to kill. As we agree, self-defense, despite an intent to kill, is not murder. So neither necessary nor sufficient.
 
2014-07-26 08:34:45 PM  

wademh: EffervescingElephant: But it seems like no one is asking the real question here -

As has been amply demonstrated, it appears to have been an effective choice for an octagenarian despite having a broken collarbone.



What has been amply demonstrated here is that it in fact, was NOT an effective choice for an octogenarian - the entire point of my post.

Had this been an effective choice it would have stopped them when he was in his home defending himself and his property.

Not chasing after them into the street, continuing to fire at them and eventually gunning a woman dead in the alley when she was defenseless and begging for her life.
 
2014-07-26 08:45:38 PM  

EffervescingElephant: wademh: EffervescingElephant: But it seems like no one is asking the real question here -

As has been amply demonstrated, it appears to have been an effective choice for an octagenarian despite having a broken collarbone.


What has been amply demonstrated here is that it in fact, was NOT an effective choice for an octogenarian - the entire point of my post.

Had this been an effective choice it would have stopped them when he was in his home defending himself and his property.

Not chasing after them into the street, continuing to fire at them and eventually gunning a woman dead in the alley when she was defenseless and begging for her life.


In what way would a heavier caliber weapon have stopped them in his home if he was unable to hit them with his .22? Again, he had a broken collar bone. Generally speaking, this prohibits you from listing your arm.  Maybe he was a lefty. Or perhaps your 9mm would have scared them to death despite his inability to hit them.

The difference in accuracy for different calibers is subtle on this scale. He's looking at them across a room. That's 8 to 16 feet. So nothing about a higher caliber weapon matters in whether or not he hit them in his first few shots other than perhaps that a lighter weapon might have been easier for an old injured dude to wield.
 
2014-07-26 08:48:34 PM  

Daedalus27: Not to turn it into a gun thread, but I agree, it is a poor choice for a weapon to be used in self-defense


A .22 isn't ideal.  I think we can agree on that.  I suspect that the shooter in the story would also agree.  But he didn't plan this out ahead of time.  After being beaten, knocked down, having his collar bone broken, he grabbed the first gun he could grab.

The male home invader who got away was arrested later.  He was charged with stealing a gun, among other things.  He may have stolen the gun this guy would have preferred to use.  Or maybe the .22 was in a drawer next to where the old man got knocked down.  My point is, since he didn't plan it out ahead of time, he used the gun that was available, not a gun carefully selected for this scenario.
 
2014-07-26 08:57:31 PM  

wademh: EffervescingElephant: wademh: EffervescingElephant: But it seems like no one is asking the real question here -

As has been amply demonstrated, it appears to have been an effective choice for an octagenarian despite having a broken collarbone.


What has been amply demonstrated here is that it in fact, was NOT an effective choice for an octogenarian - the entire point of my post.

Had this been an effective choice it would have stopped them when he was in his home defending himself and his property.

Not chasing after them into the street, continuing to fire at them and eventually gunning a woman dead in the alley when she was defenseless and begging for her life.

In what way would a heavier caliber weapon have stopped them in his home if he was unable to hit them with his .22? Again, he had a broken collar bone. Generally speaking, this prohibits you from listing your arm.  Maybe he was a lefty. Or perhaps your 9mm would have scared them to death despite his inability to hit them.

The difference in accuracy for different calibers is subtle on this scale. He's looking at them across a room. That's 8 to 16 feet. So nothing about a higher caliber weapon matters in whether or not he hit them in his first few shots other than perhaps that a lighter weapon might have been easier for an old injured dude to wield.



I cant find it now, but i thought i read in the original story, he shot the woman in the house twice as they were fleeing.

She was injured after being shot with the .22 and fell. That's when her accomplice ran off.

She was injured from being shot - and he finished her off. That's the way i read it.

If i got it wrong i apologize.


/and you are right, caliber makes no difference if you can't hit your target.
 
2014-07-26 09:03:11 PM  

wademh: As we agree, self-defense, despite an intent to kill, is not murder


It always amazes me how often the standards of logic required on Fark discussion thread exceed the norms in, for example, the Florida Legislature.  "I'm sorry, could you summarize your argument on a short bumper sticker?"
 
2014-07-26 09:04:23 PM  

EffervescingElephant: wademh: EffervescingElephant: wademh: EffervescingElephant: But it seems like no one is asking the real question here -

As has been amply demonstrated, it appears to have been an effective choice for an octagenarian despite having a broken collarbone.


What has been amply demonstrated here is that it in fact, was NOT an effective choice for an octogenarian - the entire point of my post.

Had this been an effective choice it would have stopped them when he was in his home defending himself and his property.

Not chasing after them into the street, continuing to fire at them and eventually gunning a woman dead in the alley when she was defenseless and begging for her life.

In what way would a heavier caliber weapon have stopped them in his home if he was unable to hit them with his .22? Again, he had a broken collar bone. Generally speaking, this prohibits you from listing your arm.  Maybe he was a lefty. Or perhaps your 9mm would have scared them to death despite his inability to hit them.

The difference in accuracy for different calibers is subtle on this scale. He's looking at them across a room. That's 8 to 16 feet. So nothing about a higher caliber weapon matters in whether or not he hit them in his first few shots other than perhaps that a lighter weapon might have been easier for an old injured dude to wield.


I cant find it now, but i thought i read in the original story, he shot the woman in the house twice as they were fleeing.

She was injured after being shot with the .22 and fell. That's when her accomplice ran off.

She was injured from being shot - and he finished her off. That's the way i read it.

If i got it wrong i apologize.


/and you are right, caliber makes no difference if you can't hit your target.



Your scenario is different from all I've read. He shot at them in his house but there's been no data to indicate he hit them.
He testified that he shot her twice in the back in the alley, and "she best be dead, I shot her twice". His words indicate only two hits. Maybe he hit her before and that's why she could not out run him but there's nothing other than empty speculation to suggest that.
Her partner had already outrun her. He wasn't with her until she was shot. It was every scumbag for themselves, apparently.
 
2014-07-26 09:19:12 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought;



For our Pittsburgh farkers:

"Murder is when y'inz is like 'I'm gonna kill that jag off.' n'at."
 
2014-07-26 09:20:17 PM  
Well duh. It's not like a criminal would try and deceive anyone.
 
2014-07-26 09:33:32 PM  

Plastic Trash Vortex: I sincerely hope that this man gets off scot-free.

Not because he isn't a murdering old piece of shiat, because he totally is. I just think it'll be funny when robbers realize that there is no real downside to blowing the homeowner's brains out to protect their own asses. Sure I guess if they get caught after the fact, that's another (huge) charge to tack on, but most criminals don't operate under the assumption that they are going to get caught so this is a moot point.

I mean, if I'm a robber and I know that homeowners are allowed to shoot criminals as they flee with no real punishment, I'm not going to waste time with namby-pamby half-assed solutions like beating the guy up. That will just make him want to get back at me more. I'm going to cap him in the face and then take his shiat. One less witness, and I'm also less likely to get shot in the back as I'm leaving.

We end up with the society we deserve. If vigilante justice is seen to be tolerated by the authorities, it isn't going to make criminals more docile or less common, even though that's what the nutbars with permanent boners for their gun collection want you to think. The criminals will just become more violent and more thorough about the process in response.


Wanna bet?
 
2014-07-26 09:36:07 PM  

big pig peaches: A lot of people seem to be picturing Hollywood version of events. A severely injured 80 year old man didn't chase the criminal down a bunch of back alleys and trap her against a fence and then shoot her with some pithy comment after she begged for her life for 5 minutes.


The guy came out and said that she had begged for her life and then he killed her and how do we even know if she claimed she was pregnant or not,  only the guys story is being told
 
2014-07-26 09:40:24 PM  

Warlordtrooper: The guy came out and said that she had begged for her life and then he killed her and how do we even know if she claimed she was pregnant or not,  only the guys story is being told


Fark Lawyers know the entire story from every angle before it has even had its day in court. Don't question it. Just accept it.
 
2014-07-26 10:31:04 PM  
Simply put, when conducting a violent felony you have taken your rights, thrown them in a corner and pissed on them. Don't expect anyone to pay any attention to them at that point.
You may reclaim your sodden rights some time after your are done/have been arrested/been damaged/etc, but they do not apply to the time in between. If you suffer repercussions in that interim, so be it...
Only a fool would think otherwise.
 
2014-07-26 10:43:50 PM  
Watch this interview if you didn't get a chance to hear and see the 80-year-old shooter describe his encounter.

This was the morning after he was attacked by the intruders. He obviously got his ass kicked pretty good, since he suffered a broken collarbone and a large contusion on his forehead. He's also headed back to the hospital for more medical treatment. Plus, his answers rarely match up with the questions, so I'd say this old dude is A) hard of hearing, B) on pain meds, C) suffering from dementia, or D) all of the above.

I thought it was interesting when he was talking about how he can easily conceal his .22 revolver, as he pats his front pants pocket. And, is it just me, or was it strange that he "dragged" the female victim to the garage?
 
2014-07-26 10:58:50 PM  

Pull the Plug on Grannie: InsaneJelloTroll: Pull the Plug on Grannie:

Here's a perspective even a Buddhist would consider: they already beat up an 80 year old man. It's not unreasonable to conclude they are likely to continue hurting people. By taking them out you very well could be sparing someone a horrible death.

No, that's a perspective only an idiot would consider. What you're saying is it's OK to shoot people if you think they might commit a crime in the future, which is just damned stupid.

We're perfectly fine using that reasoning to give people life sentence w/o possibility of parole and the death sentence.

Let me anticipate your retort: yeah sure the guy is acting as judge, jury and executioner. But that was not the concept (whether or not it is just to kill someone to keep them from harming others) under discussion.

But you are right, I actually am profoundly retarded. I wake up every morning and hate myself a little more and more of me dies as a result.


False equivalency is false. A judge and jury gets to look at all the facts following an investigation, allowing them to make a (supposed) rational decision based on crimes people actually committed. No one is put to death because people are worried about what they might do, they're put to death because the crimes they actually have committed are especially heinous and are supposed to be a deterrent to other criminals. This isn't farking Minority Report.
 
2014-07-26 11:36:49 PM  

wademh: EffervescingElephant: wademh: EffervescingElephant: wademh: EffervescingElephant: But it seems like no one is asking the real question here -

As has been amply demonstrated, it appears to have been an effective choice for an octagenarian despite having a broken collarbone.


What has been amply demonstrated here is that it in fact, was NOT an effective choice for an octogenarian - the entire point of my post.

Had this been an effective choice it would have stopped them when he was in his home defending himself and his property.

Not chasing after them into the street, continuing to fire at them and eventually gunning a woman dead in the alley when she was defenseless and begging for her life.

In what way would a heavier caliber weapon have stopped them in his home if he was unable to hit them with his .22? Again, he had a broken collar bone. Generally speaking, this prohibits you from listing your arm.  Maybe he was a lefty. Or perhaps your 9mm would have scared them to death despite his inability to hit them.

The difference in accuracy for different calibers is subtle on this scale. He's looking at them across a room. That's 8 to 16 feet. So nothing about a higher caliber weapon matters in whether or not he hit them in his first few shots other than perhaps that a lighter weapon might have been easier for an old injured dude to wield.


I cant find it now, but i thought i read in the original story, he shot the woman in the house twice as they were fleeing.

She was injured after being shot with the .22 and fell. That's when her accomplice ran off.

She was injured from being shot - and he finished her off. That's the way i read it.

If i got it wrong i apologize.


/and you are right, caliber makes no difference if you can't hit your target.


Your scenario is different from all I've read. He shot at them in his house but there's been no data to indicate he hit them.
He testified that he shot her twice in the back in the alley, and "she best be dead, I shot he ...


The police seem to be operating under the theory (as stated in the Thursday press conference) that the shots were fired both inside and outside this home and either they know the shots fired in the house were the lethal shots, or they haven't figured that out yet.  Given this issue, they aren't comfortable charging the 80 year old until they have firmed up the case as his defense attorney has an easier time with a self-defense claim if he can argue the shots were fired in the home.  Further by going heavy on the accomplice at least at the arraignment they are likely going to ignore the shooter for nowand going to let the 80 year old stew for awhile until the accomplice pleads guilty so as not to screw up that prosecution by allowing the male burglar to point the figure at the murder charged 80 year old.

Looking at this objectively, you are more likely to hit these burglars before they have increased distance from you by running, once they are running away and going further from you, it gets more difficult to accurately hit what you are shooting at especially if you are already stressed, injured and breathing heavy from a struggle and moving after the fleeing burglars.  The shooter is operating under the assumption that the alley shots stopped her, but it would be really hard to see what shots landed at night and when and given the small size of the rounds and adrenaline of the woman involved it could have taken time before the lethal shots impact on her actually caused her to go down if she was hit earlier. This isn't CSI where fancy computer programs can look back at the incident and calculate the exact positions of the lethal rounds in a hologram.  It's a revolver so you don't have shell casings to give an idea where shots are fired. The .22 isn't going to have through and throughs so you aren't likely to be able to use that to figure out where the lethal shots are fired from so you are relying on blood traces that may or may not be present given the small entry wound.
 
2014-07-26 11:40:24 PM  

Daedalus27: EffervescingElephant: But it seems like no one is asking the real question here -

What the hell are people doing with 22 revolvers for protection?

You cant hardly stop anyone with a 22, you need to be at close range and need a head or chest shot for maximum effect.

It makes a great execution piece, one shot to the head, minimal entry point, no exit - no fuss no muss, just ask the KGB.

But for self defense? - just a bad idea. You really have to squeeze off alot of rounds and hope for the best.

Hell the police had to ditch 38's because there wasn't enough stopping power in them either.

A 9 or 40 with good hollow-points make an effective self protection unit.

If he were to have shot her in the house with the right gun/ammo - this would be a non story.


/Yea - he definitely executed her

Not to turn it into a gun thread, but I agree, it is a poor choice for a weapon to be used in self-defense.  While the .22 is a decent round in terms of eventual lethality due to fact it tends to go in and stay in, there isn't much of a wound channel and overall shock and damage is low and relies on time and cumulative effects to stop someone.  The nice thing about .22 is the fact that due to the round size, generally speaking you get more rounds per magazine on a given weapon giving you more chances to hit your foe and there is no recoil giving you the best opportunity to actually hit your target in a stressful situation.  However if they are trying to kill you, most would rather neutralize them immediately before they can harm you rather than relying on eventual bleeding and shock to disable your opponent in which you could be dead before they succumb.

Virtually any caliber can be lethal with the proper type, it is just about how quickly the target will be neutralized.  Generally speaking a 9mm or .40 are popular choices.  You can go with a .357, .44, or .45 but that can be overkill and increases the risk of unintended hits if you miss your target.  Really, if you want the be ...


I always cringe a little bit when I read comments like this.  Using a .45 or 9mm or .38 and not putting any rounds on target is much less useful than using a smaller caliber such as .22 and hitting your mark.  This guy is 80 years old and I doubt he's proficient with firearms...the .22 is more than sufficient.
 
2014-07-26 11:49:58 PM  

EffervescingElephant: But for self defense? - just a bad idea. You really have to squeeze off alot of rounds and hope for the best.


You see a firearm pointed at you do you stop and question dat? Unless someone has an intense personal hatred for you and is out to kill you, like a crazy jilted ex, they are not going to risk getting shot over it and if they do get shot they are going to GTFO, "stopping power" is unnecessary.
 
2014-07-27 12:05:55 AM  

joness0154: Daedalus27: EffervescingElephant: But it seems like no one is asking the real question here -

What the hell are people doing with 22 revolvers for protection?

You cant hardly stop anyone with a 22, you need to be at close range and need a head or chest shot for maximum effect.

It makes a great execution piece, one shot to the head, minimal entry point, no exit - no fuss no muss, just ask the KGB.

But for self defense? - just a bad idea. You really have to squeeze off alot of rounds and hope for the best.

Hell the police had to ditch 38's because there wasn't enough stopping power in them either.

A 9 or 40 with good hollow-points make an effective self protection unit.

If he were to have shot her in the house with the right gun/ammo - this would be a non story.


/Yea - he definitely executed her

Not to turn it into a gun thread, but I agree, it is a poor choice for a weapon to be used in self-defense.  While the .22 is a decent round in terms of eventual lethality due to fact it tends to go in and stay in, there isn't much of a wound channel and overall shock and damage is low and relies on time and cumulative effects to stop someone.  The nice thing about .22 is the fact that due to the round size, generally speaking you get more rounds per magazine on a given weapon giving you more chances to hit your foe and there is no recoil giving you the best opportunity to actually hit your target in a stressful situation.  However if they are trying to kill you, most would rather neutralize them immediately before they can harm you rather than relying on eventual bleeding and shock to disable your opponent in which you could be dead before they succumb.

Virtually any caliber can be lethal with the proper type, it is just about how quickly the target will be neutralized.  Generally speaking a 9mm or .40 are popular choices.  You can go with a .357, .44, or .45 but that can be overkill and increases the risk of unintended hits if you miss your target.  Really, if you ...


I agree and noted that in the first part of the comment about my interpretation of the .22 round especially given his compromised position that night with the broken collarbone and shoulder injuries.  Given modern bullet options almost anything you fire can be made to cause sufficient damage to neutralize a threat.  The most important part is being comfortable with your weapon choice.  Take a safety course and maybe a basic marksmanship course so you know how to shoot.  Furthermore using the weapon and going to range periodically and putting some rounds through the weapon so you have a decent chance of hitting what you are shooting at if a stressful critical moment requires the use of the weapon. Don't forget about cleaning the weapon and maintaining it so it will work when you need it to avoid merely having a club when you need it most. Having a gun for self-defense is almost meaningless and can be very bad if you use the "get it and forget it" strategy. If your not willing to invest a little time in it, please, please, don't buy gun, go with the pepper spray, dog, or something else because a gun is a tool that can protect you but has great capacity to hurt others as well if you don't take it seriously.
 
2014-07-27 01:16:01 AM  

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?


I'm ok with any violent criminal catching a lead injection.
 
2014-07-27 01:29:38 AM  

Repack Rider: Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.

YMMV but your patriotism does not exceed mine.


Vet - e-4

That's why I have a several firearms (we're not in the navy).

Two motivated people can put a beating on a relatively fit person in a hurry and guess what? We don't get to pick how many come in. The only thing this guy should have done differently is started shooting earlier. Yes I get it shooting someone fleeing from you is considered wrong. But What makes it wrong? They were just beating the dog out of this guy and the moment he gets the upper hand they are off limits? What kind of sense does that make?
 
2014-07-27 02:21:53 AM  

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

Mom, I thought that was Rik Flair.

Ric Flair.  Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

 
2014-07-27 08:09:00 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.


First... What dream world are you living in, what are you smoking and can I have some?

Second.... Where do you love so I can come get what I want from you seeing how I know you'll give it up and come out unharmed!
 
2014-07-27 09:15:40 AM  

joness0154: Using a .45 or 9mm or .38 and not putting any rounds on target is much less useful than using a smaller caliber such as .22 and hitting your mark.


What's the old saying, something like "Use the biggest round you can hit things with."  I used to have a USP in .40SW and shot terribly with it.  Downsized to a P99 and shoot groups 1/4 the size.  Funny how that little change made such a difference.
 
2014-07-27 09:26:15 AM  

youmightberight: Repack Rider: Speaking as an Army vet (E-5, Honorable Discharge), that's why I don't own a gun.

I would MUCH RATHER get the crap beaten out of me than live with having killed someone.

YMMV but your patriotism does not exceed mine.

Vet - e-4

That's why I have a several firearms (we're not in the navy).

Two motivated people can put a beating on a relatively fit person in a hurry and guess what? We don't get to pick how many come in. The only thing this guy should have done differently is started shooting earlier. Yes I get it shooting someone fleeing from you is considered wrong. But What makes it wrong? They were just beating the dog out of this guy and the moment he gets the upper hand they are off limits? What kind of sense does that make?


Two against one is a lethal force situation, even if the two are unarmed. Barring an extreme difference in age or fitness, two people attacking a single person will always be able to do whatever they want, and have a better than 50-50 chance of inflicting mortal wounds on their victim even if they aren't intending to.

/yes, it is not only possible to beat a person to death with your bare hands, but also easier than you think
//mostly when there are several sets of bare hands/feet beating someone who has already been restrained by another mob member pinning their arms
///the passengers of Southwest Airlines Flight 1763 didn't intend to kill the person they killed, just stop him from opening the emergency exit door
 
2014-07-27 10:50:09 AM  

RandomAxe: 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.


Me too.

He shouldn't spend a day in jail.
 
2014-07-27 10:50:51 AM  

plmyfngr: how come y'all are so upset about a guy shooting a criminal who robbed and beat him but you don't get your panties in a wad about all the shootings in Chicago??.....BY CRIMINALS


That's racist.
 
2014-07-27 12:43:36 PM  

InsaneJelloTroll: No one is put to death because people are worried about what they might do


Prevention of re-offending

It is undeniable that those who are executed cannot commit further crimes.

Many people don't think that this is sufficient justification for taking human life, and argue that there are other ways to ensure the offenders do not re-offend, such as imprisonment for life without possibility of parole.

Although there have been cases of persons escaping from prison and killing again, these are extremely rare.

But some people don't believe that life imprisonment without parole protects society adequately. The offender may no longer be a danger to the public, but he remains a danger to prison staff and other inmates. Execution would remove that danger.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/for_1.shtml

the individual executed will be prevented (i.e. deterred) from committing any further homicidal acts or other antisocial acts for that matter. It can be argued, of course, that life imprisonment would accomplish the same thing. This argument, however, not only ignores the fundamental assertion that the individual deserves to die, but also brushes aside the distinct possibility that while in prison further homicidal or other criminal acts by this individual may occur. The absence of a death penalty does indeed free these persons incarcerated "for life" from any meaningful behavior restraints thereby further endangering the lives of other prisoners and guards.

http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/capunish.htm

/I win
//BTW when the old man shot this lady she was still free to run away and harm others, she wasn't in prison at that moment
 
2014-07-27 01:05:46 PM  
Wonderful, subby. Now, tell us why that matters.
 
2014-07-27 01:53:02 PM  

LoneWolf343: Wonderful, subby. Now, tell us why that matters.


It makes her a fu*king liar, too. But a dead fu*king liar, so we have that going for us.
 
2014-07-27 03:25:06 PM  

nanim: What if the old guy was in this house?...
Sad & scary. Kansas home invasion gone bad


I have wondered what happened to this pair.  I'm glad to see someone is looking out for their well being.
 
2014-07-27 07:20:30 PM  

LoneWolf343: Wonderful, subby. Now, tell us why that matters.


It obviously matters enough to you to post an a$$hole reply.... probably comes naturally though, huh?
 
2014-07-27 11:56:14 PM  

Pull the Plug on Grannie: /I win
//BTW when the old man shot this lady she was still free to run away and harm others, she wasn't in prison at that moment


You're right, I mistakenly let you move the goal post and spoke in absolutes I shouldn't have. The salient point that you're ignoring is that a civilian should not be legally allowed to make such decisions. On top of that, it's extremely rare that someone gets put to death over an assault + burglary charge. There are reasonable responses to crimes, but executing someone without a jury with the lame excuse that they might hurt someone is not acceptable in a functioning society. Again, like you ignored before, this isn't farking Minority Report, we don't live in a society where people are punished for crimes they might commit. Even if a jury decides that someone is too dangerous to exist in our society, it still has no bearing on the real argument at hand, the difference between a fair trial and a civilian with a gun. And your argument that she was still free to harm others and the shooter somehow prevented that is downright stupid. She was wounded and running for her life, I doubt the thoughts in her head were "Let's go beat up some children now!" Also, that's what the police are for. They caught everyone else involved very quickly without any further harm and yet you act like they're entirely ineffectual. Again, the concept of future crime comes into play, we still don't punish people for crimes they haven't yet committed. You seem to lack the ability to differentiate between "this person has had a fair trial and should be put to death." and "well, hell, they looked pretty guilty and they might have hurt someone, so I blasted them."
 
Displayed 330 of 330 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report