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  
•       •       •

10295 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jul 2014 at 12:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 330 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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