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
    More: Followup, Long Beach, Los Angeles County District Attorney, elder abuse, weapon possession, burglary, homeowners  
•       •       •

10431 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jul 2014 at 12:13 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 330 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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