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 114
    More: Followup, Long Beach, Los Angeles County District Attorney, elder abuse, weapon possession, burglary, homeowners  
•       •       •

10269 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jul 2014 at 12:13 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-07-26 11:53:23 AM  
8 votes:
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 12:20:28 PM  
7 votes:
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 12:03:44 PM  
7 votes:
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 12:20:39 PM  
6 votes:
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 12:57:14 PM  
5 votes:

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 12:26:43 PM  
5 votes:
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 12:24:06 PM  
5 votes:

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 12:54:25 PM  
4 votes:
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 12:45:50 PM  
4 votes:

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 12:16:17 PM  
4 votes:

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 12:12:46 PM  
4 votes:
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 11:56:28 AM  
4 votes:
some folks just need killin'.........
2014-07-26 03:16:45 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:20:59 PM  
3 votes:

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 01:25:20 PM  
3 votes:

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 01:22:40 PM  
3 votes:

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 01:15:54 PM  
3 votes:
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 01:07:45 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:43:59 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:37:08 PM  
3 votes:
Good. Dig her up and shoot her again.
2014-07-26 12:36:52 PM  
3 votes:
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 12:31:03 PM  
3 votes:
A woman lied about pregnancy in an attempt to manipulate a man? GTFO
2014-07-26 12:27:33 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:26:47 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:24:56 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:22:07 PM  
3 votes:
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 12:21:45 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:18:45 PM  
3 votes:

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 10:31:04 PM  
2 votes:
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 08:02:26 PM  
2 votes:
Nice shot, sir.
2014-07-26 03:06:46 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:54:48 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:45:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:33:12 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:32:48 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:22:44 PM  
2 votes:
Don't start no shiat won't be no shiat. He didn't start no shiat...so you must acquit.
2014-07-26 01:16:49 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:08:13 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:02:32 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:55:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:55:04 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:54:41 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:49:18 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:48:05 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:47:16 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:46:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:43:50 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:43:33 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:43:19 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:40:07 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:38:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:35:34 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:33:54 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:59:25 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:44:56 AM  
2 votes:
Oh well in that case please, blast away with impunity!
2014-07-26 09:20:17 PM  
1 votes:
Well duh. It's not like a criminal would try and deceive anyone.
2014-07-26 08:09:55 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:00:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:46:36 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:42:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:00:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:05:09 PM  
1 votes:

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.
GBB
2014-07-26 04:11:52 PM  
1 votes:
Anyone who seeks to deprive others of their rights, forfeits their own.
2014-07-26 03:52:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:49:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:34:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:34:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:29:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:25:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:14:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:10:21 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:02:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:56:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:54:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:52:12 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:49:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:47:32 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:34:04 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:24:20 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:24:03 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:23:13 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:53:22 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-07-26 01:50:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:39:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:37:36 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:33:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:28:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:22:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:22:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:20:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:19:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:16:14 PM  
1 votes:

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


Mom, I thought that was Rik Flair.
2014-07-26 01:11:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:09:16 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:08:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:03:44 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:01:21 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:59:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:57:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:55:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:52:07 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:50:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:40:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:37:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:35:59 PM  
1 votes:
Sad story.
2014-07-26 12:35:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:31:06 PM  
1 votes:

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


yeah that's a tough 49 years
2014-07-26 12:28:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:27:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:27:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:26:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:25:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:23:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:22:47 PM  
1 votes:
Why did this come up in the first place? Did someone tell the police that Miller was pregnant, or was she just suspiciously fat?
 
Displayed 114 of 114 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