Media spins story about 80 year old man shooting robber

[PRB]

What the media says and wants you to believe

"80 year old man shoots pregnant robber despite her plea for life"

What the facts tell us
"She said she was pregnant, she robbed an 80 year old man with an accomplice"

Since when is being pregnant an excuse to avoid getting shot? Especially if you're robbing an elderly man?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What the facts tells us about PRB. Another troll who is disingenuous about his reason for being on this board.

[PRB]

What the facts tells us about PRB. Another troll who is disingenuous about his reason for being on this board.

how is that?

[presence]

(CNN) -- Tom Greer says he fought back when he was attacked by intruders at his home. When he got his gun and fired at them, they ran.

The 80-year-old homeowner says one of the fleeing burglars, a woman, shouted, "I'm pregnant!" He shot her twice, killing her.


The district attorney will decide Friday whether Greer will face criminal charges.


Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell said Greer walked into his house Tuesday to find suspects Andrea Miller, 26, and Gus Adams, 28, ransacking it. According to McDonnell, Greer said this was the fourth time his house has been burglarized.


Police say the couple beat and threw the elderly man to the ground, causing him to suffer a broken collarbone, cuts and bruises.


Despite his injuries, Greer managed to grab his gun and fire at the suspects, causing them to flee through the garage and into the alley, police said.


In an interview with non-CNN affiliate KNBC (http://www.nbclosangeles.com/), Greer said that as the suspects ran into the alley, Miller yelled, "'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!' and I shot her anyway."
Miller died in the alley, the police chief said.


In a press conference, McDonnell said the coroner will make the final determination of whether Miller was pregnant, but said it "wasn't obvious" if she was.


When asked by KNBC how he felt about the incident, Greer responded that he had no regrets.


"I had to do what I had to do."


The male suspect fled the scene, according to Greer and Chief McDonnell. Adams was later arrested and charged with residential robbery and felony murder in Miller's death. He is currently being held on $1.25 million bond.



Video at source
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/25/justice/california-slain-burglar-pregnant/

(http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/25/justice/california-slain-burglar-pregnant/)


"She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant — I'm going to have a baby,' and I shot her anyway," Tom Greer
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/24/80-year-old-man-says-fatally-shot-fleeing-burglar-despite-her-plea-that-was/



The case will be turned over Friday to prosecutors, who will have to decide whether Greer was in “imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death” when he opened fire outside his home.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/man-80-killed-pregnant-burglar-face-charges-cops-article-1.1879554

[qh4dotcom]

Prosecutors will have to determine whether chasing after the suspects and firing on them outside the home goes beyond self-defense, McDonnell said.

Nope, that is not self-defense.
Cops are not allowed to shoot suspects who are running away....neither should homeowners.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-shot-burglar-pregnant-24704576

[PRB]

Nope, that is not self-defense.
Cops are not allowed to shoot suspects who are running away....neither should homeowners.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-shot-burglar-pregnant-24704576

how do you know they won't come back?

[qh4dotcom]

Since when is being pregnant an excuse to avoid getting shot? Especially if you're robbing an elderly man?

Not an excuse to avoid being shot....but don't shoot to kill the baby....shoot her in the legs, arms, feet, hands, etc. She'll survive.

[presence]

Nope, that is not self-defense.
Cops are not allowed to shoot suspects who are running away....neither should homeowners.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-shot-burglar-pregnant-24704576



You know if someone snatches your purse and runs off... I can see that its not right to shoot them in the back. But when somebody bludgeons you to the point a broken collar bone and you're an 80 year old man left alone defending your home.

I say shoot the fucker.

[PRB]

Not an excuse to avoid being shot....but don't shoot to kill the baby....shoot her in the legs, arms, feet, hands, etc. She'll survive.

I hope he didn't intend to kill her, that would be pretty awful.

[qh4dotcom]

how do you know they won't come back?

They would have to be really stupid to come back to face an armed homeowner.

and if you shoot someone who is running away in a public place you might miss and hit a totally innocent person instead.

[PRB]

You know if someone snatches your purse and runs off... I can see that its not right to shoot them in the back. But when somebody bludgeons you to the point a broken collar bone and you're an 80 year old man left alone defending your home.

I say shoot the fucker.

I guess the government's definition of self defense doesn't include disabling a person to keep him/her from fleeing, so that the person can be brought to justice.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

how is that?

That's up to you. Doesn't say much for your character. Neg rep for being disingenuous.

[PRB]

They would have to be really stupid to come back to face an armed homeowner.

and if you shoot someone who is running away in a public place you might miss and hit a totally innocent person instead.

So what? It's a risk inherent in being outdoors, that somebody might have a legitimate reason to shoot another person, and innocent bystanders might catch it.

you're not seriously suggesting we should ban drunk driving just because there's a risk people might get hit by a car, are you?

what kind of libertarian are you if you're going to ban risk taking and liberty in the name of safety?

[qh4dotcom]

You know if someone snatches your purse and runs off... I can see that its not right to shoot them in the back. But when somebody bludgeons you to the point a broken collar bone and you're an 80 year old man left alone defending your home.

I say shoot the fucker.

Tough call....maybe it would be justified but it would not be self-defense....it would be more like revenge.

and if you shoot someone who is running away in a public place you might miss and hit a totally innocent person instead.

[PRB]

Tough call....maybe it would be justified but it would not be self-defense....it would be more like revenge.

and if you shoot someone who is running away in a public place you might miss and hit a totally innocent person instead.

so I should put justice and my personal safety on hold for the public, way to be liberty minded.

[qh4dotcom]

So what? It's a risk inherent in being outdoors, that somebody might have a legitimate reason to shoot another person, and innocent bystanders might catch it.

you're not seriously suggesting we should ban drunk driving just because there's a risk people might get hit by a car, are you?

what kind of libertarian are you if you're going to ban risk taking and liberty in the name of safety?

Well, if you want to engage in the risk taking then you are responsible for the consequences....are you going to compensate the totally innocent person for their injuries or pay for their funeral? Is it worth getting dragged into court and having to pay thousands in attorney's fees?

Geez, we bash cops here all the time for being trigger happy and shooting when they are not supposed to....we bash them for their silly fears that their life in danger when they shoot dogs....so why the double standard with homeowners then?

[PRB]

Well, if you want to engage in the risk taking then you are responsible for the consequences....are you going to compensate the totally innocent person for their injuries or pay for their funeral? Is it worth getting dragged into court and having to pay thousands in attorney's fees?

yes. it is worth it. obviously whatever I do is worth something at the time I do it.

it's my choice to take the risk and I am happy to take responsibility, what i don't need is the government telling me what not to do just because there's an allegedly increase risk.

[qh4dotcom]

yes. it is worth it. obviously whatever I do is worth something at the time I do it.

it's my choice to take the risk and I am happy to take responsibility, what i don't need is the government telling me what not to do just because there's an allegedly increase risk.

It's not about the government telling you what not to do....it's about staying out of trouble.

We bash cops here all the time for being trigger happy and shooting when they shouldn't....we bash them for their silly fears that their life in danger when they shoot dogs....so why the double standard with homeowners then? Homeowners can be trigger happy and fire away carelessly and negligently for whatever silly fear they have but cops can't.

By the way, since you are so happy to take the responsibility....do you have the thousands of dollars to pay for attorney's fees and to care for an injured person for the rest of his/her life? Maybe it will exceed $1 million...oh and don't forget that a jury might find you guilty even if you acted in self-defense....is it worth going to jail for years?

[PRB]

It's not about the government telling you what not to do....it's about staying out of trouble.

We bash cops here all the time for being trigger happy and shooting when they shouldn't....we bash them for their silly fears that their life in danger when they shoot dogs....so why the double standard with homeowners then? Homeowners can be trigger happy and fire away carelessly and negligently for whatever silly fear they have but cops can't.

By the way, since you are so happy to take the responsibility....do you have the thousands of dollars to pay for attorney's fees and to care for an injured person for the rest of his/her life? Maybe it will exceed $1 million...oh and don't forget that a jury might find you guilty even if you acted in self-defense....is it worth going to jail for years?

why can't I worry about that AFTER it happens? and what can you do to me if I have no money?

why am I required to prepare for paying a million dollars to an innocent person just because I own a gun?

it's backwards, this is not liberty, liberty means I get to do what I want until I hurt somebody, and I shouldn't have to fear consequences until there are consequences.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Innocent.

[aGameOfThrones]

Innocent + 1

[phill4paul]

The male suspect fled the scene, according to Greer and Chief McDonnell. Adams was later arrested and charged with residential robbery and felony murder in Miller's death.

Umm, what am I missing here?

[Anti Federalist]

"She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant — I'm going to have a baby,' and I shot her anyway," Tom Greer

Do not talk to cops.

[presence]

Tough call....maybe it would be justified but it would not be self-defense....it would be more like revenge.

and if you shoot someone who is running away in a public place you might miss and hit a totally innocent person instead.


Shooting someone in the back that just snatched your purse is revenge.

Shooting someone in the back that just beat your ass with a near mortal wound while they could be fleeing to regroup and finish you off? That's justice.

[PaulConventionWV]

Nope, that is not self-defense.
Cops are not allowed to shoot suspects who are running away....neither should homeowners.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-shot-burglar-pregnant-24704576

lolz

[PaulConventionWV]

how do you know they won't come back?

If they do, then you can shoot them then.

[LibForestPaul]

You know if someone snatches your purse and runs off... I can see that its not right to shoot them in the back. But when somebody bludgeons you to the point a broken collar bone and you're an 80 year old man left alone defending your home.

I say shoot the fucker.

This would not be an issue if there were more like you and I. DA's wouldn't waste their time bringing it in front of a jury. Unfortunately, hope he pleads to some manslaughter charge. Maybe he can scoot by with a year. But doubt it.

[PaulConventionWV]

Well, if you want to engage in the risk taking then you are responsible for the consequences....are you going to compensate the totally innocent person for their injuries or pay for their funeral? Is it worth getting dragged into court and having to pay thousands in attorney's fees?

Geez, we bash cops here all the time for being trigger happy and shooting when they are not supposed to....we bash them for their silly fears that their life in danger when they shoot dogs....so why the double standard with homeowners then?

Forget about paying for the funeral. If you shoot and miss and hit an innocent person, then you're guilty of manslaughter.

I definitely don't have a double standard for homeowners. I'm not sure exactly what happened in that alley. Was she yelling back to him as she ran? If she was clearly running away, then it was cruel to shoot her. I honestly wouldn't shoot someone unless I knew they were attacking me.

[PaulConventionWV]

Do not talk to cops.

Are you on the right thread? That quote has nothing to do with cops.

EDIT: Oh, I get what you're saying. Yeah, the guy probably shouldn't have said that.

[limequat]

Nope, that is not self-defense.
Cops are not allowed to shoot suspects who are running away....neither should homeowners.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-shot-burglar-pregnant-24704576

Capitol police shot Miriam Carey in the back of the head while she was fleeing...and her baby was in the car.
Not only were they "allowed" to do so, they got a congressional standing ovation.

[limequat]

Shooting someone in the back that just snatched your purse is revenge.

Shooting someone in the back that just beat your ass with a near mortal wound while they could be fleeing to regroup and finish you off? That's justice.

Pretty much.
Nobody mentioned the dude had already been robbed several times. I don't care if she's pregnant, running away, crying sweet tears of remorse...at that point it's self defense.

[Working Poor]

yes. it is worth it. obviously whatever I do is worth something at the time I do it.

it's my choice to take the risk and I am happy to take responsibility, what i don't need is the government telling me what not to do just because there's an allegedly increase risk.

Please don't use this logic while trying to convince someone to vote for freedom issues.

[Philhelm]

I don't know the full story here, but based upon the information from this thread, the would-be thieves forfeited their rights as soon as they attacked the 80-year-old man. He never asked tyo be put into that situation. I say not guilty. Hell, he probably did the unborn kid a favor by ensuring that he wasn't born to a dipshit mother that would try to rob people while pregnant.

[FindLiberty]

If I were the DA, da judge or on the jury, all the facts and evidence would get a closer review before any final conclusion. But based on my understanding of the short report, here are my suggestions: I’d be likely to let him off with only 30 days probation, an official thank you for keeping the neighborhood safe from violent criminals and the suggestion he attend a 3 day gun training class approved by the local PD.

It seems the victim was attacked, injured feared for his life! After that initial assault, maybe they seemed to be the type to have pre-planned to kill him at some point before leaving to prevent him reporting the crime and so they could not be indentified by their victim! (Were they both wearing masks, gloves, hair nets, booties? Did they speak to each other using any names, have identifying scars/tattoos?). If they were identifiable, they possibly planned kill him or come back later to kill him if he survived what they were planning to do to him next.(leave him to die in a fire, etc.) before they left the home. He could have feared for his life at that or any point and therefore may have been justified to use deadly force even if it involved shooting one or both of them in the back. (I’d have to give this another look if he walked up to a wounded attacker and shot them as they were laying on the ground, for any reason! That would not be a good thing to allow to go unpunished.) He’s old, the attack may have rattled his judgment, but maybe he was not too confused and only lacked up-to-date gun training to be tuned up in order to be ready for any future defense of his person or home. He did make the mistake of speaking to police without first obtaining legal counsel.

The surviving home invader/robber/violent offender should have considered the potential for resulting secondary murder charges if anyone was killed while they committed their crime, even if the old geezer just died of a stress-induced heart attack. As it turns out, the dead woman gets him an extra extended stay in prison as long as he is also found guilty of any one or all of the charges involving the initial break-in, related assault and attempted burglary. I’d assume they were “lucky” fatal hits. A viable fetus that was only a few weeks old was probably spared a horrendous early life with Bonnie and Clyde there, as his/her parents. No tears, 15 years with possibly or early release after serving 9 years.

Maybe my INTJ is showing.

[Philhelm]

Geez, we bash cops here all the time for being trigger happy and shooting when they are not supposed to....we bash them for their silly fears that their life in danger when they shoot dogs....so why the double standard with homeowners then?

The State's pursuit of "justice" is inherently a far greater threat to liberty than an individual's pursuit of justice. Usually, the individual had not asked to be put in the life or death situation, so the individual's claim that he feared for his life is valid. Meanwhile, the States enforcers systematically throw themselves into, and escalate, life or death situations, and there is often no recourse when the State's enforcers wrongfully kill someone.

[Philhelm]

[COLOR=#222222][FONT=Verdana]Maybe my INTJ is showing.

The "J" really stands for "JUSTICE!"

[DamianTV]

Question about original post: Is this a hypothetical situation, or is this a real news article without a link?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Question about original post: Is this a hypothetical situation, or is this a real news article without a link?



It's a real story. The OP, PRB, is a liberal troll who sought this story for the express purpose of baiting the first person who took issue with shooter. It's a genuine discussion, but that is not his interest or his purpose. He continually does this and plays dumb when I call him out on it.

[phill4paul]

Question about original post: Is this a hypothetical situation, or is this a real news article without a link?


It's a real story. The OP, PRB, is a liberal troll who sought this story for the express purpose of baiting the first person who took issue with shooter. It's a genuine discussion, but that is not his interest or his purpose. He continually does this and plays dumb when I call him out on it.

post #4. Now give presence some rep luv.

[Danke]

Common Law Punishment for thieves.

[alucard13mm]

I am not saying the guy is wrong but...

I think the guy has something wrong when he nonchalantly tells police and news that the girl pleaded for her life and that she was pregnant and he shot her anyways.

Anyways, why the fuck would you go commit a felony while being pregnant? That is just dumb. Seems like a waste of tax dollars trying and incarcerating the old guy. We gotta pay for trial, jail time and medical expenses if he goes to jail.

[RM918]

Umm, what am I missing here?

I believe that in many places it's standard that if your accomplices are killed in the commission of a crime, you are held responsible for their deaths.

[DamianTV]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovwxBrIBj1w

[presence]

LA Coroner:

"SHE WAS NOT PREGNANT"

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-burglary-suspect-not-pregnant-long-beach-20140725-story.html

[alucard13mm]

LA Coroner:

"SHE WAS NOT PREGNANT"

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-burglary-suspect-not-pregnant-long-beach-20140725-story.html

lol seems the bitch was lying about that? still, you do not win friends if you shot someone who claimed to be pregnant regardless if the woman was pregnant or not.

[Philhelm]

lol seems the bitch was lying about that? still, you do not win friends if you shot someone who claimed to be pregnant regardless if the woman was pregnant or not.

That's not entirely accurate. I like the man just fine, and would happily be his friend.

He didn't just shoot someone who claimed to be pregnant. He shot someone who had attacked him.

[jonhowe]

This would not be an issue if there were more like you and I. DA's wouldn't waste their time bringing it in front of a jury. Unfortunately, hope he pleads to some manslaughter charge. Maybe he can scoot by with a year. But doubt it.



For the record, it was the other robber, NOT the old man/shooter, who was arrested and charged with manslaughter.

[Carson]

Something about this seems staged to show self defense in the worst light.

We had another a while back with the old guy robbed over and over and clearly upset and allegedly shooting someone on some basement stairs. He was also quoted as making some comments that seemed geared to fire up hysterics.


"In an interview with non-CNN affiliate KNBC, Greer said that as the suspects ran into the alley, Miller yelled, "'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!' and I shot her anyway.""

If true I suppose we'll never know what might of happened to him if he had of passed out from his broken collar bone and other beating injuries before he got off that second round.

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't know the full story here, but based upon the information from this thread, the would-be thieves forfeited their rights as soon as they attacked the 80-year-old man. He never asked tyo be put into that situation. I say not guilty. Hell, he probably did the unborn kid a favor by ensuring that he wasn't born to a dipshit mother that would try to rob people while pregnant.

Seems like a foolish thing to say. There are no "favors" for those who never lived.

[PaulConventionWV]

I am not saying the guy is wrong but...

I think the guy has something wrong when he nonchalantly tells police and news that the girl pleaded for her life and that she was pregnant and he shot her anyways.

Anyways, why the fuck would you go commit a felony while being pregnant? That is just dumb. Seems like a waste of tax dollars trying and incarcerating the old guy. We gotta pay for trial, jail time and medical expenses if he goes to jail.

I agree. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it's wrong to shoot someone in the back. Even if "they might regroup and come back later." Kill them then! For all he knew, she may have turned her life around after that point. Killing someone should always be a last resort. I don't care what they did to you.

[PaulConventionWV]

lol seems the bitch was lying about that? still, you do not win friends if you shot someone who claimed to be pregnant regardless if the woman was pregnant or not.

She played that card because she could. I guess it's understandable since, as we know now, it's the last thing she ever did.

[jjdoyle]

how do you know they won't come back?

They ALWAYS come back in the movies. Almost anytime a bad guy in a movie is let go, they come back to haunt the "good" guy.
This guy was probably just acting as he had been trained to by watching the tube for so many years.

And the case could be maybe made, how did this guy know they wouldn't come back, considering he knew what they looked like?

As for shooting in public, I think it depends on WHERE they were in relation to his house and if he knew there weren't any other people nearby.

I'm actually curious as to how he was able to keep up with her, after being beaten?

[CPUd]

I doubt they will charge the shooter.

- he is pretty old, and injured
- this is the 4th time his house was burglarized

[PRB]

Please don't use this logic while trying to convince someone to vote for freedom issues.

why NOT? how else do I get people to vote for freedom when it comes to drugs, drunk driving, child pornography, statutory rape, gun safety, raw milk?

[PRB]

I doubt they will charge the shooter.

- he is pretty old, and injured
- this is the 4th time his house was burglarized

Now that it's been proven she wasn't actually pregnant, the jury will lose the last sympathy vote they had for her, so yeah, hopefully the jury sides with the old man who has gotten tired of being burglarized.

[PRB]

They ALWAYS come back in the movies. Almost anytime a bad guy in a movie is let go, they come back to haunt the "good" guy.
This guy was probably just acting as he had been trained to by watching the tube for so many years.

And the case could be maybe made, how did this guy know they wouldn't come back, considering he knew what they looked like?

As for shooting in public, I think it depends on WHERE they were in relation to his house and if he knew there weren't any other people nearby.

I'm actually curious as to how he was able to keep up with her, after being beaten?

or how she can both run and make the clear statement "please don't shoot me". I think more likely than not they were not running.

[PRB]

lol seems the bitch was lying about that? still, you do not win friends if you shot someone who claimed to be pregnant regardless if the woman was pregnant or not.

you'd say anything to avoid getting shot, wouldn't you?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Maybe the stupid bitch should have though twice about invading someone's home and putting herself in danger if she's pregnant. It's not like she just accidentally walked into somebody's home to rob them. Can't trust her not to bust into your home, how do we even know she was pregnant.

I hope there's more stories like this. It's not right to invade someone's home, and I have no sympathy for someone who gets shot in the process of breaking into somebody's house. It's not even right for cops to invade someone's home, with or without a warrant. Since when did having a warrant mean you can knock someone's door down at 1am and shoot half of their family?

[LibForestPaul]

I am not saying the guy is wrong but...

I think the guy has something wrong when he nonchalantly tells police and news that the girl pleaded for her life and that she was pregnant and he shot her anyways.

Anyways, why the fuck would you go commit a felony while being pregnant? That is just dumb. Seems like a waste of tax dollars trying and incarcerating the old guy. We gotta pay for trial, jail time and medical expenses if he goes to jail.

Where is the recordings of his statements? I would like to hear them myself.

[PRB]

I don't know the full story here, but based upon the information from this thread, the would-be thieves forfeited their rights as soon as they attacked the 80-year-old man.


Not if you live in communist backwards America, where squatters have rights, tenants have rights, employees have rights, burglars have rights, immigrants have rights, the law protects violators from property owners.



He never asked tyo be put into that situation. I say not guilty. Hell, he probably did the unborn kid a favor by ensuring that he wasn't born to a dipshit mother that would try to rob people while pregnant.

She wasn't pregnant after all, good to know somebody see a good argument for abortion though.

[PRB]

Maybe the stupid bitch should have though twice about invading someone's home and putting herself in danger if she's pregnant.


Or maybe she was coerced by her accomplice, in which case, she'll rat him out. Luckily she wasn't actually pregnant, people will say anything to avoid getting shot, it didn't work on this man.



It's not like she just accidentally walked into somebody's home to rob them. Can't trust her not to bust into your home, how do we even know she was pregnant.


Breaking into a home is a crime, but it has nothing to do with whether you're an honest person.



I hope there's more stories like this. It's not right to invade someone's home, and I have no sympathy for someone who gets shot in the process of breaking into somebody's house. It's not even right for cops to invade someone's home, with or without a warrant. Since when did having a warrant mean you can knock someone's door down at 1am and shoot half of their family?

Yep, I want to see more burglars shot and killed, it's better for civilians to kill civilians than police to kill them.

[Christian Liberty]

I think if someone is running away with your property you have the right to shoot them. To say otherwise would be to effectively give the criminal the legal right to steal from you. An individual has the right to use as much force as is needed to prevent a crime that is being done against him from taking place.

Now, just because you have the right doesn't mean that it is right. Yes, I think any store owner who shot at a shoplifter who took a candy bar would be in the wrong. But, to say he doesn't have the right is to give criminals security when they decide to steal. As the value of the property goes up more and more, I could more and more see why someone would want to defend their property violently, doubly so considering the police will almost certainly never help them get their property back.

I don't see this as comparable to the cop murders we complain about on here. First of all, the property owner himself has the right to decide that his property is worth using deadly force to protect, the cops don't have the right to decide that for him. Second of all, we're rarely dealing with a runaway thief with these out of control cops either. More often its "contempt of cop" or a drug raid or something. You know, cases where the civilian very likely had the right to shoot the cop (although I'm not saying that would be right either, again, only that he would have the right.)

[Christian Liberty]

Maybe the stupid bitch should have though twice about invading someone's home and putting herself in danger if she's pregnant. It's not like she just accidentally walked into somebody's home to rob them. Can't trust her not to bust into your home, how do we even know she was pregnant.

I hope there's more stories like this. It's not right to invade someone's home, and I have no sympathy for someone who gets shot in the process of breaking into somebody's house. It's not even right for cops to invade someone's home, with or without a warrant. Since when did having a warrant mean you can knock someone's door down at 1am and shoot half of their family?
I don't think JUST having a warrant makes it OK, but I think there could be situations where such a warrant could be justified. Like, if there's a bunch of evidence that the guy is a serial killer and would very likely kill anyone (or especially any cops) who knocked on the door normally. I wouldn't blame the cops for doing a no-knock raid with a warrant in that situation (of course, even then, killing family members would still be murder.) Now, I understand that this is almost never the reality and that most of the time its a drug raid or its the wrong house or its some minor crime or whatever, but I won't outright say that a no knock raid is NEVER justified. Just almost never.

As for civilians shooting robbers, if the person is just a thief and not a killer I kind of think its a shame, but I still think people have the right to protect their property from aggression. And there are a lot of weird aspects to this considering how police are in this country, in theory I'd say you'd just call the police if the person runs away, but in practice the police can't be trusted. But then, if you kill them you probably have to call the police anyway. Its a lose/lose.

[PRB]

I think if someone is running away with your property you have the right to shoot them. To say otherwise would be to effectively give the criminal the legal right to steal from you. An individual has the right to use as much force as is needed to prevent a crime that is being done against him from taking place.


Basically you're saying, you have a right to shoot somebody even if he/she is not a threat to you, just because you want to punish him/her.

[PRB]

As for civilians shooting robbers, if the person is just a thief and not a killer I kind of think its a shame, but I still think people have the right to protect their property from aggression.

it's a shame that this is becoming a radical idea these days.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I don't think JUST having a warrant makes it OK, but I think there could be situations where such a warrant could be justified. Like, if there's a bunch of evidence that the guy is a serial killer and would very likely kill anyone (or especially any cops) who knocked on the door normally. I wouldn't blame the cops for doing a no-knock raid with a warrant in that situation (of course, even then, killing family members would still be murder.) Now, I understand that this is almost never the reality and that most of the time its a drug raid or its the wrong house or its some minor crime or whatever, but I won't outright say that a no knock raid is NEVER justified. Just almost never.

As for civilians shooting robbers, if the person is just a thief and not a killer I kind of think its a shame, but I still think people have the right to protect their property from aggression. And there are a lot of weird aspects to this considering how police are in this country, in theory I'd say you'd just call the police if the person runs away, but in practice the police can't be trusted. But then, if you kill them you probably have to call the police anyway. Its a lose/lose.
well yeah it's different if they're going into a warehouse full of armed gangsters or something, but like you said, it hasn't been the case

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

As for civilians shooting robbers, if the person is just a thief and not a killer I kind of think its a shame, but I still think people have the right to protect their property from aggression. And there are a lot of weird aspects to this considering how police are in this country, in theory I'd say you'd just call the police if the person runs away, but in practice the police can't be trusted. But then, if you kill them you probably have to call the police anyway. Its a lose/lose.
To me, home invasion is like rape. Home is a place for someone to be safe. Home invaders violate that. And I think the people that are like "heerr deeer u shuldnt be able 2 kill ppls whn thy brkn into ur hm" change REALLY fast when it's them being invaded.

[Christian Liberty]

Basically you're saying, you have a right to shoot somebody even if he/she is not a threat to you, just because you want to punish him/her.

No, I'm saying you have a right to shoot somebody who is a threat to your property so that he doesn't run off with your property.

Again, I'm not saying its necessarily a good idea, but to deny the right is essentially to say you would use violence to defend the criminal's right not to be harmed as he engages in the act of theft. That doesn't seem right to me.


well yeah it's different if they're going into a warehouse full of armed gangsters or something, but like you said, it hasn't been the case

Exactly and totally. I understand that no-knock warrants are given for all kinds of stupid crap, and none of them would certainly be better than what it is now. I just wouldn't make an absolute statement that it is ALWAYS wrong to break down a door. Of course, I think if you are a cop in the US as it currently stands, you're already doing something wrong, simply because of a number of things you have to do for your job. But if you are already in that role, and we're looking at individual actions to see whether they are justified or not, I would say no-knock raids are USUALLY unjustified but not always, like in the case you mention above.


To me, home invasion is like rape. Home is a place for someone to be safe. Home invaders violate that. And I think the people that are like "heerr deeer u shuldnt be able 2 kill ppls whn thy brkn into ur hm" change REALLY fast when it's them being invaded.

True. I still think in theory that if they're running away it would be best not to shoot them. I understand the difficulties of that in reality, doubly so when you can't trust the police.

[GunnyFreedom]

For the record, it was the other robber, NOT the old man/shooter, who was arrested and charged with manslaughter.

OK good, I was not the only one in the thread who noticed that.

[GunnyFreedom]

Now that it's been proven she wasn't actually pregnant, the jury will lose the last sympathy vote they had for her, so yeah, hopefully the jury sides with the old man who has gotten tired of being burglarized.

The old man has not been charged.

[56ktarget]

Next on Libertarian TV:

Shoot children because they egged your house, shoot them after they beg for mercy, and shoot them when they try to run away.

[phill4paul]

I believe that in many places it's standard that if your accomplices are killed in the commission of a crime, you are held responsible for their deaths.

That's what I was thinking. Pretty much like the police shooting innocent bystanders then charging suspect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/unarmed-man-is-charged-with-wounding-bystanders-shot-by-police-near-times-square.html?_r=0

[William Tell]

Shooting women is not something I approve of. If this old guy was a cop, everyone would be all over him.

[William Tell]

Yep, I want to see more burglars shot and killed, it's better for civilians to kill civilians than police to kill them.

No, it is all the same. Depending on if it is really self defense of course.

[William Tell]

No, I'm saying you have a right to shoot somebody who is a threat to your property so that he doesn't run off with your property.

So you value property higher than life? Would picking some grains of corn in your field count as running off with your property?


Again, I'm not saying its necessarily a good idea, but to deny the right is essentially to say you would use violence to defend the criminal's right not to be harmed as he engages in the act of theft. That doesn't seem right to me.
No, that is not what is going on. Self defense is one thing, but when a woman is begging you not to shoot, and claiming she is pregnant, she is no longer a threat. If you think she is, then it is a poor testament to ones manhood.


True. I still think in theory that if they're running away it would be best not to shoot them. I understand the difficulties of that in reality, doubly so when you can't trust the police.

What difficulties? force is justifiable as defense, it is not defense when someones back is turned to you, and she is begging for life. The Old Testament was clear that there is such a thing as to much force in cases of robbery.

[PaulConventionWV]

They ALWAYS come back in the movies. Almost anytime a bad guy in a movie is let go, they come back to haunt the "good" guy.
This guy was probably just acting as he had been trained to by watching the tube for so many years.

And the case could be maybe made, how did this guy know they wouldn't come back, considering he knew what they looked like?

As for shooting in public, I think it depends on WHERE they were in relation to his house and if he knew there weren't any other people nearby.

He didn't know they would come back. If they had come back, then he would be ready, right? You don't shoot people in the back.


I'm actually curious as to how he was able to keep up with her, after being beaten?

Hmm, I don't know. I wonder who would win in a race between a young woman and an injured 80 year old man...

It's a toss-up. Then again, he doesn't have to run as fast as her since he has a gun.

[PaulConventionWV]

Shooting women is not something I approve of. If this old guy was a cop, everyone would be all over him.

It's funny that you mention that because it reminded me of something.

If this old man had caught the woman and beat her to a bloody pulp, I bet most people would be condemning him for "putting his hands on a woman". But he shoots her and suddenly it's okay, even though she was running away at the time.

[William Tell]

It's funny that you mention that because it reminded me of something.

If this old man had caught the woman and beat her to a bloody pulp, I bet most people would be condemning him for "putting his hands on a woman". But he shoots her and suddenly it's okay, even though she was running away at the time.

Not to mention if she was his wife, and had committed adultery....
Something more immoral than stealing, but not even a blip on the radar of those who use NAP as their moral compass. And no, I am not calling for shooting or beating ANY woman. But we really have lost site of moral proportions.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Not if you live in communist backwards America, where squatters have rights, tenants have rights, employees have rights, burglars have rights, immigrants have rights, the law protects violators from property owners.



Actually, EVERYONE has rights... doesn't matter who you are or what you've done...

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Shooting women is not something I approve of. If this old guy was a cop, everyone would be all over him.

So, women have more of a right to live than men in your mind?

[qh4dotcom]

Forget about paying for the funeral. If you shoot and miss and hit an innocent person, then you're guilty of manslaughter.

I definitely don't have a double standard for homeowners. I'm not sure exactly what happened in that alley. Was she yelling back to him as she ran? If she was clearly running away, then it was cruel to shoot her. I honestly wouldn't shoot someone unless I knew they were attacking me.

Yep, you nailed it.

Although something just doesn't sound right in this story....an 80 year old man gets beaten and got his neck broken and somehow he manages to grab a gun and chase the intruders like if he was an energetic and not injured 20 year old.

[loveshiscountry]

You know if someone snatches your purse and runs off... I can see that its not right to shoot them in the back. You can shoot when defending your property.

[Christian Liberty]

Shooting women is not something I approve of. If this old guy was a cop, everyone would be all over him.

I answered the cop bit but why does it matter that its a woman?


So you value property higher than life?

I believe what I said is that I wouldn't shoot the person in the back. But, I do say that you have the right to do what you need to do to retrieve your property.



Would picking some grains of corn in your field count as running off with your property?


In theory? Sure. Would any decent person shoot someone for doing that in reality? No.


No, that is not what is going on. Self defense is one thing, but when a woman is begging you not to shoot, and claiming she is pregnant, she is no longer a threat. If you think she is, then it is a poor testament to ones manhood.


This doesn't add up to me. If she's begging me not to shoot, is she still running away with my stuff? I don't see how both of those things go together.


What difficulties? force is justifiable as defense, it is not defense when someones back is turned to you, and she is begging for life. The Old Testament was clear that there is such a thing as to much force in cases of robbery.

The difficulty being that avoiding dealings with cops whenever possible is wise as a pragmatic matter. If someone breaks into your house: in this particular country where cops are how they are, and the justice system is how it is, I can understand just wanting to kill the person and end it there and there. I'm not saying its right, I don't think it is, but I do get it. And frankly, if you break into someone's house you are a scumbag and I don't really feel that bad for you whatever happens.


It's funny that you mention that because it reminded me of something.

If this old man had caught the woman and beat her to a bloody pulp, I bet most people would be condemning him for "putting his hands on a woman". But he shoots her and suddenly it's okay, even though she was running away at the time.

I wouldn't have a huge problem with him beating her up. Again, I wouldn't do it but meh. I don't have that much compassion for thieves.


Not to mention if she was his wife, and had committed adultery....
Something more immoral than stealing, but not even a blip on the radar of those who use NAP as their moral compass. And no, I am not calling for shooting or beating ANY woman. But we really have lost site of moral proportions.

I use the NAP as my standard for deciding what actions warrant violent responses and which ones don't.

I don't use that as my entire moral compass.

So, I'd say adultery could be more immoral than stealing, and yet not warrant criminalization, at the same time.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yep, you nailed it.

Although something just doesn't sound right in this story....an 80 year old man gets beaten and got his neck broken and somehow he manages to grab a gun and chase the intruders like if he was an energetic and not injured 20 year old.

Where does it say he broke his neck? If that's the case, then yeah, there most definitely is something wrong with that picture, but I would need to see some sources.

[William Tell]

In theory? Sure. Would any decent person shoot someone for doing that in reality? No.


So it would have been justifiable to shoot Jesus and his disciples when they were picking grain? Interesting.

[PaulConventionWV]

I answered the cop bit but why does it matter that its a woman?



I believe what I said is that I wouldn't shoot the person in the back. But, I do say that you have the right to do what you need to do to retrieve your property.

From my understanding, she didn't have any of his property. There is a bit of a gray area since, obviously, it would be wrong to shoot a petty thief. Even a thief's life is worth more than some little trinket, so I don't think anyone could be justified in doing it for something really small.


In theory? Sure. Would any decent person shoot someone for doing that in reality? No.

When legal theory and legal reality conflict, there can always arise problems. You recognize that, right?


This doesn't add up to me. If she's begging me not to shoot, is she still running away with my stuff? I don't see how both of those things go together.

I agree it's quite odd. I have not read anything that said she had any of his stuff, though. If she had, then anybody with any sense at all would drop the stuff and run.


The difficulty being that avoiding dealings with cops whenever possible is wise as a pragmatic matter. If someone breaks into your house: in this particular country where cops are how they are, and the justice system is how it is, I can understand just wanting to kill the person and end it there and there. I'm not saying its right, I don't think it is, but I do get it. And frankly, if you break into someone's house you are a scumbag and I don't really feel that bad for you whatever happens.

I don't approve of the culture of violence that leads to people valuing their stuff more than a human life. Frankly, I don't get why an old person wouldn't have mercy on someone so young. I always thought age brought compassion for the younger people who still had most of their lives ahead of them. Instead, it seems like old people are some of the most selfish people I know.


I wouldn't have a huge problem with him beating her up. Again, I wouldn't do it but meh. I don't have that much compassion for thieves.

I was really just pointing out a disconnect between popular sentiments among those who don't believe in beating women and those who defend any and all use of a firearm. I don't think either would have been right. Chasing down a woman and beating her up for revenge is cruel. I might place her under citizen's arrest, but if you're able to catch her and subdue her, the beating part is really unnecessary and wrong.

[William Tell]

So it would have been justifiable to shoot Jesus and his disciples when they were picking grain? Interesting.
Deuteronomy 23:
24"When you enter your neighbor's vineyard, then you may eat grapes until you are fully satisfied, but you shall not put any in your basket. 25"When you enter your neighbor's standing grain, then you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not wield a sickle in your neighbor's standing grain.

[Christian Liberty]

So it would have been justifiable to shoot Jesus and his disciples when they were picking grain? Interesting.

Well, the gleaners law in the Holy Land allowed that to be done.


From my understanding, she didn't have any of his property. There is a bit of a gray area since, obviously, it would be wrong to shoot a petty thief. Even a thief's life is worth more than some little trinket, so I don't think anyone could be justified in doing it for something really small.

Well, I agree that it would be wrong, but I don't agree that it would be an aggressive act that should be a crime.




When legal theory and legal reality conflict, there can always arise problems. You recognize that, right?


Well, to me this is sort of like adultery in a sense, something that a lot of people including me see as morally reprehensible, but nonetheless shouldn't be a crime. I see shooting a runaway thief over something small in a similar light.



I agree it's quite odd. I have not read anything that said she had any of his stuff, though. If she had, then anybody with any sense at all would drop the stuff and run.

I think I said "if... then" when I started commenting.



I don't approve of the culture of violence that leads to people valuing their stuff more than a human life. Frankly, I don't get why an old person wouldn't have mercy on someone so young. I always thought age brought compassion for the younger people who still had most of their lives ahead of them. Instead, it seems like old people are some of the most selfish people I know.


Well, I'm 19, so not really qualified to comment on the older generation:p

With that said, I think the culture of violence manifests itself in other ways. I don't think saying we aren't going to criminalize somebody who shoots to defend his property is fostering a culture of violence. In fact, I think that to criminalize that would be to foster a culture of violence.

Then again, a statist culture creates a culture of violence, period. We've been indoctrinated in public schools that government violence is always the answer, so what do you expect?



I was really just pointing out a disconnect between popular sentiments among those who don't believe in beating women and those who defend any and all use of a firearm. I don't think either would have been right. Chasing down a woman and beating her up for revenge is cruel. I might place her under citizen's arrest, but if you're able to catch her and subdue her, the beating part is really unnecessary and wrong.

Good point. I could see beating her for revenge being criminalized. But, it might be difficult for an 80 year old man to restrain a 20 year old woman without hurting her. Nonetheless, I agree with your point.


Deuteronomy 23:
24"When you enter your neighbor's vineyard, then you may eat grapes until you are fully satisfied, but you shall not put any in your basket. 25"When you enter your neighbor's standing grain, then you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not wield a sickle in your neighbor's standing grain.

Yes, Old Testament Law. I don't think that gives me the right to walk up to a farmer now and eat his fruit.

[William Tell]

Well, the gleaners law in the Holy Land allowed that to be done.

No, God commanded them to do so. But you feel they would be justified to kill instead.

[William Tell]

Yes, Old Testament Law. I don't think that gives me the right to walk up to a farmer now and eat his fruit.

When and why, did Euro/American legal theory replace Biblical morality? I can understand you not eating his fruit, but you feel he has the right to kill instead.

[GunnyFreedom]

All I know is if I were 80 years old and left in a pile of bloody broken bones, I'm pulling the trigger. I don't care if they were after half a dollar. At 80 years old, his injuries are life threatening. No matter what direction the muggers are facing.

[Christian Liberty]

When and why, did Euro/American legal theory replace Biblical morality?

I don't think it did. I also don't think Ot penal law is supposed to be in effect right now.




I can understand you not eating his fruit, but you feel he has the right to kill instead.

I don't think this is comparable to the original case I was talking about. There are ways to prevent someone from stealing your fruit without shooting him.

[satchelmcqueen]

You know if someone snatches your purse and runs off... I can see that its not right to shoot them in the back. But when somebody bludgeons you to the point a broken collar bone and you're an 80 year old man left alone defending your home.

I say shoot the fucker.me to!! im sure they would come back or maybe their friends would. an old man beside me has been robbed many times. he hooked up his lawn mower to a 220volt chord. he zapped the fuckers one night and then the cops threatened to arrest HIM! he laid into them and asked that they provide him permanent surveillance. they declined.

[William Tell]

I don't think it did. I also don't think Ot penal law is supposed to be in effect right now.


And therefor, killing is now justifiable for something that was once acceptable? You seem to support restitution and such for stealing, I do not understand how you decide what is correct punishment, or wrong now.

[Christian Liberty]

And therefor, killing is now justifiable for something that was once acceptable?

This is a good point, but I don't think I ever said that killing was justifiable. I think what I said is that I wouldn't prosecute someone for using lethal violence to protect his property. That's all I really said.




You seem to support restitution and such for stealing, I do not understand how you decide what is correct punishment, or wrong now.

I wasn't talking about punishment in this thread, I was talking about homeowners who defend their property. Absolutely the punishment for stealing should be restitution, not only because its in the OT, but also because it simply fits the crime (which is why it appears in the OT, mind you.)

[William Tell]

This is a good point, but I don't think I ever said that killing was justifiable. I think what I said is that I wouldn't prosecute someone for using lethal violence to protect his property. That's all I really said.

You said we have a right to kill:


I think if someone is running away with your property you have the right to shoot them. To say otherwise would be to effectively give the criminal the legal right to steal from you. An individual has the right to use as much force as is needed to prevent a crime that is being done against him from taking place.


Now, just because you have the right doesn't mean that it is right. Yes, I think any store owner who shot at a shoplifter who took a candy bar would be in the wrong.

[William Tell]

I wasn't talking about punishment in this thread, I was talking about homeowners who defend their property.

But if the killing over a candy bar is a greater wrong, than the stealing of a candy bar. Should that not be considered?

[William Tell]

I wasn't talking about punishment in this thread, I was talking about homeowners who defend their property. Absolutely the punishment for stealing should be restitution, not only because its in the OT, but also because it simply fits the crime (which is why it appears in the OT, mind you.)

As did every single punishment in the OT, because God is sovereign, and created all the rules. The fact that Jesus came and died for our sins complicates things from a material view. But your views on property rights seem to neither line up with God's law, nor err on the side of mercy, like many of your other views do. So it is an interesting case.

[qh4dotcom]

All I know is if I were 80 years old and left in a pile of bloody broken bones, I'm pulling the trigger. I don't care if they were after half a dollar. At 80 years old, his injuries are life threatening. No matter what direction the muggers are facing.

Ok, I agree with you but don't do it in a public place where you might miss and shoot a totally innocent person instead.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ok, I agree with you but don't do it in a public place where you might miss and shoot a totally innocent person instead.

No, I'm certainly not advocating for that, either. Basic rule of weapons handling, know your target and what's beyond it. The 'shooting in a public place' discussion is pure academic speculation, since this guy was in his home. I wasn't even addressing that, only the facts salient to this case. Others were arguing over the value of the things the thieves tried to steal. My point is that the value of the things they were trying to steal becomes wholly irrelevant when the victim is a bloody broken pulp on the ground. Say for the sake of argument that they broke in to put $100 on the guys coffee table. Everything else being the same I would still shoot, because the salient crime is not theft, it's assault. Given the man's advanced age, a reasonable argument can be made that a rational person would expect that level of assault to be lethal. Therefore 'assault with the intent to kill' is totally on the table even if the surviving burglar claims they never wanted to kill the man.

Now, I think this legal practice they do now where if you are peripherally involved in a crime that every consequence lands on you is pretty stupid. I knew a guy who was passed out drunk in the back of a car when the two people carrying him committed an armed robbery. Dude went to prison. Judge said "you should use better judgement who you get drunk around." They totally acknowledged the guy was passed out drunk in the back of the car and never had any part of the crime. But he went to prison because the laws in this country are retarded beyond belief.

ETA: ^^ that last paragraph was addressing the fact that the other burglar is being charged with the woman's death. They will probably lay a murder charge on him for HER death. I could maybe see 'reckless endangerment' at most for putting her into that situation to begin with, and the guy clearly needs charged with the assault (possibly 'with intent to kill') on the 80 year old man. I do not see the second burglar being charged with the woman's death as 'justice,' that's more 'punishment' and 'revenge.'

[qh4dotcom]

No, I'm certainly not advocating for that, either. Basic rule of weapons handling, know your target and what's beyond it. The 'shooting in a public place' discussion is pure academic speculation, since this guy was in his home.

No, the two intruders ran out of his home when they saw him with a gun and he shot the woman in an alley, a public place where he could have hit an innocent bystander.



Police say the couple beat and threw the elderly man to the ground, causing him to suffer a broken collarbone, cuts and bruises.


Despite his injuries, Greer managed to grab his gun and fire at the suspects, causing them to flee through the garage and into the alley, police said.

In an interview with non-CNN affiliate KNBC, Greer said that as the suspects ran into the alley, Miller yelled, "'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!' and I shot her anyway."
Miller died in the alley, the police chief said.

[William Tell]

No, the two intruders ran out of his home when they saw him with a gun and he shot the woman in an alley, a public place where he could have hit an innocent bystander.

That is my understanding as well. As it says:



The case will be turned over Friday to prosecutors, who will have to decide whether Greer was in “imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death” when he opened fire outside his home.

[Wooden Indian]

Next on Libertarian TV:

Shoot children because they egged your house, shoot them after they beg for mercy, and shoot them when they try to run away.

Can someone give this poster the reputation he deserves for this one. I'm all out.
Thanks in advance.

[Suzanimal]

I couldn't shoot someone if they were running away, even if they did beat me. Now if I could get my hands on that gun while being beaten, oh hell yeah, but running away naw, I just couldn't do it.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, the two intruders ran out of his home when they saw him with a gun and he shot the woman in an alley, a public place where he could have hit an innocent bystander.

An alley isn't really very 'public,' even if it is technically a public road, and particularly at night. The man clearly did not hit any innocent bystanders, so what's the issue? For all we know if the man saw people around he may not have pulled the trigger. It's not like this was in the middle of Times Square. You can't say 'self defense is wrong if it is not done on private property.' Without knowing all the details of the area at the time of the event, nobody here has anything to go on whether the man endangered innocents or not. Bottom line is he obviously did not HIT any innocents, and at the end of the day isn't that what really matters?

Going back and watching the video, the old man was obviously ambulatory. That makes his action a lot more morally questionable than had he been basically crippled. Nevertheless I would be prepared to consider that he acted immorally and yet not worthy of a criminal charge. Someone beats an 80 year old man enough that he's got broken bones and I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that one of them got shot and died. I couldn't care less about the robbery, it's the assault that gets me. This happens to a 30 year old I'm a little less forgiving at the moral failure. At 80 years old, broken bones and kicks to the head are a serious business.

Since the guy was walking, maybe it was technically immoral to follow them out and keep shooting; we cannot possibly know what was going on in that guy's head whether it was vengeance or actual fear they were just coming around to regroup. Let him deal with that moral question when he stands before his Maker. Filing charges against him would be wrong.

[GunnyFreedom]

I couldn't shoot someone if they were running away, even if they did beat me. Now if I could get my hands on that gun while being beaten, oh hell yeah, but running away naw, I just couldn't do it.

He kinda did, they were still in his house when he started shooting. He just apparently wasn't all that good of a shot. There is no space in my house that I could not hit center mass on a person with any combination of left or right hand or eye. I've practiced weird stuff like "left hand right eye, right hand left eye" shooting for situations just like this. One arm may be inoperable. One eye may be swelled shut. If I can see at all, and if I can hold a pistol at all, if they are inside my house they are getting tapped with a .40 S&W hydroshock slug.

[Ender]

An alley isn't really very 'public,' even if it is technically a public road, and particularly at night. The man clearly did not hit any innocent bystanders, so what's the issue? For all we know if the man saw people around he may not have pulled the trigger. It's not like this was in the middle of Times Square. You can't say 'self defense is wrong if it is not done on private property.' Without knowing all the details of the area at the time of the event, nobody here has anything to go on whether the man endangered innocents or not. Bottom line is he obviously did not HIT any innocents, and at the end of the day isn't that what really matters?

Going back and watching the video, the old man was obviously ambulatory. That makes his action a lot more morally questionable than had he been basically crippled. Nevertheless I would be prepared to consider that he acted immorally and yet not worthy of a criminal charge. Someone beats an 80 year old man enough that he's got broken bones and I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that one of them got shot and died. I couldn't care less about the robbery, it's the assault that gets me. This happens to a 30 year old I'm a little less forgiving at the moral failure. At 80 years old, broken bones and kicks to the head are a serious business.

Since the guy was walking, maybe it was technically immoral to follow them out and keep shooting; we cannot possibly know what was going on in that guy's head whether it was vengeance or actual fear they were just coming around to regroup. Let him deal with that moral question when he stands before his Maker. Filing charges against him would be wrong.

Well, is it moral to let 2 robbers/beaters loose to rob & beat another old guy/girl?

The "morality" question lies with the robbers; they made the decision that cost lives/freedom/pain/blood.

[James Madison]

She beat up an 80 year old man and stole his shit?

What a loss for humanity...:rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

Next on Libertarian TV:

Shoot children because they egged your house, shoot them after they beg for mercy, and shoot them when they try to run away.

You might be surprised to learn that I happen to think all those examples are wrong.

Lethal force can only be used, legally and morally, to stop an immediate, life threatening, attack.

I do not think, based on the circumstances as presented, that this shooting meets that criteria.

[pcosmar]

I do not think, based on the circumstances as presented, that this shooting meets that criteria.

I do not either..

But at his advanced age,, and the fact that he was both attacked and injured,, I would not vote to convict him.

Not that I will ever be allowed on a jury.

[qh4dotcom]

An alley isn't really very 'public,' even if it is technically a public road, and particularly at night. The man clearly did not hit any innocent bystanders, so what's the issue? For all we know if the man saw people around he may not have pulled the trigger. It's not like this was in the middle of Times Square. You can't say 'self defense is wrong if it is not done on private property.' Without knowing all the details of the area at the time of the event, nobody here has anything to go on whether the man endangered innocents or not. Bottom line is he obviously did not HIT any innocents, and at the end of the day isn't that what really matters?

Going back and watching the video, the old man was obviously ambulatory. That makes his action a lot more morally questionable than had he been basically crippled. Nevertheless I would be prepared to consider that he acted immorally and yet not worthy of a criminal charge. Someone beats an 80 year old man enough that he's got broken bones and I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that one of them got shot and died. I couldn't care less about the robbery, it's the assault that gets me. This happens to a 30 year old I'm a little less forgiving at the moral failure. At 80 years old, broken bones and kicks to the head are a serious business.

Since the guy was walking, maybe it was technically immoral to follow them out and keep shooting; we cannot possibly know what was going on in that guy's head whether it was vengeance or actual fear they were just coming around to regroup. Let him deal with that moral question when he stands before his Maker. Filing charges against him would be wrong.

Look, I have no problem with firing one shot in Times Square if a robber points a gun at you.

However if the robber stops pointing his gun at you and runs away, then I do have an issue with you firing a gun multiple times in a public place.

Do you really want to risk getting charged with manslaughter if you hit an innocent bystander when your life is no longer in danger?

Alleys are connected to roads that are more public....a bullet does not necessarily have to stay in the alley....you can shoot into an alley and hit someone who is not in the alley.

An old man who cannot see well/is a bad shot/not as accurate as you should not be firing multiple shots in a public place when his life is no longer in danger.

Sure, the man did not hit an innocent bystander....but we don't want him to kill an innocent bystander next time someone breaks into his house...do we?

[Christian Liberty]

As did every single punishment in the OT, because God is sovereign, and created all the rules.

Yes, but I don't think all of the rules were created for the same reason. For instance, adultery was punishable by death in the OT, and yet in John 8 Jesus says not to do that. And even more explicitly, Paul deals with a case of adultery in 1 Corinthians 5, and his response is that it isn't the church's business unless it is someone in the church who is doing it, in which case they are to be excommunicated.

I could be wrong here. But, my thought here is that Israel was both the OT church and a civil governmental system. So, putting adulterers and homosexuals to death in the Old Testament is analogous to excommunication from the church in the New Testament.

I could be wrong there, but taking all the pieces I am aware of and trying to put them together, that's what I end up with. Note that this also means the Old Testament passage isn't "irrelevant" either, its just applied differently in the New Testament.


The fact that Jesus came and died for our sins complicates things from a material view. But your views on property rights seem to neither line up with God's law, nor err on the side of mercy, like many of your other views do. So it is an interesting case.

I'm still thinking this through, but note that I'm arguing legal rights here, not moral rights. Obviously anybody who shot and killed somebody over a small piece of property would be morally wrong.

You said we have a right to kill:

I was saying you should have the legal right. In the second paragraph I say it would be morally wrong to exercise that right.

Really, it does come down to NAP and individual sovereignty. If you steal from me, you have created a situation in which my rights are being violated, and in which you are violating my rights. With that being said, I have the right to respond however I need to to end that situation. That doesn't mean I have a moral right, which is a different issue entirely. You could say that since human life is more valuable than property, it would be immoral for me to shoot a running thief to retrieve my property. And I'd agree. But I'd still say you have the right, In the sense that nobody has the right to arrest or prosecute you if you do so.

And really, I do think that's the more merciful position, it errs on the side of not arresting somebody.

[Philhelm]

There are ways to prevent someone from stealing your fruit without shooting him.

True. Stabbing works just as well.

[PRB]

She beat up an 80 year old man and stole his shit?

What a loss for humanity...:rolleyes:

then tries to get sympathy points by saying she's pregnant.

[PRB]

Lethal force can only be used, legally and morally, to stop an immediate, life threatening, attack.



what about non-lethal force?

[Danke]

You might be surprised to learn that I happen to think all those examples are wrong.

Lethal force can only be used, legally and morally, to stop an immediate, life threatening, attack.

I do not think, based on the circumstances as presented, that this shooting meets that criteria.

I agree. You never know why someone may be in or on your property. Could have mistaken you place for someone else's (a friend's place (or yours), which I know happens while usually drunk or on drugs, as an example of military base housing, as all the units look the same...but could happen anywhere too).

But I also would not prosecute someone in fear, who fired on an unwelcome guest.

Me personally, I"d yell, "police, freeze, put your hands up, etc."

But if they continued to advanced after that...

[Carson]

Something about this seems staged to show self defense in the worst light.

We had another a while back with the old guy robbed over and over and clearly upset and allegedly shooting someone on some basement stairs. He was also quoted as making some comments that seemed geared to fire up hysterics.


"In an interview with non-CNN affiliate KNBC, Greer said that as the suspects ran into the alley, Miller yelled, "'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!' and I shot her anyway.""

If true I suppose we'll never know what might of happened to him if he had of passed out from his broken collar bone and other beating injuries before he got off that second round.


I was thinking about this today. Like I said before this whole thing seems like something someone was bought off to say... just like the stair thing.

[Suzanimal]

He kinda did, they were still in his house when he started shooting.

I have no problem with him shooting them while they were in his house. I only take issue with the fact that he shot them while they were running away. As pcosmar pointed out, I wouldn't vote to convict if he were prosecuted and I was a juror but I couldn't shoot someone if they were running away.



He just apparently wasn't all that good of a shot. There is no space in my house that I could not hit center mass on a person with any combination of left or right hand or eye. I've practiced weird stuff like "left hand right eye, right hand left eye" shooting for situations just like this. One arm may be inoperable. One eye may be swelled shut. If I can see at all, and if I can hold a pistol at all, if they are inside my house they are getting tapped with a .40 S&W hydroshock slug.


It doesn't sound like they would've made it out of your house and into the alley. Dang Gunny, I ain't gonna go creepin' around your house.:)

[GunnyFreedom]

I have no problem with him shooting them while they were in his house. I only take issue with the fact that he shot them while they were running away. As pcosmar pointed out, I wouldn't vote to convict if he were prosecuted and I was a juror but I couldn't shoot someone if they were running away.

Aye, that's exactly where I am at on this one. I recognize it as morally wrong but I would not vote to convict. There is too much that we cannot possibly know, like maybe the old man legitimately thought they were just coming around to re-group and re-attack. At that point it would not be rational, but I'm not going to require reason from an 80-year old man who just got kicked to the point of broken bones and probably kicked in the head several times. Not unless the dude sat there in court and said something stupid like "Yes, I knew they were running away to never come back but I was angry and felt like taking revenge on those punks for hitting me." If he actually said that then I may feel morally compelled to vote for voluntary manslaughter, but I would bet the farm that even the free lawyer would make damn sure he did not say that.


It doesn't sound like they would've made it out of your house and into the alley. Dang Gunny, I ain't gonna go creepin' around your house.:)

LOL it's just a matter of being good at those things we are obsessed over. Before I got caught up in the whole Ron Paul thing in 2007 and jumped full-bore on politics, I was a full time prepper, and I used to walk around at least once a week "clearing" my house practicing the pistol, the rifle, the shotgun. Do it strong hand do it weak hand, switch strong and weak hand back and forth depending on which direction I was coming around a corner. I've even considered entry and defense points and the rapid establishment of barriers that will stop bullets to use while defending from multi-person armed dynamic entries. The pool table, for instance, is in a pretty good spot to keep me lead free while covering one of the primary entryways to my home. :D

Nevertheless, if YOU came creepin I highly doubt you would have to worry about a copper jacketed inoculation. Some folks are just too cute to shoot. :p

[ChristianAnarchist]

In review: Shooting someone who has harmed you in the back as they are running away is most likely excessive (and by most accounts immoral).

In a society where there are "no rules" or "no authority" (as I proclaim is the best way) then someone committing such an act would not even raise an eyebrow except from friends and family of the dead perp. In a "voluntary" society everyone lives by their OWN rules. As such there will be conflicting rules that need to be addressed between parties. In this case, the original aggressor was eliminated so that leaves friends and family. In the "voluntary" society those friends and family members might come looking for the old man and attempt to make him "pay" for shooting the woman in the back.

There are checks and balances in the "voluntary" society that do not exist (or rather are not talked about) in this so-called "civilized" society...

The very fact that "friends and family" might come looking for you if you mess with someone is a great deterrent against bad behavior...

[chudrockz]

Innocent + 1

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the old guy, and can't say for certain that I would not have done the same in his shoes (though I don't think I would have). That said, legally, he's fucked. Totally and completely, case closed. You CANNOT shoot someone who is fleeing from you and claim you are in fear of great bodily harm or death. It just doesn't compute.

[bolil]

Shooting someone in the act of taking or otherwise violating your property is just. If they are willing to take from you unjustly, how can you know where they are going to stop? If they are willing to take something from you, what thing will they not take? Your life? One cannot know this, thus one acts within their rights when they kill a thief. Locke broke this down, c'mon now. He also said that once the act (theft) is done, to seek that person out and kill them is no longer within the wronged's rights. It's too bad it went down that way, but such is the risk of being a piece of shit thief.

[qh4dotcom]

Shooting someone in the act of taking or otherwise violating your property is just. If they are willing to take from you unjustly, how can you know where they are going to stop? If they are willing to take something from you, what thing will they not take? Your life? One cannot know this, thus one acts within their rights when they kill a thief. Locke broke this down, c'mon now. He also said that once the act (theft) is done, to seek that person out and kill them is no longer within the wronged's rights. It's too bad it went down that way, but such is the risk of being a piece of shit thief.

Do you want to be charged with manslaughter?

[bolil]

Do you want to be charged with manslaughter?

Wtf? Yeah, I want to be charged with manslaughter. smh. I probably wouldn't have made the same choice as this guy, and there are laws higher than the government's. If they charged him with manslaughter then they did him wrong, simple as that.

[Christian Liberty]

Do you want to be charged with manslaughter?

This is silly, because you could use this same argument regarding pretty much any other silly law that's on the books. We can't determine what is just from what is.

[Wooden Indian]

Not the same exact situation but could have had the same or similar outcome:
I think I mentioned it on here a few months ago, I had some punk trying to kick down my door a few months back at around 3AM.

My daughter had fallen asleep on the couch and ran into my room crying and the banging was severe. Had he been stronger he would have been in already.
I pulled out my .32 and my 9mm, put the .32 in my waistband and carried the 9 to the door, shouted once, and tapped the barrel against the glass next to the door as I peered out at him. He looked at the gun pointed at him for 1 second and ran like hell was chasing him.

Now, I could have done something like fire through the door because I feared for my families safety, I could have cowered and waited for him to get in, then fired, could have chased him down the road blasting holes in the pavement until I dropped him... but none of that seemed responsible.

He saw I was armed, he retreated, and went on to "easier pickens". Hopefully he will find those folks well armed too.
Shooting him dead was not an appropriate response, legal... perhaps (I do live in FL) but not appropriate.

I don't see what this man did as appropriate. I hope he loses plenty of sleep over his choices that night, only a monster wouldn't, imo.

[bolil]

Not the same exact situation but could have had the same or similar outcome:
I think I mentioned it on here a few months ago, I had some punk trying to kick down my door a few months back at around 3AM.

My daughter had fallen asleep on the couch and ran into my room crying and the banging was severe. Had he been stronger he would have been in already.
I pulled out my .32 and my 9mm, put the .32 in my waistband and carried the 9 to the door, shouted once, and tapped the barrel against the glass next to the door as I peered out at him. He looked at the gun pointed at him for 1 second and ran like hell was chasing him.

Now, I could have done something like fire through the door because I feared for my families safety, I could have cowered and waited for him to get in, then fired, could have chased him down the road blasting holes in the pavement until I dropped him... but none of that seemed responsible.

He saw I was armed, he retreated, and went on to "easier pickens". Hopefully he will find those folks well armed too.
Shooting him dead was not an appropriate response, legal... perhaps (I do live in FL) but not appropriate.

I don't see what this man did as appropriate. I hope he loses plenty of sleep over his choices that night, only a monster wouldn't, imo.

Unless, of course, those folks weren't well armed. I would've acted as you did, I hope.

[PRB]

Do you want to be charged with manslaughter?

Stupid question, I don't want to be charged for anything, PERIOD. I hate the government and I oppose laws, I want everything to be legal, that's freedom. I understand what IS and what I WANT.