Media spins story about 80 year old man shooting robber

[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 $#@!er.

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 $#@!ers 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 $#@!?

What a loss for humanity...

[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 $#@!?

What a loss for humanity...

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.

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.

[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...