Jump to content

228 posts in this topic

Posted

LONG BEACH, Calif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wasn't there a case not too long ago where a homeowner shot someone in the back, as in they were running away? The pregnancy doesn't really enter in to it for me, it would be the use of a firearm when there doesn't appear to be any danger present - at least according to the article.
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wasn't there a case not too long ago where a homeowner shot someone in the back, as in they were running away? The pregnancy doesn't really enter in to it for me, it would be the use of a firearm when there doesn't appear to be any danger present - at least according to the article.

 

What gets me.  The guy chased after them after they left his property and shot the woman in the back.  Sorry, that is a cowardly act.

15 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You should only fire when you think either your own life or other human life is in imminent danger and then only appropriate force should be used. That's the way I see it anyway, anything else should be viewed as murder.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah I agreed with you guys. The only way to use a firearm is if the burglars are attacking you or shooting at you. He should not have fire if they are running away.
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What gets me.  The guy chased after them after they left his property and shot the woman in the back.  Sorry, that is a cowardly act.

 

Exactly, he should be charged with premeditated murder as they weren't on his property and they didn't pose a threat to him yet he seemed content to chase them and attempt to kill them both. Those of you who want to dispute that should read this, the last line in the OP post:

 

"The lady didn't run as fast as the man, so I shot her in the back twice," Greer told the TV station. "She's dead ... but he got away."

 

That seems premeditated to me.

 

Yes the two of them shouldn't have tried rob him but I would say he used excessive force even after they left his property.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They beat him up and he had no way of knowing if they were going to come back and attack him again.    His actions were justified.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They beat him up and he had no way of knowing if they were going to come back and attack him again.    His actions were justified.

 

I disagree, they weren't on his property and were running away i.e. posed no threat to him. He used excessive force and should be charged with premeditated murder, period.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wow, the rules of engagement for warfare state that you're not alowed to fire unless being fired upon, I guess there's no such laws for gun toting morons then?

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They beat him up and he had no way of knowing if they were going to come back and attack him again.    His actions were justified.

In that case the guy who gave me a funny look this morning could come and kill me so I'd better hunt him down and kill him first.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They beat him up and he had no way of knowing if they were going to come back and attack him again. His actions were justified.

I disagree. On seeing the gun the suspects fled. Therefore there was no immediate threat anymore, and the police could have been phoned. Just because you have the right to own a gun doesn't mean that you should use that as an option rather than the official channels.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Exactly, he should be charged with premeditated murder as they weren't on his property and they didn't pose a threat to him yet he seemed content to chase them and attempt to kill them both. Those of you who want to dispute that should read this, the last line in the OP post:

 

"The lady didn't run as fast as the man, so I shot her in the back twice," Greer told the TV station. "She's dead ... but he got away."

 

That seems premeditated to me.

 

Yes the two of them shouldn't have tried rob him but I would say he used excessive force even after they left his property.

That's not "premeditated". Premeditated would be if he planned to kill her before anything happened. When he shot her they had already broken into his house, beat him up, broken his collar bone, and tried to get away. He acted in the heat of the moment.

 

Now it was clearly not self-defense because she was running away, but I don't know what the laws are about self-defense in that state. It was probably hard to tell if they had taken anything with them, and he has a right to protect his property. So does that give him legal rights to shoot? Who knows. We'll find out I guess.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's not "premeditated". Premeditated would be if he planned to kill her before anything happened. When he shot her they had already broken into his house, beat him up, broken his collar bone, and tried to get away. He acted in the heat of the moment.

 

Now it was clearly not self-defense because she was running away, but I don't know what the laws are about self-defense in that state. It was probably hard to tell if they had taken anything with them, and he has a right to protect his property. So does that give him legal rights to shoot? Who knows. We'll find out I guess.

No it doesn't, the legal right to shoot comes if you honestly believe that not shooting will result in the loss or either your life or the life of another human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's not "premeditated". Premeditated would be if he planned to kill her before anything happened. When he shot her they had already broken into his house, beat him up, broken his collar bone, and tried to get away. He acted in the heat of the moment.

 

Now it was clearly not self-defense because she was running away, but I don't know what the laws are about self-defense in that state. It was probably hard to tell if they had taken anything with them, and he has a right to protect his property. So does that give him legal rights to shoot? Who knows. We'll find out I guess.

If you read the article he'd be burgled three times prior to this, believed it was the same people, gave chase and shot and killed someone who posed no immediate threat to him. Now do you think it was self defence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No it doesn't, the legal right to shoot comes if you honestly believe that not shooting will result in the loss or either your life or the life of another human.

Exactly, even if they beat him up... If they didn't try to kill him and just a beat and run... That does not represent that his life is in jeopardy. If they had handgun and point to his head and said to him "I want to kill you" that's different... In that case, he can use deadly force with a gun if he wants, because his life now is in jeopardy.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Where any of you there? Are any of you legal experts? Where you the ones getting robbed and beaten in your own home?

 

Having an opinion is fine, but you are acting like you deal with these things every day.

 

This is far from black and white.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Where any of you there? Are any of you legal experts? Where you the ones getting robbed and beaten in your own home?

 

Having an opinion is fine, but you are acting like you deal with these things every day.

 

This is far from black and white.

It is far from black and white but his own account of events doesn't exactly do him any favours. There is a case to be made that he murdered the pregnant woman, if a court finds him innocent then so be it but he should at least be tried.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Where any of you there? Are any of you legal experts? Where you the ones getting robbed and beaten in your own home?

 

Having an opinion is fine, but you are acting like you deal with these things every day.

 

This is far from black and white.

No we weren't there, were you? We aren't legal experts, are you? We weren't the ones getting robbed and beaten, were you?

 

All we are doing is commenting on the article, just like you but it seems to me that you didn't read the article just the comments.

 

This isn't a grey area either. The beat him up and tried to rob him, he got a gun and they fled, he gave chase, shot and killed someone.


It is far from black and white but his own account of events doesn't exactly do him any favours. There is a case to be made that he murdered the pregnant woman, if a court finds him innocent then so bit it but he should at least be tried.

Exactly, even if he's found innocent he still has to live with the fact that he killed a pregnant woman regardless of what she was doing on his property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No we weren't there, were you? We aren't legal experts, are you? We weren't the ones getting robbed and beaten, were you?

 

All we are doing is commenting on the article, just like you but it seems to me that you didn't read the article just the comments.

 

This isn't a grey area either. The beat him up and tried to rob him, he got a gun and they fled, he gave chase, shot and killed someone.


Exactly, even if he's found innocent he still has to live with the fact that he killed a pregnant woman regardless of what she was doing on his property.

from his interview it doesn't sound like he will lose a lot of sleep about it.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wow, the rules of engagement for warfare state that you're not alowed to fire unless being fired upon, I guess there's no such laws for gun toting morons then?

 

ROE is not static, and changes from situation to situation. I dont know where you pulled that twaddle from, but its more than evident that you have no idea what you're talking about.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

ROE is not static, and change for each situation. I dont know where you pulled that twaddle from, but its more than evident that you have no idea what you're talking about.

True but in this case his life wasn't in danger, they were running away, so he had no reason to use excessive force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No we weren't there, were you? We aren't legal experts, are you? We weren't the ones getting robbed and beaten, were you?

 

All we are doing is commenting on the article, just like you but it seems to me that you didn't read the article just the comments.

 

This isn't a grey area either. The beat him up and tried to rob him, he got a gun and they fled, he gave chase, shot and killed someone.

By not being there and not being experts, I mean that we can NOT say for sure if his action was illegal, but some here are already convinced. We should let the law decide.

 

No, this is far from just commenting. Instead of saying "I think he was in the wrong" or "he probably had no right to shoot", everyone is like "He's a murderer. Gun-loving moron."

I read the article. Nice job assuming things. That's the problem with most people. They assume.

 

It most possibly is. I must ask again; are you a legal expert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What gets me.  The guy chased after them after they left his property and shot the woman in the back.  Sorry, that is a cowardly act.

Wise up.

 

He did a public service.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wise up.

 

He did a public service.

 

I am all for defending yourself and the right to own guns...but thus guy is a coward, period.  You dont shoot a person in the back when they pose no threat and are running/fleeing.

 

I shop lifted a lot when I was a kid...stole from friends and family.  I was young and dumb and now, I am much better off.  Would it have been a public service if someone shot/killed me?

 

Wise up

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.