California man, 80 shot burglar despite pleas of pregnancy

[neo158]

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?

Nice try on avoiding my questions, I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

 

Regardless of what we all write on here the only thing we can do is wait for the law to decide, our "opinions" don't come into it. We're commenting on what we know i.e. what's in the article and as that is all we have to go on that's all we can do. So what we write on here is opinion, based on fact!!!

[Tomo]

Wise up.

 

He did a public service.

The police do a public service, he was taking the law into his own hands and for what? They were trying to escape him and therefore, as far as we can tell from his own account, not endangering anyone's life at the moment in time. You might say they deserved it but it is not a decision to be made on the spur of the moment unless you honestly believe your life or another's is in danger.

[HawkMan]

If she/they are pleading they have obviously already given up. So he simply shot her in cold blood because he wanted to, not to protect himself or anyone else. 

[adrynalyne]

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?

It seems counterintuitive to make rules that require someone else to break them.

[eddman]

Nice try on avoiding my questions, I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

 

Regardless of what we all write on here the only thing we can do is wait for the law to decide, our "opinions" don't come into it. We're commenting on what we know i.e. what's in the article and as that is all we have to go on that's all we can do. So what we write on here is opinion, based on fact!!!

You answered my questions with questions and now accuse me of avoiding them?!! To be clear, I already did:

 

By not being there and not being experts, I mean that WE

Opinions are ok; but it looks more like passing judgment than just stating opinions.

[Tomo]

It seems counterintuitive to make rules that require someone else to break them.

No it doesn't, it means that you have a legitimate reason to fire rather than just saying 'I shot them because I felt like it'

[neo158]

You answered my questions with questions and now accuse me of avoiding them?!! To be clear, I already did:

 

Opinions are ok; but it looks more like passing judgment than just stating opinions.

 

The fact is that we are passing judgement/providing our opinion based on the facts in the article, law enforcement isn't going to read our comments to make a decision. Therefore what we are writing on here is OUR judgement/opinion based on the article.

 

There was a case here in the UK of a farmer who shot and killed a burglar on his property and wounded another, who do you think was guilty?

[spacer]

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?

No...and I never said I thought it was to begin with. All I said was that you're wrong by calling it premeditated.

[Tomo]

The fact is that we are passing judgement/providing our opinion based on the facts in the article, law enforcement isn't going to read our comments to make a decision. Therefore what we are writing on here is OUR judgement/opinion based on the article.

 

There was a case here in the UK of a farmer who shot and killed a burglar on his property and wounded another, who do you think was guilty?

Exactly this is a discussion based purely on the article given and has no bearing on actual events, if we had further information then great that's all we have to go on.

No...and I never said I thought it was to begin with. All I said was that you're wrong by calling it premeditated.

Correct it wasn't premeditated, it was 'heat of the moment'. Premeditated would have been him making a decision to kill a specific person before the event occurred.

[neo158]

No...and I never said I thought it was to begin with. All I said was that you're wrong by calling it premeditated.

 

 

Exactly this is a discussion based purely on the article given and has no bearing on actual events, if we had further information then great that's all we have to go on.

Correct it wasn't premeditated, it was 'heat of the moment'. Premeditated would have been him making a decision to kill a specific person before the event occurred.

I don't know, looking at the facts and the comments he made afterwards that's what it looks like to me. Think about it, he'd been burgled three separate times so he'd obviously decided to do something about it. Premeditated or not though, he killed someone and not in self defence either.

[spenser.d]

What a pile of trash. Not that the burlgars aren't, but you don't get to shoot people unless they're threatening your life. We're getting far too lax if we're starting to allow people to get away with nonsense like this.

[adrynalyne]

No it doesn't, it means that you have a legitimate reason to fire rather than just saying 'I shot them because I felt like it'

I guess I don't see it that way.  I don't want my 'allowance' to protect myself to rely on someone else's mistake of missing or not killing me first.

 

That too, seems counterintuitive.

[Tews]

 

Correct it wasn't premeditated, it was 'heat of the moment'. Premeditated would have been him making a decision to kill a specific person before the event occurred.

 

 

Unfortunatly "premeditation" can be fairly easy to prove in this case.  His role as a victim changed when he decided to persue the intruders, and at that point it turns into premeditation.

[thejohnnyq]

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.

 

She was still on his property when she was shot.   I really am getting tired of people second guessing people claiming that they would do differently.  He acted well within the law and did so to protect himself.  

 

You never know how your will act when you are in a similar situation.  Do you pull the trigger or run, to each their own.    Luckily justifications don't come from the general public, just the law. 

[spenser.d]

and did so to protect himself.

 

No he didn't. And I'm getting sick of gun nuts contorting what "protection" means.

[adrynalyne]

She was still on his property when she was shot.   I really am getting tired of people second guessing people claiming that they would do differently.  He acted well within the law and did so to protect himself.  

 

You never know how your will act when you are in a similar situation.  Do you pull the trigger or run, to each their own.    Luckily justifications don't come from the general public, just the law. 

Im sure the woman with child was far more dangerous than her male accomplice.

 

I think this was more  a case that he wanted some revenge.

[neo158]

She was still on his property when she was shot.   I really am getting tired of people second guessing people claiming that they would do differently.  He acted well within the law and did so to protect himself.  

 

You never know how your will act when you are in a similar situation.  Do you pull the trigger or run, to each their own.    Luckily justifications don't come from the general public, just the law. 

Re read the article, they were not on his property when he opened fire on both of them for the second time which includes the shot that killed her. Some people really need to read and comprehend the article BEFORE commenting!!!!

 

From the article:

 

They fled through the garage and into an alley, and Greer gave chase, firing at them again outside, McDonnell said. Miller was hit, collapsed in the alley and died at the scene, McDonnell said.

[macrosslover]

I think it will be hard for them to find a jury to indict him.  The man is 80 years old so the assault that he endured could have easily been fatal to him, but it wasn't.  He has already been broken into two or three times before that.  He shouldn't have to live in fear if they are going to come back again with guns the next time because he didn't do anything.  I'm sure the woman was lying through her teeth to avoid getting shot.

 

I'm sure it would make it easier for us to accept this shooting if they had guns and were facing him and pointed them at him, but I really can't fault this man too much because I can't imagine what it was like for this man to live in fear since the last times he was broken into not knowing if they would come back.  I can guarantee you this, nobody is going to come to that house now.

[Tews]

She was still on his property when she was shot.   I really am getting tired of people second guessing people claiming that they would do differently.  He acted well within the law and did so to protect himself.  

 

 

Just being on someones property does not give you carte blanche to kill someone.  That idea will get you in a boatload of trouble!  He did not act within the law when he shot the girl in the back, and was in no way done to protect himself.

[neo158]

Just being on someones property does not give you carte blanche to kill someone.  That idea will get you in a boatload of trouble!  He did not act within the law when he shot the girl in the back, and was in no way done to protect himself.

Exactly and a similar case here in the UK proves that point.

[adrynalyne]

I think it will be hard for them to find a jury to indict him.  The man is 80 years old so the assault that he endured could have easily been fatal to him, but it wasn't.  He has already been broken into two or three times before that.  He shouldn't have to live in fear if they are going to come back again with guns the next time because he didn't do anything.  I'm sure the woman was lying through her teeth to avoid getting shot.

 

I'm sure it would make it easier for us to accept this shooting if they had guns and were facing him and pointed them at him, but I really can't fault this man too much because I can't imagine what it was like for this man to live in fear since the last times he was broken into not knowing if they would come back.  I can guarantee you this, nobody is going to come to that house now.

I'd say yes, if he killed her during his assault.  After the fact isn't a defense unless they were coming back for more.

Exactly and a similar case here in the UK proves that point.

No it doesn't.  Your laws are not the same.

[techbeck]

She was still on his property when she was shot.   I really am getting tired of people second guessing people claiming that they would do differently.  He acted well within the law and did so to protect himself.  

 

She was in the ally running away.  Ally is not his property.  Even if it was, she already had given up but the old bastard didnt want to hear it.  His statement he made makes him sound like he enjoyed what he did.  The guy was ###### off because he was robbed before and over reacted.

[neo158]

I'd say yes, if he killed her during his assault.  After the fact isn't a defense unless they were coming back for more.

No it doesn't.  Your laws are not the same.

Actually it does, if I wanted and had a legitimate reason to then I could own an AA12 and a 32 round drum magazine. The case I mentioned earlier in this thread related to a farmer who shot and killed an unarmed burglar and injured another, he was sent to prison for it as well.

[macrosslover]

I'd say yes, if he killed her during his assault.  After the fact isn't a defense unless they were coming back for more.

I agree.  Which is why I only said I think they'd have a hard time finding a grand jury to indict him.  I can't say I agree with his actions, however I can understand what he was going through being victimized so many times.  It's hard living with that fear and anger.

[adrynalyne]

Actually it does, if I wanted and had a legitimate reason to then I could own an AA12 and a 32 round drum magazine. The case I mentioned earlier in this thread related to a farmer who shot and killed an unarmed burglar and injured another, he was sent to prison for it as well.

No it doesn't.

 

Under no circumstance would a legal ruling in the UK have any bearing on one in the US.

I agree.  Which is why I only said I think they'd have a hard time finding a grand jury to indict him.  I can't say I agree with his actions, however I can understand what he was going through being victimized so many times.  It's hard living with that fear and anger.

Are we agreeing on the same thing?

 

I think a  jury would indict him because it was after the fact.