California man, 80 shot burglar despite pleas of pregnancy

[DocM]

I'd like to expand on that, it is at that point that the threat to human life stops. If he'd have shot before this point then the case would have been unclear.

Quoting myself above,

Here in Michigan and a great many other states they're toast. Its recognized that criminals who break off an attack often do return to finish the job soon after.

Law enforcement sees this all the time, where the perps wait until the cops leave after taking a report and a second attack commences. No need to return the tactical advantage to them.

[Tomo]

UK etc. laws are irrelevant to this

Like many states California has a fleeing felon rule (FFR.) They committed a felony.

California's FFR is more limited than say Michigan's or other states. If he honestly felt he was in a dynamic event where they could return and resume the assault he could be justified.

Here in Michigan and a great many other states they're toast. Its recognized that criminals who break off an attack often do return to finish the job soon after.

Law enforcement sees this all the time, where the perps wait until the cops leave after taking a report and a second attack commences. No need to return the tactical advantage to them.

It's very, very possible a prosecutor, realizing the jury is likely to be extremely sympathetic to an elderly man who had been beaten would toss the charges anyhow (jury nullification) and not bother bring charges at all.

In which case I'd like to offer my condolences to the American people for having such as shocking legal system, one that allows people to get away with murder.

You do the crime, you do the time. Maybe they should have thought this through prior to beating the crap out of this 80 year young guy. Maybe if this guy didn't use the gun, they would be at your house next.

I know let's all become vigilantes and form lynch mobs to clear the streets of crime, let's see how that works out.....

 

*Note A good measure of sarcasm was applied to the last sentence

[Lizardslap]

ideological differences between people is nothing new

[Lord Method Man]

Broke into someone's house, assaulted an 80 year old man in his home, now they are dead. Good riddance.

[neo158]

UK etc. laws are irrelevant to this

Like many states California has a fleeing felon rule (FFR.) They committed a felony.

California's FFR is more limited than say Michigan's or other states. If he honestly felt he was in a dynamic event where they could return and resume the assault he could be justified.

Here in Michigan and a great many other states they're toast. Its recognized that criminals who break off an attack often do return to finish the job soon after.

Law enforcement sees this all the time, where the perps wait until the cops leave after taking a report and a second attack commences. No need to return the tactical advantage to them.

It's very, very possible a prosecutor, realizing the jury is likely to be extremely sympathetic to an elderly man who had been beaten would toss the charges anyhow (jury nullification) and not bother bring charges at all.

Fair enough but having looked up the fleeing felon rule, note that it's a rule not law, yes deadly force is included but for civilians that's only if they are in imminent danger. He wasn't in imminent danger once they were running away though.

 

That's the way I read it anyway, I might be wrong seeing as I'm not well versed in US law.

[DocM]

In which case I'd like to offer my condolences to the American people for having such as shocking legal system, one that allows people to get away with murder justifiable homicide.

Fixed it for you.

I know let's all become vigilantes and form lynch mobs to clear the streets of crime, let's see how that works out.....

*Note A good measure of sarcasm was applied to the last sentence

No lynch mobs, but in general the same rules apply to a firearm, baseball bat, a handy pipe or a crossbow. Whatever you got.

[Tomo]

Fixed it for you.

No lynch mobs, but in general the same rules apply to a firearm, baseball bat, a handy pipe or a crossbow. Whatever you got.

What's justifiable about shooting a fleeing, unarmed, pregnant woman who clearly poses no threat to your life at that point in time?

[techbeck]

People love to hid behind laws and make excuses.  Yes, it may be legal to shoot/defend yourself when someone is on your property but for one, doesnt make the law right.  There a MANY laws out there that are just plain stupid or allow for people to act stupidly and get away with it. Stand your ground law is all well and good, but use common sense as well.  But lots dont think or are looking for a chance to act under the law.  If she was still on the old guys property, fine...whatever.  But she wasnt and pleaded to him to not shoot, which he did.

 

Could the buglers have come back?  Sure.  Were they for certain?  Who knows but "what if" situations shouldnt be glazed over and forgiven.  Look at all the famous people who were arrested.  Whether it be for DUIs, or breaking in or robbing someone.  And many of these people are now very influential in the community and have done lots of great works.  To say "they got what they deserved" or that "one more criminal off hte streets" is just plain stupid.  People can change, people can be rehabilitated.  Yes, there are many lost causes but then again, there are many who turn out great.

 

Like I said before, I stole a lot as a kid.  I stole from a church, parked cars, family, friends.  I guess I should have been shot or jailed a loong time ago.  I mean, there is no way I could of changed, gotten a good job, work for charities, good standing member of the community and church.....no, wait....

[+therealDamien Subscriber¹]

dont think old people should have guns. they keep shooting people more willingly 

 

 

 

 

young person threatens intruder with gun..

 

 

old people sees the person and shoots. and yells get out of my house afterwards....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

true story

[Tomo]

dont think old people should have guns. they keep shooting people

I personally cannot think of one reason why anybody except the military, law enforcement / bodyguards, farmers and possibly a few other specialised sectors should have guns but hey you Americans decided a long time ago that it's your divine right to do so, can't argue with that, it's not as if you have any major issues with regular mass shootings.

[neo158]

I personally cannot think of one reason why anybody except the military, law enforcement / bodyguards, farmers and possibly a few other specialised sectors should have guns but hey you Americans decided a long time ago that it's your divine right to do so, can't argue with that, it's not as if you have any major issues with regular mass shootings.

Well here in the UK we can still own firearms but they are more tightly controlled, not the best source but I'll post it anyway:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

[blerk]

Whilst I don't agree with the whole 'shoot them in the back' part, If I was a juror there would be no way I vote him guilty of murder. Voluntary manslaughter maybe but murder? I think not. He was viciously attacked, retaliated and in the heat of the moment - kept on firing as he chased them away. 

 

As to the statements he mad afterwards - I wouldn't even consider those. Probably still quite agitated, and he was on TV - people say stupid stuff on TV when they're in a state of distress. 

[Ryoken]

Listen, I'm pro-death penalty. I'm not opposed to killing someone who commits/attempts murder, or other violent crimes.

 

But this..

 

You do NOT shoot someone in the back as they are fleeing.. (Okay, maybe if they killed a family member or something.. ). They had already left his house and were running away. The immediate danger is over. Call the Cops.

 

This reminds me of the case that was what, a year ago? Two people broke into a guys house, she shot one of them and injured her, then went up and shot her again calling it a "Clean Kill".. It's just messed up.

[Tomo]

Well here in the UK we can still own firearms but they are more tightly controlled, not the best source but I'll post it anyway:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

I am in the UK  :/ and also ex-Military so I consider myself to be quite familiar with 'firearm etiquette' and all the rules and laws surrounding them. I also have no desire to own a gun/rifle/pistol as I have absolutely no use for one, even if I did it would be locked up as secure as possible so that nobody could actually use it.

[macoman]

Whilst I don't agree with the whole 'shoot them in the back' part, If I was a juror there would be no way I vote him guilty of murder. Voluntary manslaughter maybe but murder? I think not. He was viciously attacked, retaliated and in the heat of the moment - kept on firing as he chased them away.

As to the statements he mad afterwards - I wouldn't even consider those. Probably still quite agitated, and he was on TV - people say stupid stuff on TV when they're in a state of distress.

Completely fair and reasonable statement which I agreed. He was probably mad, agitated and he wants to capture or hit them in some way that they will remember him and he didn't thought to shoot them in the back.

[DocM]

What's justifiable about shooting a fleeing, unarmed, pregnant woman who clearly poses no threat to your life at that point in time?

It hasn't been established that she was pregnant, just her statement, and like so many libs and progressives like to say all the time - in the first (non-showing) trimester "its only tissue."

Also, it's rather common for violent criminals who escape to wait for the police to leave and do a second, often more violent, attack to eliminate witnesses.

Unfortunately this is rather common, so you cannot say for certain they no longer posed a threat. To ignore that reality puts you into pink unicorns and rainbows land.

[Lord Method Man]

 

 

Like I said before, I stole a lot as a kid.  I stole from a church, parked cars, family, friends.  I guess I should have been shot or jailed a loong time ago.  I mean, there is no way I could of changed, gotten a good job, work for charities, good standing member of the community and church.....no, wait....

 

Did you also attack elderly people in their homes, or are you just purposefully glancing over that aspect of the case since it doesn't reinforce your "boys will be boys" style narrative?

[techbeck]

Unfortunately this is rather common, so you cannot say for certain they no longer posed a threat. To ignore that reality puts you into pink unicorns and rainbows land.

 

And you cannot say that for sure they posed a threat after running away and fleeing.  This will fall in line with unicorns, rainbows, and lets toss in fairies for good measures.

[Tomo]

It hasn't been established that she was pregnant, just her statement, and like so many libs and progressives like to say all the time - in the first (non-showing) trimester "its only tissue."

Also, it's rather common for violent criminals who escape to wait for the police to leave and do a second, often more violent, attack to eliminate witnesses.

Unfortunately this is rather common, so you cannot say for certain they no longer posed a threat. To ignore that reality puts you into pink unicorns and rainbows land.

The pregnant part is completely irrelevant.

 

Just because it's common for criminals to wait for police to leave doesn't mean its justifiable to shoot them whilst fleeing, the police should provide protection the victims if they believe this will occur. No one should take the law into their own hands because they have a hunch they they may return, the law is very clear that the threat must be either immediate or that the threat has been made such that the victim requires protection. Ignoring it may seem stupid but the law is the law, nobody is above it.

 

Again maybe I should shoot that guy who looked at me funny this morning, he may return to kill me. I'd better kill him first, yes that sounds sensible.

[techbeck]

Did you also attack elderly people in their homes, or are you just purposefully glancing over that aspect of the case since it doesn't reinforce your "boys will be boys" style narrative?

 

I stole from elderly.  I was violent and threw things at people.  Whether the guy is old or young really doesnt make much of a difference.  Elderly are more than capability of protecting themselves and a lot of times, do a better job than younger people.

 

People have no respect for life these days.  Whether it be a criminal, or the victim.  Its a act first and think about what you did later kind of world, then kid behind the law.  Regardless if you feel threatened or not, you can shoot someone and then later say you were afraid for your life.  Then you get a "good boy" pat on the back, called a hero, and get donations in your name for being a victim.  Pretty sad world when someone gets shot of stealing stereo or other materialistic item.  Or makes statements that make you sound like you enjoyed or were happy in shooting/killing someone.

 

And yes, sometimes boys will be boys like you stated.  That is life and that is something that has never changed.  Kids get in to trouble.  I know, this is a real shocker here.  And adults get in to trouble as well.  Another big shocker.  A lot of people lose their way and need helping getting back on the right path.  But its no longer about helping people for many these days.  Its about, leave me alone and my stuff or you get shot no questions asked.  This world would be much better if there were more compassion and level headed thinking.  Lets lock up bill gates for getting a DUI and driving without a license.  Imagine how much different the world would be if that happened.  And not all criminals are bad people.

[theyarecomingforyou]

You do the crime, you do the time.

I agree. He gunned her down when she posed no threat and was begging for mercy - he should be expected to do the time.

[Lizardslap]

at the risk some people may have skimmed  this is a very important part of this story

 

these people were very clearly a problem and just because she yelled some ###### to try and get away does'nt mean she didnt get what was coming to her both these people were very dangerous and could very well have come right back

 

 

However, the surviving suspect, Gus Adams, 26, has been arrested on suspicion of residential burglary and murder, McDonnell said. The murder charge is possible because he is accused of being involved in a felony that led to a death, the chief said. He was being held on bail just over $1 million, and police did not know if he had hired an attorney.

 

Both Miller and Adams, who had histories of similar crimes, were unarmed, McDonnell said.

 

Greer had been burglarized three times before and believed the same suspects were responsible.

 

He returned home shortly after 9 p.m. Tuesday to find the pair in his home. Both suspects attacked him, hitting him with their fists and ultimately "body slamming" him to the floor, breaking his collar bone, McDonnell said.

Miller continued to hit him, McDonnell said, while Adams moved to a safe and begin trying to pry it open.

 

[theyarecomingforyou]

at the risk some people may have skimmed  this is a very important part of this story

 

these people were very clearly a problem and just because she yelled some ###### to try and get away does'nt mean she didnt get what was coming to her both these people were very dangerous and could very well have come right back

That doesn't have any material bearing on the incident. Nobody is excusing the actions of the burglars, nor should they. However, the homeowner was clearly unreasonable in his actions. It wasn't self-defence - it was vengeance and that isn't permitted under the law (or if it is then that's another failing of the US criminal justice system).

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Lizardslap]

That doesn't have any material bearing on the incident. Nobody is excusing the actions of the burglars, nor should they. However, the homeowner was clearly unreasonable in his actions. It wasn't self-defence - it was vengeance and that isn't permitted under the law (or if it is then that's another failing of the US criminal justice system).

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Its not vengance and that is taken from the the artical

 

the guy has been robbed before 3x and when these people robbing him noticed he was coming home there first thought was not run it was attack and just because some nut job goes O crap hes got a gun and yells w/e she can to not get shot  If she had not yelled those exact words this would be a nonstory

 

and the cops are basiclly useless they dont activly presue things like this they just go yup you got robbed noted. the cops dont protect they just come to document the aftermath 98% of the time

[HawkMan]

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. 

 

I know damn well There's no situation I would shoot an unarmed person in the back when they're running away.

 

On his property or not, legal or not, it was cold blooded murder.