California man, 80 shot burglar despite pleas of pregnancy

[Wyn6]

The criminals were obviously idiots. That's not in dispute, at least. What we have here is a case of a man who is 80 years old, not giving a damn. If we are reading his comments with the correct context, it's obvious to conclude he's quite cavalier about the whole thing. He probably believes he'll be dead in a few years anyway. So, eff 'em!

 

If he would've been able to catch the guy, and even if the guy had been in another yard or on the street, it's reasonable to conclude from his quote, "The guy ran faster than the girl...," that he would've killed him, too. So, this was far from justified. This was a case of an angry, octogenarian who wanted to take his anger out on somebody, consequences be damned.

 

And, Doc. I'm interested in these scenarios you keep posting when this type of stuff comes up. This time it's about how common it is for criminals to return to "finish the job". Now, I'm quite aware of this on television and in movies. But, living in a large city and having grown up in a less than savory neighborhood, I haven't witnessed this being a common event. You got any examples of this happening?

[bobeck]

the fact she may be pregnant was unfortunate...the old man ended what he considered to be a potentially ongoing violent threat to his safety...my opinion if she was robbing while pregnant she'd have said anything to live to rob another day...bury her let him live out his days and wash you hands of the mess

[Gotenks98]

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.

^^^This, I am rarely for the whole gun violence thing but in this case its justified especially since he was robbed 3 times already.

[Shadrack]

Shooting someone with their back turned is cowedly revenge.

[Kalint]

You know if you're going to drop someone... y-you really should exclude those little details

[RichardK]

Instead of the Police never finding these burglars/attackers, the homeowner was able to kill one of them and wound the other.  I see no problem with someone hunting down and killing someone who was in their home and attacked them.  They deserve to die.  Just because they didn't pose any immediate danger, they did before and most likely will again.  I would do the same thing, and I would never convict someone in this situation, if I was on the Jury (if it even comes to that).

[HawkMan]

Instead of the Police never finding these burglars/attackers, the homeowner was able to kill one of them and wound the other.  I see no problem with someone hunting down and killing someone who was in their home and attacked them.  They deserve to die.  Just because they didn't pose any immediate danger, they did before and most likely will again.  I would do the same thing, and I would never convict someone in this situation, if I was on the Jury (if it even comes to that).

 

Yeah. what's the problem with Vigilante justice, bring on the punisher, heck why just one, need a whole bunch. 

[ObiWanToby]

Shouldn't have been violating the sanctity of his home. No sympathy for those who intentionally harm others (through burgerly or otherwise).

[techbeck]

Shouldn't have been violating the sanctity of his home. No sympathy for those who intentionally harm others (through burgerly or otherwise).

 

I dont either.  I also dont think it is cool to gun down a person who is no threat.  If the people were still beating the old guy and coming at him, fare game.  Wasn't the case tho.  The old guy got his gun, shot at the suspects in the house which caused them to flee and leave his property.  The old guy then ran after them, followed them, and shot and killed someone who had their back turned and was running away.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Don't want shot at? Don't break into people's homes. Simple.

Don't want to be tried for murder? Don't chase after and kill someone when they pose no threat to you. Simple.

[SierraSonic]

I dont either.  I also dont think it is cool to gun down a person who is no threat.  If the people were still beating the old guy and coming at him, fare game.  Wasn't the case tho.  The old guy got his gun, shot at the suspects in the house which caused them to flee and leave his property.  The old guy then ran after them, followed them, and shot and killed someone who had their back turned and was running away.

While I'd agree, the law specifically states that you are allowed to use deadly force to protect your property, which they were most likely running away with.

 

Don't want to be tried for murder? Don't chase after and kill someone when they pose no threat to you. Simple.

He might get manslaughter, tops.

[LaP]

 

 

May then people will think twice before they break into someones house.

 

I don't think so. They will just be sure to bring good weapons before breaking into your house. They might even shot you before you do anything against them.

 

Here most thieves are not even armed. They don't need to be. People call the cops and the cops handle it. I mean this is just non-living things. Even the most expensive things is not even close to worth 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 of a human life.

[Rippleman]

People have been known to go on killing sprees with knives or vehicles.

 

without a gun, in this case, the killing would not have happened. As with most cases.

[Wyn6]

without a gun, in this case, the killing would not have happened. As with most cases.

Unless, the robbery victim was Usain Bolt and he had a knife and was intent on killing them.

[SierraSonic]

without a gun, in this case, the killing would not have happened. As with most cases.

The 80 year old man has a broken collar bone.... he was assaulted and robbed, and had every right to defend himself and his property as it was being taken away. The killing happened because someone created a situation where they are doing something that could end up with them getting shot or arrested, not because someone tried to stop them.

[Rippleman]

The 80 year old man has a broken collar bone.... he was assaulted and robbed, and had every right to defend himself and his property as it was being taken away. The killing happened because someone created a situation where they are doing something that could end up with them getting shot or arrested, not because someone tried to stop them.

 

While i am not sad a perp lost his life, I do think it was wrong for him to do. Curious to what you would feel under same circumstances but different distance/time. What if the old man had a 50 caliber? and shot them 2 mins later when they were a 1 km away on there escape route? Where does one say "after the fact" happen?

[123456789A]

The man should be commended for eliminating a criminal and saving taxpayer dollars - court proceedings, incarceration and subsequent short term release of repeat offender criminals (revolving door legal system), plus prevention of the baby being born into a criminal environment and continuing the cycle of crime.

 

Strikes against the man for not killing both criminals. The male burglar might come armed next time now that he knows there is a gun.

[SierraSonic]

While i am not sad a perp lost his life, I do think it was wrong for him to do. Curious to what you would feel under same circumstances but different distance/time. What if the old man had a 50 caliber? and shot them 2 mins later when they were a 1 km away on there escape route? Where does one say "after the fact" happen?

The gun used is irrelevant, it doesn't seem like he went out of his way to follow them. Now if he had taken extra steps, like putting on his shoes, finding his car keys, and actively looked for them after they disappeared into the darkness, we'd have a different story here.

 

After the fact is situational, and in this case, he shot "during the fact".

[xrobwx71]

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.

Did you miss this? 

 

 

Both suspects attacked him, hitting him with their fists and ultimately "body slamming" him to the floor, breaking his collar bone, McDonnell said.

Don't want to be tried for murder? Don't chase after and kill someone when they pose no threat to you. Simple.

Again, I ask did we miss this? Are we reading the same article?

 

 

 

Both suspects attacked him, hitting him with their fists and ultimately "body slamming" him to the floor, breaking his collar bone, McDonnell said.

[spenser.d]

Did you miss this?

And if the guy had shot them during the assault we wouldn't be having this conversation, but he chased them and shot them afterward, after he wasn't in any more danger.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

Did you miss this?

Not at all, but apparently you missed my next comments. ;)

Again, if your country/state allows the use of guns then that's fine. But it's not a reason to use them first and not use the police when you are not any longer in danger. The man himself said that he shot her in the back as she was running away. There was no need for that.

[xrobwx71]

And if the guy had shot them during the assault we wouldn't be having this conversation, but he chased them and shot them afterward, after he wasn't in any more danger.

I don't do "ifs" Re-read the article. What if Santa Claus was real and I could time travel with him and counsel the two assailants and they didn't break into this guys house and beat him to the point of broken bones?

[Lord Method Man]

All this Monday morning quarterbacking about what the homeowner "should have done" instead but virtually no comments that the robbers should have not broken into his home in the first place.

[xrobwx71]

Not at all, but apparently you missed my next comments. ;)

Again, if your country/state allows the use of guns then that's fine. But it's not a reason to use them first and not use the police when you are not any longer in danger. The man himself said that he shot her in the back as she was running away. There was no need for that.

I could agree with that but not the "no danger present" comment. How do you or even he know that he was no longer in danger? How did he know they weren't going to come back and "finish" beating him to death to shut him up to keep from getting arrested?

Thanks for the clarification though.  :)

[spenser.d]

I don't do "ifs" Re-read the article. What if Santa Claus was real and I could time travel with him and counsel the two assailants and they didn't break into this guys house and beat him to the point of broken bones?

You're the one who doesn't appear to understand what's going on the article and now talking ifs. Them breaking in isn't relevant. The guy wasn't in danger when he shot them.