California man, 80 shot burglar despite pleas of pregnancy

[wahoospa]

He chased them down an alley that was some distance away from his home. He's in deep doo doo I believe. Like a bank guard shooting a robber 3 blocks away that was running on his feet. You can't do that. This guy was being judge, jury and the prosecutor. Our system doesn't work that way.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

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.  :)

Let me put myself in to his shoes for a second, as I don't own a gun - although it would be allowed here in Switzerland.

I come home, I am in my house, doesn't really matter. Someone walks in and attempts to rob my place. As the article says, I get beaten and so I go towards my weapon. I find my weapon, flash it (as per the article) and they start running away. Do I shoot them in the back? No. They are no longer a threat to me at that time.

What do I do? I phone the police and report a potential burglary.

Am I worried for my safety during that time? If yes, I keep the gun on me and stand in a space within my property that gives me the advantage over another or the same intruder. The police show, I give my report, and I will let them handle it. I'm not giving anything up by doing that, but I'm also not responsible for an unnecessary death.

We can play the "what if" card all the time. But that doesn't make it any more right. He shot someone as they were moving away and not a threat. That is and should be considered wrong. No harm would have come to him at the time if he had let them go, and he would still be armed and hopefully prepared if they returned.

You're going for the idea of, "if I don't do something now then it will happen again" which is a mentality that - while I'm all too aware of - does not give just reason. As someone earlier said, "someone gave me an odd look this morning. I'll attack them now so that a "maybe" situation doesn't happen later." You're escalating without logical reason.

[chrisj1968]

And according to the law of Nevada, you would be in your right if they were on your property. But this is now arguing a hypothetical situation rather than the article itself.

true. But in a sense, Nevada is a state where one can freely open carry as well.

[chrisj1968]

Let me put myself in to his shoes for a second, as I don't own a gun - although it would be allowed here in Switzerland.

I come home, I am in my house, doesn't really matter. Someone walks in and attempts to rob my place. As the article says, I get beaten and so I go towards my weapon. I find my weapon, flash it (as per the article) and they start running away. Do I shoot them in the back? No. They are no longer a threat to me at that time.

What do I do? I phone the police and report a potential burglary.

Am I worried for my safety during that time? If yes, I keep the gun on me and stand in a space within my property that gives me the advantage over another or the same intruder. The police show, I give my report, and I will let them handle it. I'm not giving anything up by doing that, but I'm also not responsible for an unnecessary death.

We can play the "what if" card all the time. But that doesn't make it any more right. He shot someone as they were moving away and not a threat. That is and should be considered wrong. No harm would have come to him at the time if he had let them go, and he would still be armed and hopefully prepared if they returned.

You're going for the idea of, "if I don't do something now then it will happen again" which is a mentality that - while I'm all too aware of - does not give just reason. As someone earlier said, "someone gave me an odd look this morning. I'll attack them now so that a "maybe" situation doesn't happen later." You're escalating without logical reason.

well said. what if's can go on and on. point being.. if they are in your house in Nevada armed or not.. you are legally right to shoot them. however, if upon seeing me or family with a firearm, they leave my house, we know (my entire family) let them go, report it to the police. shooting them when they are outside of the premises after leaving my house is illegal.

 

the main thing is or the point is: the protection of ones family. when an assailant runs out my door..my family and I are no longer threatened. 

 

now in a more liberal state like California, you have to feel like your life is in danger. however if I had my grandson in the house with my family, it would be easy to prove that there was a danger to my family.

 

and we see in chicago and the like, gun control has had no effect on gun murders because criminals DO NOT abide by laws. they have no care for laws or empathy or sympathy.. until they get caught. FBI stats have proven year after ear that, gun crimes have lessened due to legal firearm owners.

 

I took hunter safety at age 12. I was hunting after I completed that course and have been around firearms military and civilian all my life. the crass belief that all owners are criminals is just moronic absurdity.

[trag3dy]

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

 

He's a coward huh? Not unlike two people ganging up and beating an 80 year old man in his home that had been burglarized 3 times previously?

 

I think following a simple rule would have served the couple well. Don't break into peoples homes and you won't get shot.

 

Lets please stop treating the guilty like victims and the victims like they are guilty thanks.

[123456789A]

Oh wow, she wasn't even pregnant. So she was a liar and a thief.

 

I don't know why people are feeling sorry for these criminals.

[xrobwx71]

Let me put myself in to his shoes for a second, as I don't own a gun - although it would be allowed here in Switzerland.

I come home, I am in my house, doesn't really matter. Someone walks in and attempts to rob my place. As the article says, I get beaten and so I go towards my weapon. I find my weapon, flash it (as per the article) and they start running away. Do I shoot them in the back? No. They are no longer a threat to me at that time.

What do I do? I phone the police and report a potential burglary.

Am I worried for my safety during that time? If yes, I keep the gun on me and stand in a space within my property that gives me the advantage over another or the same intruder. The police show, I give my report, and I will let them handle it. I'm not giving anything up by doing that, but I'm also not responsible for an unnecessary death.

We can play the "what if" card all the time. But that doesn't make it any more right. He shot someone as they were moving away and not a threat. That is and should be considered wrong. No harm would have come to him at the time if he had let them go, and he would still be armed and hopefully prepared if they returned.

You're going for the idea of, "if I don't do something now then it will happen again" which is a mentality that - while I'm all too aware of - does not give just reason. As someone earlier said, "someone gave me an odd look this morning. I'll attack them now so that a "maybe" situation doesn't happen later." You're escalating without logical reason.

Nicely said. I see your point.

[techbeck]

He's a coward huh?

 

For chasing after unarmed suspects that were then off his property and shooting one in the back twice and then comes off as pleased with himself, yup.  Coward.

[DocM]

Someone up-thread made a big deal of Tennessee v Garner as limiting the fleeing felon rule to a very restricted set of conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Garner

Tennessee v Garner was an ruling regarding the use of force by the police, not citizens, in that it requires the police to have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Since an officer may not have witnessed the crime in question there is a gap in probable cause.

In People v. Crouch (1990) the Michigan Supreme Court held that Tennessee v. Garner was,

* a civil rather than criminal action;

* did not affect Michigan's Fleeing Felon Rule;

* and that a citizen may use deadly force when restraining a fleeing felon in a criminal matter. (a citizens arrest)

People v. Crouch has NOT been reversed by Federal courts and has been used in other states to formulate other FFR's.

The bottom line is that citizens have more of a right to fire on fleeing suspects than late arriving police responding to the scene, partly because as the victim or witness then have a greater probable cause than said police officers do.

Legally, a c?tizens standing is the same as an out of jurisdiction police officer.

Now add in the Citizens Arrest power (shooting to effect an arrest), the Castle Doctrine (which can extend to the "chattels" or surrounding structures and property) and Stand Your Ground (extends Castle to the public square).

[trag3dy]

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.

 

How is it not relevant? Their direct actions resulted in one of their own deaths.

 

action -> consequence

 

Don't break into peoples homes if you don't want to get shot. Simple.

 

It doesn't matter if the old man was right or wrong. His action is a result of their action. Therefor his action could not have happened if they hadn't of made the choice they did.

[techbeck]

Think what gets me the most is the old guys comments.  They come off as cold and black hearted.  Veterans who killed nazis or taliban have more heart and compassion for the fellow human than this guys seems to have.  Dont get me wrong, if I am confronted and it comes down to me and someone else, I am going to do what is needed.  However, if I end up on the winning end...I would be glad to be alive but not happy I had to take a life.  To be happy, or seem happy, about taking another life makes you no better than the person you killed.

[Gone]

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.

A cowardly act is the two thieves beating the crap out of an 80 year old guy. They got what they deserved.

 

Oh wow, she wasn't even pregnant. So she was a liar and a thief.

 

I don't know why people are feeling sorry for these criminals.

This.

[techbeck]

A cowardly act is the two thieves beating the crap out of an 80 year old guy. They got what they deserved.

 

They are all cowards.  Never said the other two were not and that they were innocent.

[DocM]

As mentioned above, the Castle Doctrine in many states extends to adjacent structures and property, and a Citizens Arrest (49 of 50 states) can be accomplished by firing to stop their escape. Depends on the state law.

Here and a great many other states a robber fleeing a store can be nailed in flight. Fleeing a home is actually worse than that as it's classified as a home invasion.

[Gone]

They are all cowards.  Never said the other two were not and that they were innocent.

I don't think it's cowardly to shoot a criminal in the back who is running away after they just severely assaulted you. I think it should be a right, because it will make the world a better place in the long run.

 

How can I have such logic? Well, if thieves, murderers, and rapist have something to fear, then they just might not rape, murder, and steal. It is as simple as that. If they didn't assault him, I would say that he should go to jail because no damage was done, and the criminal was trying to flee.

 

Instead, they assaulted an 80 year old man, broke his collar bone (which has a big risk of killing an elderly person), then tried running like a teenager who ran over his neighbors dog. They deserved what they got, because they showed no remorse or respect for the old man.

[blank]

Odd how so many are upset over criminals {who repeatedly victimize others}, get taken down.

We should be happy that we get to live in a safer world and applaud this guy for not bending over for them.

"lets hug, and kiss everyone, while we listen to their stories, and come to an understanding about why they become worthless criminals, then we can hold hands and dance on rainbows".

Yeah keep doing that while they play and steal from you.

in the meantime, us people who live in the real world, and don't want to be victims, will protect ourselves and our families.

[Gone]

Odd how so many are upset over criminals {who repeatedly victimize others}, get taken down.

We should be happy that we get to live in a safer world and applaud this guy for not bending over for them.

"lets hug, and kiss everyone, while we listen to their stories, and come to an understanding about why they become worthless criminals, then we can hold hands and dance on rainbows".

Yeah keep doing that while they play and steal from you.

Wak Jak apparentlty is one of them. There are sadly millions of people who follow in suit, who like to say that they are morally superior than the person defending themselves from current or repeat offenders.

 

They all say the same story until it happens to them!

[Gerowen]

She shouldn't have been there in the first place.  She and her accomplice are responsible for her death.  If they hadn't been illegally trespassing to begin with, she wouldn't have been killed.  Case closed in my opinion.

[T3X4S]

Once again - the people of neowin are so quick to throw down a verdict after reading a single column, changing someone's life forever - good thing none of you are in any position to determine important outcomes.

[SierraSonic]

Once again - the people of neowin are so quick to throw down a verdict after reading a single column, changing someone's life forever - good thing none of you are in any position to determine important outcomes.

Good thing the jury of the public isn't as important as the one in the courthouse.

[Night Prowler]

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

 

If I was getting shot at I'd tell the shooter that I was Jesus Christ. Was she pregnant, I highly doubt it.

[T3X4S]

If I was getting shot at I'd tell the shooter that I was Jesus Christ. Was she pregnant, I highly doubt it.

"I'm Jesus !!"

"If thats true, after I shoot you, forgive me"

[+Red King Subscriber²]

> Walk out carrying my large American package, see some old guy chase down a woman and kill her in cold blood, what do?

[mrmomoman]

Many of you have been or will be called to Jury Duty at some point. Think about how you would approach the selection process and how you would approach a verdict.

 

The man should have not said so much but he opened his mouth and its a done deal. He can't take it back and he should worry how they might view his actions. He didn't sound like he was fearful for his life at that moment when hey decided to pick off the woman because she was the slowest of the two.

 

They were running away and no longer posed a threat to him at that moment. He was no longer defending his position or his property he was wanting to get back at them for the crime they just had committed. He was angry which is completely reasonable but it sounds like from the preliminary reports and his comments that he was angry and wanted to make sure they didn't get away.

 

Until more comes out we all should reserve judgment but if he sticks to his story and doesn't show some kind of remorse he will face the jury. I personally think he will face some kind of charge for shooting a person fleeing the crime scene and off his property. He chased after them which doesn't show he had much fear at the time. He can't know for SURE they would have come back to cause him harm. He can't prove it.

[spenser.d]

.

We should be happy that we get to live in a safer world and applaud this guy for not bending over for them.

I don't feel safer because some old man with a gun couldn't restrain himself.

Also, quite frankly, this wont keep burglars at bay. All it will do is encourage them to actually carry weapons and then we will actually have something to fear. Unarmed ###### stealing some ###### is one thing. Armed ###### assuming they'll need to defend themselves is scary.