California man, 80 shot burglar despite pleas of pregnancy


Recommended Posts

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.

But he didn't, he clearly says he went after her and shot her knowing she was unable to defend herself, she begged him to not shoot.

 

The excuse they could come back for more doesn't work either as that is just an assumption. Defence is clearly defending yourself in the act of being attacked, not shooting someone because you think they may come back again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesn't.

 

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

Are we agreeing on the same thing?

 

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

You misunderstand, it wouldn't have any bearing on one in the US I'm not stupid. I was merely pointing out that the case was similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he didn't, he clearly says he went after her and shot her knowing she was unable to defend herself, she begged him to not shoot.

 

The excuse they could come back for more doesn't work either as that is just an assumption. Defence is clearly defending yourself in the act of being attacked, not shooting someone because you think they may come back again.

Come on guys, read what I said.  I am aware he didn't, which is why I said that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

So if I happened to stray on to your property you have the right to kill me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You misunderstand, it wouldn't have any bearing on one in the US I'm not stupid. I was merely pointing out that the case was similar.

 

 

Ok.  It came out sounding quite a bit different:

 

 

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

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two criminals, and one most likely potential criminal off the street. good.

While i think he was wrong for chasing her down and killing her, i don't feel pity for pathetic criminals that prey on others. Good riddance.

No one wants to be repeatedly victimized.

Really sad anymore how the media turns the criminals into the victims. When the heck did that start?

 

So if I happened to stray on to your property you have the right to kill me?

Yes. You have no reason to be on his property.

He shouldn't kill you if you're not a threat, but has the right.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.  It came out sounding quite a bit different:

Fair enough, all I was saying is that the cases were similar not that the UK ruling would have a bearing on the outcome of this one.

why do you keep saying the obvious, its not what he was suggesting or saying so quit implying what everyone already knows.

Really, reread the post that I replied to:

 

No it doesn't.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really sad anymore how the media turns the criminals into the victims. When the heck did that start?

 

since Adam and eve (according to theists) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two criminals, and one most likely potential criminal off the street. good.

While i think he was wrong for chasing her down and killing her, i don't feel pity for pathetic criminals that prey on others. Good riddance.

No one wants to be repeatedly victimized.

Really sad anymore how the media turns the criminals into the victims. When the heck did that start?

 

Yes. You have no reason to be on his property.

He shouldn't kill you if you're not a threat, but has the right.

It's the fact the the guy took the law into his hands and decided to shoot her, it should be left to the police.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are we agreeing on the same thing?

 

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

We agree that it wasn't self defense.  However I don't agree a grand jury would indict him if he was faced with charges.  If he ever did get indicted, I think it would be for manslaughter at most and it would be highly doubtful that he would ever do jail time due to his age and the circumstances of the entire incident.  Which would make it a waste of money to attempt to pursue charges against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, all I was saying is that the cases were similar not that the UK ruling would have a bearing on the outcome of this one.

Really, reread the post that I replied to:

i quoted you by accident, sorry. I was trying quote that adryline guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since Adam and eve (according to theists)

Lets keep this discussion to real life, and stuff that actually happened.

I could reference many fairy tales to prove other points as well (nightmare on elm street is a reason to shoot everyone on sight, for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We agree that it wasn't self defense.  However I don't agree a grand jury would indict him if he was faced with charges.  If he ever did get indicted, I think it would be for manslaughter at most and it would be highly doubtful that he would ever do jail time due to his age and the circumstances of the entire incident.  Which would make it a waste of money to attempt to pursue charges against him.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/senior-citizen-gets-life-in-prison-for-rape-and-murder-of-10-year-old-163512

 

While a more heinous crime, age doesn't keep you out of prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i quoted you by accident, sorry. I was trying quote that adryline guy.

No problem, that happens to me as well :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i quoted you by accident, sorry. I was trying quote that adryline guy.

 

 

Fair enough.  At least have the decency to look up spelling though.

 

 

why do you keep saying the obvious, its not what he was suggesting or saying so quit implying what everyone already knows.

Seeing how you deleted it, I'll copy it here....

 

 

I was discussing with someone else (read: not you) why I thought he could and would be indicted (vs someone who felt otherwise).  I apologize if you are having trouble following my convo.  Am I not authorized to post in this thread because you don't see the relevance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 sort of agree with this. They broke his collar-bone and he'd been burglarized 3 times before. Once they got out of the house, though, he should have just let them go. I'm kind of torn between the law and what's just.

Realististally, being 80 years old, he could have been killed pretty easily.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sort of agree with this. They broke his collar-bone and he'd been burglarized 3 times before. Once they got out of the house, though, he should have just let them go. I'm kind of torn between the law and what's just.

Realististally, being 80 years old, he could have been killed pretty easily.

Fortunately we cannot go around killing people just because the did something bad to us, the law is pretty clear that self defence is the only reason to kill someone and only if you think it's the only way out of a situation.

 

At 80 he could've been killed easily but age isn't an excuse to kill someone either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

He run after them and gunned them down.  As soon as they were on the run, he should have gone inside and called the cops.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He run after them and gunned them down.  As soon as they were on the run, he should have gone inside and called the cops.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.