Update Homeowner Guns down girl chasing her in back alley she said she was pregnant

[Exophase]

I'd have a very difficult time convicting him of anything. Manslaughter, maybe. Here we have two young people who broke into an old man's home, severely injured him, and then expect the protection of the law when the balance of power suddenly turns against them. Screw 'em both. Hope they charge her accomplice with Murder One if and when they catch him. Had they surrendered, I'd have more sympathy. Maybe.

Make that 12-4, Robert.

The woman was shot and pleading for her life. Is that not tantamount to surrendering? The man could have held her at gunpoint while waiting for police to arrive. This wasn't simply a matter of not letting her get away.

I don't understand why some think that vigilante justice should be excused based on the severity of the crime suffered. That's not how the law works and for a pretty good reason.

 

[TerryMathews]

the guy was just attacked and robbed and was not thinking rationally, pre-meditation not found.

Give it up, these are the same idiots who argue that physically pulling the trigger is intent, premeditation, or sometimes both.

 

[Exophase]

If he merely wasn't thinking rationally at the time why is he defending his behavior and admitting after the fact that he thought she should be dead?

 

[highland145]

I'd have a very difficult time convicting him of anything. Manslaughter, maybe. Here we have two young people who broke into an old man's home, severely injured him, and then expect the protection of the law when the balance of power suddenly turns against them. Screw 'em both. Hope they charge her accomplice with Murder One if and when they catch him. Had they surrendered, I'd have more sympathy. Maybe.

Make that 12-4, Robert.

2 counts, one for the baby.

 

[senseamp]

Did some here miss the part where he said:
"I shot her so that's going to leave a message on his mind for the rest of his life"
Killing someone to send a message to someone else is not self defense, last I checked.
Sounds like second degree murder to me.

 

[TerryMathews]

2 counts, one for the baby.

He didn't kill a baby, he aborted a fetus. Amirite?

 

[DrPizza]

The woman was shot and pleading for her life. Is that not tantamount to surrendering? The man could have held her at gunpoint while waiting for police to arrive. This wasn't simply a matter of not letting her get away.

I don't understand why some think that vigilante justice should be excused based on the severity of the crime suffered. That's not how the law works and for a pretty good reason.

If this was the case, then clearly, murder. BUT, the OP misinterpreted it based on a poorly written article. Other articles on this indicate that her accomplice ran faster, but she had stumbled in the alley - at which point she said she was pregnant - THEN was shot twice. It wasn't *bang* "please don't shoot me, I'm pregnant" *bang*. It was twice in the back, while fleeing, after she said that.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The woman was shot and pleading for her life. Is that not tantamount to surrendering? The man could have held her at gunpoint while waiting for police to arrive. This wasn't simply a matter of not letting her get away.

I don't understand why some think that vigilante justice should be excused based on the severity of the crime suffered. That's not how the law works and for a pretty good reason.

It's not how the law works, true, but I don't think it would be unreasonable if it did. Vigilantes like the man in the op, the pharmacist from Oklahoma, commit crimes when pushed to by other criminals. You could keep a very peaceful and orderly society with millions of potential vigilantes lurking about, as long as others do not induce vigilantism in them. Provided that murder is not too much more severe than the crime that causes the murder (e.g. assault on an elderly person or robbery at gunpoint, not spraypainting a wall), it does not harm society to allow such vigilantes off with reduced sentences.

 

[Fern]

If he shot her while she was fleeing that's not self defense.

The 'kill shot' was not self defense.

In the absence of some legal technicality/goof up by the police and/or jury nullification the old dude is in serious trouble.

OP, picking the woman who fired a 'warning shot' is a damn poor example.

Fern

 

[Bird222]

I don't think a jury is going to be that hard on a 80 year old man when they both attacked him in his own house. I doubt they can convince a jury of 12 people to all say he was guilty of murder.

In some locations if you attack a senior citizen, you are going to jail anyway.

Well those 12 people would be idiots. If the facts as presented are true that's murder. Also one crime doesn't cancel out another.

 

[alzan]

The elderly man's life was no longer in threat the moment the thieves ran out of the house; based on the article, IMO it's clear he committed 2nd degree murder when he shot the woman.

 

[Babbles]

I get the point of view that she may have been fleeing - but we actually don't know that for certain; yes she was in an alley but fleeing is an inference, not fact. We really can't ask her right now. However, I think the more basic question is: Did he still feel threatened? It started in his house, moved to the alley but it is not unreasonable to think that an 80 year old man who was just robbed still felt that his life was threatened while in the alley. He did not know where that other person was, if she going to get a weapon, get her buddy to finish off the old man - we can't know this for certain (of course that will not stop the internet crowd from guessing).

To put it a bit more simple, your life can be endangered anywhere, not just inside your home.

 

[werepossum]

The woman was shot and pleading for her life. Is that not tantamount to surrendering? The man could have held her at gunpoint while waiting for police to arrive. This wasn't simply a matter of not letting her get away.

I don't understand why some think that vigilante justice should be excused based on the severity of the crime suffered. That's not how the law works and for a pretty good reason.

You do make a good point. Had she been shot, stopped trying to escape, and was on her knees pleading for her life, and THEN he shot her again, I could see charging and convicting for maybe Murder 2.

Okay, maybe 13-3. IF that's how it went down.

2 counts, one for the baby.

lol Yep.

It's not how the law works, true, but I don't think it would be unreasonable if it did. Vigilantes like the man in the op, the pharmacist from Oklahoma, commit crimes when pushed to by other criminals. You could keep a very peaceful and orderly society with millions of potential vigilantes lurking about, as long as others do not induce vigilantism in them. Provided that murder is not too much more severe than the crime that causes the murder (e.g. assault on an elderly person or robbery at gunpoint, not spraypainting a wall), it does not harm society to allow such vigilantes off with reduced sentences.

I tend to agree. This idea that someone could walk up, shoot your wife or child dead, then turn and run with the understanding that he is home free because he's no longer a threat just strikes me as the antithesis of justice. Frankly I believe that some crimes - home burglary, assault & battery (especially on a child or elderly person), armed or strong-arm robbery, rape - should carry with them a legally assumed risk of being killed by the victim or someone acting on behalf of the victim. That's only fair.

In Tennessee this is informally known as the "He needed killing" defense and can be surprisingly successful.

 

[highland145]

I tend to agree. This idea that someone could walk up, shoot your wife or child dead, then turn and run with the understanding that he is home free because he's no longer a threat just strikes me as the antithesis of justice. Frankly I believe that some crimes - home burglary, assault & battery (especially on a child or elderly person), armed or strong-arm robbery, rape - should carry with them a legally assumed risk of being killed by the victim or someone acting on behalf of the victim. That's only fair.

No, I'd kill him. Temporary insanity.

In Tennessee this is informally known as the "He needed killing" defense and can be surprisingly successful.

:biggrin:

 

[TheVrolok]

Seems like he should be doing some jail time.

 

[Bird222]

The elderly man's life was no longer in threat the moment the thieves ran out of the house; based on the article, IMO it's clear he committed 2nd degree murder when he shot the woman.

Why do you say 2nd and not 1st?

 

[CitizenKain]

Give it up, these are the same idiots who argue that physically pulling the trigger is intent, premeditation, or sometimes both.

"The man escaped, but the woman fell after being struck by Greer's gunfire in an alley behind the house.

"She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!' And I shot her anyway," Greer said."

So chasing someone outside and finishing them off is perfectly fine in your book. I don't remember if you were getting all excited about the guy in Minnesota who executed those teens in his house, but you seem like the type who would.

 

[Exophase]

If this was the case, then clearly, murder. BUT, the OP misinterpreted it based on a poorly written article. Other articles on this indicate that her accomplice ran faster, but she had stumbled in the alley - at which point she said she was pregnant - THEN was shot twice. It wasn't *bang* "please don't shoot me, I'm pregnant" *bang*. It was twice in the back, while fleeing, after she said that.

Okay, but even if she pleaded before being shot, the guy probably could have subdued her if he really wanted to (ie, threatened to shoot her if she kept running) while waiting for police. Yeah, I know, maybe he actually did say "stop or I'll shoot." Only that would be nothing in line with his claim that he killed her to send a message.

It's not how the law works, true, but I don't think it would be unreasonable if it did. Vigilantes like the man in the op, the pharmacist from Oklahoma, commit crimes when pushed to by other criminals. You could keep a very peaceful and orderly society with millions of potential vigilantes lurking about, as long as others do not induce vigilantism in them. Provided that murder is not too much more severe than the crime that causes the murder (e.g. assault on an elderly person or robbery at gunpoint, not spraypainting a wall), it does not harm society to allow such vigilantes off with reduced sentences.

No judge in the country would have sentenced this woman to death. Why should this man be allowed to? We have a legal system for a reason...

 

[realibrad]

I tend to agree. This idea that someone could walk up, shoot your wife or child dead, then turn and run with the understanding that he is home free because he's no longer a threat just strikes me as the antithesis of justice. Frankly I believe that some crimes - home burglary, assault & battery (especially on a child or elderly person), armed or strong-arm robbery, rape - should carry with them a legally assumed risk of being killed by the victim or someone acting on behalf of the victim. That's only fair.

In Tennessee this is informally known as the "He needed killing" defense and can be surprisingly successful.

A victim taking justice into its own hands is illegal. Even in the situations you listed, there is a very good reason to not let the victim take justice into its hands.

We do have a small loophole for situations though, and its crime of passion. The law understands that in some moments, a person can lose control because they were pushed to a limit and any action there after is not pushed as harshly. So in reality, those above crimes already carry the risk of harm and or death.

 

[Jaskalas]

Be surprised if he wasn't charged with murder. Chasing somebody into an alley and then shooting them while clearly not a threat anymore isn't self defense anymore.

It's amazing how many people do not understand that. Or maybe he was angry and wanted to murder them for what they did.

 

[StinkyPinky]

He was attacked in his house and beaten, so I would be shocked if he gets first degree murder as I challenge anyone to say they would be thinking rationally if that happened to them. However he clearly deserves jail time of some sort.

 

[shortylickens]

it aint self defense, but its possible he still might not be prosecuted.

 

[BurnItDwn]

He shot them after they assaulted him. Its one thing when a thief runs away when they get caught, its another if they knock the homeowner down. They initiated violence against him. Still doesnt make it OK to kill in cold blood, but, It does give make the case more grey and less black and white. People should never steal things from other people, people should never hurt other people, and people should never kill other people... when people keep pushing your buttons, you are bound to snap.

 

[werepossum]

A victim taking justice into its own hands is illegal. Even in the situations you listed, there is a very good reason to not let the victim take justice into its hands.

We do have a small loophole for situations though, and its crime of passion. The law understands that in some moments, a person can lose control because they were pushed to a limit and any action there after is not pushed as harshly. So in reality, those above crimes already carry the risk of harm and or death.

But Hamburger Boy was positing that perhaps it shouldn't be illegal, and I was agreeing.

Probably never be changed though. For one thing, government likes to have a monopoly on the use of force. For another, there is no inherent clean break. "As long as your life is in danger" is a reasonably clean break; "up to six, ten or sixteen steps away" is not. That makes it impractical even if it appeals to my sense of justice.

 

[Dari]

The man is 80, people. At that age they just don't give a fuck. They will kill you and speak their mind.