• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

kinev

Golden Member
Mar 28, 2005
1,647
30
91
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...
Totally wrong. The right to self-defense is not limited to situations where a judge would render the same verdict. I know in TX where they have strong Castle Law's set up, if a person breaks into your house at night and is leaving your home with your possessions (say, in an alleyway), you can shoot and kill them and be protected from civil and criminal charges. Just to protect your property.

Would a judge/jury/prosecutor render a death sentence to someone breaking into a home and stealing property? No way! Can a homeowner legally shoot them to prevent them from stealing his/her property (in TX)? You bet!

Under your "rules" a person can only use deadly force if the perpetrator has committed a crime that a judge/jury/prosecutor would give a death sentence for. Stop and think about the logical absurdity that that is... Depending on the state, the death penalty is usually reserved for murder. You're saying that I can only use deadly force to protect myself if I've already been murdered?!?!

Self defense laws are set up to prevent honest citizens from becoming victims of crime. Applying the "you can only do what a judge(jury) would do to a criminal" in order to protect yourself is asinine. If someone pulls a knife on me and threatens me, that's aggravated assault. A judge/jury/prosecutor wouldn't seek the death penalty for that crime. According to you, I should not be allowed to use deadly force because at that point, "No judge in the country would have sentenced this [person] to death".

I'm not defending this guy's actions. If the details of the case end up being that he shot her when she was on the ground defenseless, then he should be charged with something (I'd be okay with manslaughter depending on the details). But your way of thinking is way off.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
There should be a 3rd category of crimes in addition to murder and manslaughter for cases like this. If you kill someone when it's not involuntary but everyone agrees the victim wasn't an innocent bystander and we're not sorry he's dead, that should have a different sentence then someone like a Columbine school shooter.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
There should be a 3rd category of crimes in addition to murder and manslaughter for cases like this. If you kill someone when it's not involuntary but everyone agrees the victim wasn't an innocent bystander and we're not sorry he's dead, that should have a different sentence then someone like a Columbine school shooter.
Its called a Medal of Freedom :p
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,440
8
81
Totally wrong. The right to self-defense is not limited to situations where a judge would render the same verdict. I know in TX where they have strong Castle Law's set up, if a person breaks into your house at night and is leaving your home with your possessions (say, in an alleyway), you can shoot and kill them and be protected from civil and criminal charges. Just to protect your property.

Would a judge/jury/prosecutor render a death sentence to someone breaking into a home and stealing property? No way! Can a homeowner legally shoot them to prevent them from stealing his/her property (in TX)? You bet!

Under your "rules" a person can only use deadly force if the perpetrator has committed a crime that a judge/jury/prosecutor would give a death sentence for. Stop and think about the logical absurdity that that is... Depending on the state, the death penalty is usually reserved for murder. You're saying that I can only use deadly force to protect myself if I've already been murdered?!?!

Self defense laws are set up to prevent honest citizens from becoming victims of crime. Applying the "you can only do what a judge(jury) would do to a criminal" in order to protect yourself is asinine. If someone pulls a knife on me and threatens me, that's aggravated assault. A judge/jury/prosecutor wouldn't seek the death penalty for that crime. According to you, I should not be allowed to use deadly force because at that point, "No judge in the country would have sentenced this [person] to death".

I'm not defending this guy's actions. If the details of the case end up being that he shot her when she was on the ground defenseless, then he should be charged with something (I'd be okay with manslaughter depending on the details). But your way of thinking is way off.
I'm not saying my "rules" nullify self-defense. The problem is that this guy was not acting in self-defense, he wasn't protecting the life of anyone or even his property (I'm not aware that the killed woman was able to steal anything). He was enacting a criminal punishment in retaliation for a crime committed against him, plain and simple. And in that case the sentence that the legal system would have levied is absolutely relevant, if we were to allow such justice in the first place, which we don't.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,028
75
86
first shot understandable self defense, second shot pre-meditated murder.
I am convinced you don't understand what pre-meditated means.


Regardless, this guy will be charged with 2nd degree murder and even then, he is 80. He won't spend a week in prison. With that out of the way, I'm glad at least one of these thugs was put down.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Seriously, all you people who are saying he's a murderer are the problem with America. When criminals can get a pass just because they regret their decision after they're met with force, what message does it say? Show remorse and you're golden? Fuck no.
Probably one of the stupidest things I've read on the internet all week. How exactly would this person have gotten a pass if he hadn't shot her again? The jail time and bullet wound not enough to fulfill your revenge fantasy?
The fucking nerve of someone like you claiming that others are the problem with America.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Yes, a lot of that controversy is eliminated.

I feel sorry for the older man, because they were repeatedly breaking in to his home and stealing stuff, a total of at least three times (I think).
They had somewhat badly attacked him (physically), and they were taking thousands of dollars from his safe.

From his video interview, it sounds like he was trying to defend himself (from the repeated break-ins, he was getting).

We had a similar case in the UK, a while back (as shotguns are potentially available to the general public, if licensed), and the guy eventually got off (free), after spending some time in prison for it.
He shot dead one of the burglars, as they were fleeing, from breaking into his isolated home.

He had also suffered many previous burglaries.

EDIT: On the one hand it's very sad that this relatively young girl has been shot dead, on the other hand, she was making very poor/risky life decisions, which sooner or later, could have resulted in tragedy anyway.
I agree with all that.

So Greer might not even be arrested, but Adams is getting charged with felony murder.. totally crazy. He should be charged with burglary, battery, and elder abuse but murder? Come on.
If you commit a felony and someone dies as a result, you are charged with murder. Classic example is when one robs a bank and someone dies of a heart attack.

Totally wrong. The right to self-defense is not limited to situations where a judge would render the same verdict. I know in TX where they have strong Castle Law's set up, if a person breaks into your house at night and is leaving your home with your possessions (say, in an alleyway), you can shoot and kill them and be protected from civil and criminal charges. Just to protect your property.

Would a judge/jury/prosecutor render a death sentence to someone breaking into a home and stealing property? No way! Can a homeowner legally shoot them to prevent them from stealing his/her property (in TX)? You bet!

Under your "rules" a person can only use deadly force if the perpetrator has committed a crime that a judge/jury/prosecutor would give a death sentence for. Stop and think about the logical absurdity that that is... Depending on the state, the death penalty is usually reserved for murder. You're saying that I can only use deadly force to protect myself if I've already been murdered?!?!

Self defense laws are set up to prevent honest citizens from becoming victims of crime. Applying the "you can only do what a judge(jury) would do to a criminal" in order to protect yourself is asinine. If someone pulls a knife on me and threatens me, that's aggravated assault. A judge/jury/prosecutor wouldn't seek the death penalty for that crime. According to you, I should not be allowed to use deadly force because at that point, "No judge in the country would have sentenced this [person] to death".

I'm not defending this guy's actions. If the details of the case end up being that he shot her when she was on the ground defenseless, then he should be charged with something (I'd be okay with manslaughter depending on the details). But your way of thinking is way off.
I think that's how the law should be, although personally I don't think I'm sufficiently attached to any of my stuff to shoot anyone for taking it.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,399
1,510
126
I agree the old man took things too far.

I would not punish him for it though.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
I agree with all that.


If you commit a felony and someone dies as a result, you are charged with murder. Classic example is when one robs a bank and someone dies of a heart attack.


I think that's how the law should be, although personally I don't think I'm sufficiently attached to any of my stuff to shoot anyone for taking it.
Granted some of our laws are stupid and over-reaching but wouldn't the prosecutor have to prove that the dead victim's heart attack was due to the tense situation of the bank robbery and not due to a genetic or lifestyle-related heart condition?

Agree
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Granted some of our laws are stupid and over-reaching but wouldn't the prosecutor have to prove that the dead victim's heart attack was due to the tense situation of the bank robbery and not due to a genetic or lifestyle-related heart condition?

Agree
She would have to prove it to a jury's satisfaction, yes. There is no automatic conviction. But the way the laws are written it's a very low wall to jump.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,028
75
86
I think that's how the law should be, although personally I don't think I'm sufficiently attached to any of my stuff to shoot anyone for taking it.
My stuff? Not at all. I am not going to track down the guy who stole my TV and shoot him. However, if someone enters my house forcefully, I cannot be certain they are only going for the stuff and won't commit any violence towards anyone in the house. I'd shoot them immediately. And, as pointed out, some states have Castle laws that allow you to react with deadly force to prevent crimes such as burglary.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
She would have to prove it to a jury's satisfaction, yes. There is no automatic conviction. But the way the laws are written it's a very low wall to jump.
Also due to the makeup of a large percentage of jurors.

Just the thought of what types of persons would be sitting on a jury in the event I was on trial is enough to keep me from committing crimes.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,203
126
Imagine this case from the parents point of view. If your son or daughter were pranking some old dude for fun and profit, how upset would you be if he murdered them?
 

MetalMat

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
9,657
28
91
Imagine this case from the parents point of view. If your son or daughter were pranking some old dude for fun and profit, how upset would you be if he murdered them?
You consider breaking into his house, for I believe a 3rd time, and physically harming the old man a prank?
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,028
75
86
Imagine this case from the parents point of view. If your son or daughter were pranking some old dude for fun and profit, how upset would you be if he murdered them?
If my kids broke into someone's house and assaulted them, I'd be upset they were dead, but I surely won't fault the old guy for blasting one them.
 
Feb 16, 2005
13,734
4,684
136
I am convinced you don't understand what pre-meditated means.


Regardless, this guy will be charged with 2nd degree murder and even then, he is 80. He won't spend a week in prison. With that out of the way, I'm glad at least one of these thugs was put down.

He knew he was going to kill her with the 2nd shot, per the information given.

That's pretty much the definition of premeditation

pre·med·i·tate
priˈmedəˌtāt,prē-/Submit
verb
past tense: premeditated; past participle: premeditated
think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,028
75
86
He knew he was going to kill her with the 2nd shot, per the information given.

That's pretty much the definition of premeditation

pre·med·i·tate
priˈmedəˌtāt,prē-/Submit
verb
past tense: premeditated; past participle: premeditated
think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand.
No. He did not 'think out or plan' the murder, therefore it is not premeditation. Had he knew they were going to rob him and waited, sure, but even that is iffy, as they were committing an assault.

Murder in the 2nd (crime of passion) is what he will get charged with, if anything. Same as if I planned on robbing a guy, even premeditated the robbing, and he resisted so I shot him. I did not go in planning to kill him, thus the murder cannot be premeditated.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
I find that very strange also. The guy didn't commit murder, only assault and burglary, not sure how they can pin murder on him this way.
It is not strange. It is a charge that occurs due to a logical and reasonable deduction of who is responsible in any criminal act where a person dies.


I.e, those who instigated and committed the felonies involved created the situation/chain of events which lead to a death or multiple deaths. They are criminally responsible for those deaths which occurred due to their criminal actions which created the situation in the first place.

E.g - A recent bank robbery that went awry. 3 gang members planned to rob a bank, they rob the bank, they take hostages, they lead cops on chase where they shoot at police officers, when they are finally cornered and stopped there is a shootout and 2 robbers die along with a hostage They use them as a human shields. One of the bank robbers survives and is charged with the death of the hostage and his 2 buddies.

Now it maybe that the cops during the final shoot out may have killed the hostage but the entire situation did not occur the results of the cops or the fault of the hostages.

However the chain of events itself links back and incriminates the all 3 bank robbers who created the situation and are responsible for all of deaths involved when they planned out their crime to rob a bank, when they decided to take hostages, when they refused to surrender to the police and then lead them on a chase where they shot at the cops and demonstrated their willingness to potentially kill police officers, etc.

http://news.yahoo.com/3-dead-california-bank-robbery-gunbattle-053248726.html
 
Last edited:

Absolution75

Senior member
Dec 3, 2007
981
2
71
Isn't there a law that says that if you're committing a felony, you also will be charged with any deaths that arise due to the actions of the felony? Wouldn't the breaking/entering/beating up an old man be a felony? Thus, the girl that died or her partner would be the ones charged?
 
Last edited:

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,157
582
126
You guys in the forum are funny. This is inexcusable no matter how old he is. It seems from his statements that he just wanted to know what i felt like to kill someone before he died.

Murder 2 or Murder 1 doesn't matter in this case. He is most likely going to die in jail.

But, I'd try for Murder 1. He shot the girl, she begged for her life saying she was pregnant. He had enough time to consider his actions, form intent and then kill her when she was telling him she was pregnant. An interesting argument could be made that he premeditated to kill the next person who robbed his house. He pretty much said so after the fact.

Also if she were indeed pregnant, wouldn't he be on the hook for 2 murders?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY