It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To shoot or not to shoot? One California homeowners fate is being decided.

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: sdcigarpig
My god..still not getting it..THEY WERE NO LONGER A THREAT..SHOT IN THE BACK..RUNNING AWAY


He is a police officer. The law is enforced different for them, or so it seems.




posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
My personal opinion is this: Anyone who would body slam an 80 year old man and beat him to the point of breaking bones, should be hunted down like a rabid animal.
LEGALLY, he never should have stepped out of the house after they ran. They're going to say that, once he got to the bedroom, he should have locked the door and called for help. The woman being pregnant has no bearing. She chose to be there.
Moral of the story. Don't try to take stuff that ain't your's.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   
This is really tricky.

Don't forget that for him, the two were "getting away", in his rationale (or lack thereof in an extreme situation) he could not allow them to "get away", ESPECIALLY since he already suspected the two being responsible for a series of burglaries in the past. While it LEGALLY may well be the case he was wrong shooting at them while they were running, so I *do* understand how his mind could've worked the instant he realized they were about to "get away".

Yes, the immediate threat was gone when they started running....but them "getting away" would not have lead to a solution of the problem. (That of course in that situation deadly force would not be 'appropriate', I don't think that in an extreme situation like that many would think like that.)

TRICKY...but if I were a juror I'd likely be in favor of the old guy.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
As someone trained to deal with tactical situations I can only agree with the rest of the posters who say he committed murder.

Once they run, the attack is over. Even in Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine states this is murder.

I am a firm believer of tactical firearms education. People who own firearms for self protection must understand tactical situations, and most importantly, tactical patience.

This man had neither.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

The first loud pop was the deputy deploying a bean bag round. The guy kept running and as he cleared the corner LBPD was to the left.

The information is there... The video is there.

Dismissing information because of a preconceived notion / dislike of Law Enforcement does not change the information.

I'm not lying to myself.

As for the rest of your post rage all you want. You should make an effort to try and understand what laws come into play, what SCOTUS rulings affect these situations, etc etc etc. If you have nothing constructive to add please dont respond to my posts. I dont want to drag the thread off topic with a debate on all law enforcement is evil while relevant information is ignored because someone does not like the police and decides to stereotype.



And it's 'jibe', not 'jive'.




posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: WanDash
a reply to: vonclod
At what point were they no longer a threat?
When he (Greer) had a gun?
The police say Adams had taken a gun from Greer's safe... ... ... ...

The minute that they were no longer confronting him, he can no longer claim to be in fear.
Going after someone because they took a gun from your home is not self defense, its “taking the law into your own hands”. Dealing with the stolen gun, and potential dangers that may involve, is a job for the police to handle.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
This is really tricky.

Don't forget that for him, the two were "getting away", in his rationale (or lack thereof in an extreme situation) he could not allow them to "get away", ESPECIALLY since he already suspected the two being responsible for a series of burglaries in the past.

Its not tricky at all, but people make it out to be tricky because they allow emotion to skew their judgment here. You cannot claim “self defense” in order to stop someone from “getting away”, that is enforcing justice, not defending yourself. The same with folks claiming that they deserve it because they beat this guy. If he had shot them just prior to, or while he was being beaten, then its defense. But he shot them after they had stopped beating him. Those seconds of difference, as subtle and unfair as it may seem to some, legally change what he did from defense to retribution. From where he's defending his life, to punishing them for what they have done.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The moment they attacked him they lost all right to life....
So now we have reached that aassault equals death.

This thread is just crazy, people just want people to die for breaking the law.
I see attempted murder is getting the thrown around, even tho the police are not even charging him with that. Probably cause the injury was a broken collarbone which is one of the easiest bones to break. We can all keep acting like it was a savage bearing but let's call a spade a spade. They threw the man to the ground, if they continued to beat him, he would have more apparent injuries.
It was wrong and despicable but it wasn't attempted murder.
If that is what you need to say tho to rationalize the killing of the women then what ever helps you sleep at night.
We have due process for a reason. One being so you get a fair punishment for your crime.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig
Does not matter legaly..you cant take the law into your own hands like that. We are not the judge jury executioner. I feel for the old man but explain to me how has was within his rights legaly when the 2 sh#tbags were running in the opposite direction. Killing someone who is running away has nothing to do with not being a victim..its cowardly, at that point i dont think he was scared..being pissed off is not legal justification.
I guess I should go back in time and shoot anyone who at one time hurt me..beacause they probably did it before and surely will again.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel
I know..I have noticed.
You would expect they understand the law, but i guess not being subject to it make you forget.


edit on 26-7-2014 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: defcon5
Thanks, defcon5
We apparently see these matters differently. What you see as blue, I see as yellow...and so on.
Maybe I need a new prescription.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod
While I do not agree with his actions, if I were sitting on a jury or as judge, I would not find him guilty of any crime.
Legal system is a joke, the penal system does nothing to rehabilitate or stop criminals from re-offending. And the police, well there is another problem on its own. They are either corrupt, or do not respond, or fail to take action when you need them to. So what was this old man suppose to do? After all they did lay the first hand on him, he had been robbed three times prior already, stand by and let these 2 people do the same thing again to him? Allow for himself to be victimized time and time again, all cause they view him as an easy target?

And there is the fact that there is the belief that these 2 people did this before to this man and his home. That too should be a factor. Along with the fact that they did break his collar bone. And there is the fact that they were also carrying items that they stole from him as well while trying to escape.

While I agree what he did was wrong, but as far as sending him to jail, for what? The man is 80 years old, do you really think that sending an old man to jail is suitable punishment for him? These 2 people who were shot, they were not angles, this was not a mistake on their part, this was deliberate. We should have no pity for them, cause they chose to break the law.

But here again, the question still should be asked, if there was no gun involved, would this had been even worth talking about, would it had been such a controversy? Or is it that the a gun was involved, that it now becomes part of a bigger argument. The lawyers and judges have to decide if this man is guilty, or if he is justified in his actions and belief, of what he did.

And then there is the law and this will come into play:

Under California state law, use of deadly force is justifiable if there is reason to believe that the person committing the crime intends to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, or there was imminent danger of such a crime being accomplishes and the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime. Murder, mayhem, rape and robbery are examples of such. (Pen . Code, § 197 .)
When it comes to self-defense against assault, the law here again is quite clear: if the person is under the belief that he or she will suffer bodily injury. (Which that fact was established by being beaten and ultimately having his collar bone broken.) NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal penalties .

Ultimately this is going to come down to the fact that this man will probably walk on the fact that the suspects did lay hand on him and ultimately attacked him, doing bodily harm, and that they have a record of such, and demonstrated the willingness to use force while committing a crime, and chances are would do such again against another person. That is what is going to be on trial and in discussion at first to determine if his actions were justified or not.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
As someone trained to deal with tactical situations I can only agree with the rest of the posters who say he committed murder.

Once they run, the attack is over. Even in Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine states this is murder.

I am a firm believer of tactical firearms education. People who own firearms for self protection must understand tactical situations, and most importantly, tactical patience.

This man had neither.


Thank you. And he also didn't have what I thought was a basic measure of decency: the honor not to be a backshooter. People defending this guy in the names of guns and honor--what the heck? You'd be proud to shoot someone in the back who was running away and begging for mercy? You think that's what a real man is like? If a bystander had been armed, then it would be justified to shoot this guy, in the front, to stop him from committing cowardly, shameful murder. That would be honorable and correct. And legal. Sometimes, the law doesn't cover an extreme circumstance and people do what they must, but in this case, every aspect is crystal clear.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
the guy did the correct thing, how do we know this?

given the chance those two would likely have killed the elderly gentleman, after all he would died had they continued the beating.

they had no issue attacking a person with deadly force themselves and yes due to the frailty of the human body as we age what they were doing is deadly force.

when confronted they made no move to exit the home instead moved toward the use of deadly force.

if they had been arrested and sentenced when they got out they would have come back for revenge and he would be dead then.

it was their intent to kill the man why else would they have pursued the actions they did, and they would have returned again in the future had he not done so.

while stealing is wrong, they were not stealing food to survive nor were they doing so for shelter, if they had been they would not have been the aggressors.

now you may look at this as the guy is guilty of murder and he may well be, but not in this case.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: bigx001


So how can you say given the chance they would kill the man, when they in fact had the chance?
Throwing some one to the ground is hardly deadly force. He broke his collar bone, one of the easiest bones in the body to break.
When they were confronted they absolutely fled, and did not use any more force, where are you getting your info that they made no attempt to exit and then attacked him again?

You seem to have a foggy understanding of the facts that we do have....
And then start using what ifs and if this to justify that they would no doubt be back to kill this man.




while stealing is wrong, they were not stealing food to survive nor were they doing so for shelter, if they had been they would not have been the aggressors.

Or they could be stealing stuff to sell to get food and shelter, again you are assuming you know everything about them and their intentions..



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig
I agree with most of what you said, As far as the 2 sh#tbags breaking in before its possible but in no way proven..I dont know if they would go back seeing they had allready cleaned out..could be though. The gun thing hasn't even entered my mind personaly and interestingly enough I dont think has been mentioned much but I guess if he didn't have one this would be a different story for sure. Im assuming it was legaly owned..I dont much care for the thought of people shooting down the street at someone because they were getting away though..in his house and its much more justified, he is very lucky no innocent bystanders were hit.
I dont think prison for the old guy is necasarily the right thing either..suspended sentence maybee but I think a dangerous thing to just let go.
Cheers


edit on 26-7-2014 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




But here again, the question still should be asked, if there was no gun involved, would this had been even worth talking about, would it had been such a controversy?


The gun has nothing to do with the controversy, he has the right to have it and he has the right to use it when he is danger.
Controversy is why did he use it when he was no longer in danger.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


dp
edit on thSat, 26 Jul 2014 19:53:54 -0500America/Chicago720145480 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   


Or they could be stealing stuff to sell to get food and shelter, again you are assuming you know everything about them and their intentions..
a reply to: Sremmos80

if that is the case then they would have simply left when the man came home, it is likely the gentleman had plenty of food in the home. on top of that the gentleman posed no threat to either of them so why choose that path when there was absolutely no reason to do so.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: bigx001




on top of that the gentleman posed no threat to either of them so why choose that path when there was absolutely no reason to do so.

Unless he was in their way, in which case they threw him out of his way to get to his safe with the money in it. Money provides food and shelter just to get back to that point you made.
He sure as heck posed a threat to them when he was armed and that is when they left.
He decided that he wanted to kill them, and he showed that.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join