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

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

And that's what is call murder.

So?

My god I hate summer break. So you are saying that you would murder someone?

I'm not a troll. I don't see it as murder, I see it as refusing to be a victim.

Shooting someone who is running from you in the back is murder.

You'd be charged with murder on a battlefield, what makes you think you wouldn't be charged with murder in an American neighborhood?

That is the Single most pedantic thing I have ever heard.

Oh? And how is that?

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon
Here is the definition of defend
1.the action of defending from or resisting attack
He was not under attack..they were running way..if your in fear of people running the opposite direction of you..well I dunno, you might scare easy. Stay away from me thanx.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon
Here is the definition of defend
1.the action of defending from or resisting attack
He was not under attack..they were running way..if your in fear of people running the opposite direction of you..well I dunno, you might scare easy. Stay away from me thanx.

Stay away from you?

Please think.

Are you saying that if you are near me you won't be able to stop yourself from robbing me and attacking me? And you don't want to put up with the inconvenience of having to run from me?

It's a simple thing, don't break into my home. Don't attempt to rob me. Don't attempt to assault me, and do not attempt to threaten my life.

The moment you engage in any of those things, as far as I am concerned, your life is forfeit. Whether you run or not.

Killing someone just because you felt like killing, when they have done nothing to you, is murder.
Killing someone because they're sleeping with your wife is murder.
Killing someone because they insulted you is murder.
Killing for a multitude of frivolous reasons is murder.

But if you attack and rob me, then it's game on. And if I chase you down, then it shouldn't be considered murder. If you are going to attack/rob me and then try to run, then yes, you should stay away from me.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
He should get aggravated manslaughter for killing the girl and murder-1 for the unborn child.

Why? It's not a baby, it's a collection of cells

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon
You don't understand..Im not violent nor do I rob anyone..We have rules regarding when its reasonable to discharge a firearm, in your shoot because he robbed you and cant let them get away world I see innocent bystanders getting clipped, not this time fortunatly but if its ok to do..you bet its going to happen. We cant be judge jury executioner, thats not how it works..might feel like it should be that way to some but it would turn to chaos. Im not interested in shooting people unless my life is in immediate peril.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Logic vs emotional.

Logic.
He should have stopped when his life was not in immediate threat.

Emotional.
He should have first blown out their knee caps and then gone up from there. Making these miserable pieces of offal suffer for as long as possible. These pieces of slime deserve none of the protects afforded to law-abiding people.

I have to agree. According to the law, if the article is true (when do we believe what the MSM says anyway?) and he shot them after they were fleeing, he went from an act of self defense, to one of homicide.

OTOH, it is hard to find sympathy for the thugs who victimized this man multiple times and beat him. That she and her baby are dead is their fault for deciding to be criminals, not the old man.

a reply to: intrepid
And there is one other thing that just hit me. Where in the alley was she shot? That is going to be a key point in the case as well.

If you own or rent a house, then there are parts of what you are responsible for to upkeep or you can be held liable in a court of law. That means that in some areas, if it snows, one could be held liable the walks outside of the home infront of and by said house are not shoveled. The city/county controls those, but it is up to the home owner to keep them cleared and cleaned. The same would be true, out where I live. I do not own the land that a ditch sits on, but as a home owner it is my responsibility to keep it cleared and cleaned up. And the same would be true of an alley way, he may not own part of the alley way, but is responsible for keeping the sections by his property clear of debris and free of obstruction. If she was in that area of his control, then she is within his area of what would be considered the boundaries of his property and what is considered to be an easement.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
OTOH, it is hard to find sympathy for the thugs who victimized this man multiple times and beat him.

You don't have to. It's more than a crime against them. It's a crime designated by society. It's a crime against society.

a reply to: vonclod
Careful now, the argument that he had a mental lapse in reasoning, can be construed as having the start or having a mental illness, and therefore should not have had a weapon in the first place.

a reply to: loveguy

She was not pregnant, she lied.

originally posted by: Sremmos80

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: bigx001

But money that can be used to acquire food is almost always kept in the safe.
And I agree that they don't need to 'body slam' him and I refute they did.

And the actual food is in the kitchen. So why are they in the safe not the kitchen? What food did they steal?

...Really? My point was that they could have been taking the money to go buy food with it.


So being hungry is justification to break into some octogenarian's house and beating him? C'mon, you are not that naïve. They were looking for money for drugs and drugs motivate most of the crime in this country.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: NavyDoc
OTOH, it is hard to find sympathy for the thugs who victimized this man multiple times and beat him.

You don't have to. It's more than a crime against them. It's a crime designated by society. It's a crime against society.

Like I said. Legally, if the story is true, he lost his right to self defense when they fled.

Although I agree with you, he may be able to claim duress and confusion due to the assault. It will be up to a jury to decide if that defense is believable or not.

However, society is better off with one more thug off the street and any damage to them, is really their own fault. Don't want to be shot? Don't break into houses. It's a pretty simple concept.

A reminder.........

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

You are responsible for your own posts....failure to post on topic and in a civil manner may result in post removals and posting bans.

a reply to: NavyDoc
I dont know that there is much sympathy for the 2 losers, I was having a discussion with a buddy about this and he kept trying to say I supported the 2 because I thought it was outside the law to shoot someone fleeing down the alley..I had to keep correcting him.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
However, society is better off with one more thug off the street...

Yes BUT who's decision is that to make?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OrphanApology



Fantastic solution to crime, just kill people that break the law repeatedly.

Actually it would be and would drop the recidivism rate by quite a bit. There are people with rap sheets pages and pages long, who victimize their fellow citizens every time they are released time and time again. Society would be a better place without them.

a reply to: intrepid

It's a crime against society.

The most pretend of all crime.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: NavyDoc
However, society is better off with one more thug off the street...

Yes BUT who's decision is that to make?

It was simply an observation.

This guy will likely die in prison, and it's exactly what he deserves.

originally posted by: Monger
This guy will likely die in prison, and it's exactly what he deserves.

Deserve? That's a moral stance that I don't agree with. By the law? It's possible but even the police officer quoted earlier in the thread had his doubts given his comment that the self defense situation changed to a non-self defense situation in seconds. It's possible that the situation and the old man's condition and the history of the thugs would sway a jury. It may be tough to convict him based on a "beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria.

As for "deserve," he didn't deserve to be beaten and robbed and have his house broken into. He "deserved" to be left alone in the first place.

Rather an ironic stance coming from some one with anti-WOD comments as a sig line.