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: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: MarlinGrace

So in your mind all breaking and entering crimes involving assault deserve the death penalty? ?


You didn't ask me, but yes. Especially if you're the homeowner. You never know when the homeowner will wind up tied to a chair with a plastic bag over their head. If someone breaks into your home kill them. I also think the state should follow suit, if you don't.
edit on 25-7-2014 by XTexan because: clarify

edit on 25-7-2014 by XTexan because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: MarlinGrace

So in your mind all breaking and entering crimes involving assault deserve the death penalty? ?


You assume that risk when you commit the crime. It's on the burglar/criminal not the home owner. All you have to do is not break in.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

When in todays society does anyone have to accept responsibility for their actions? They made the decision to break into a home, then they made the decision to beat the man to point of broken bones. Then ran from an 80 year old man that was seriously injured. Did they call 911 for him, did they even know if he had died? They acted like animals and surely should be treated like one.

but the criminals weren't given the opportunity to accept their responsibility for the crime.` They were denied their due process under the law. They didn't run from a seriously injured man, they ran from a man who was able to chase them while firing a weapon.


Why should it be murder for the unborn child? Again accepting no responsibility for your actions, abortion is completely legal, and totally acceptable. To prosecute the man for killing the baby says it's ok for the mother to kill the baby but not the old man. That means its ok to kill a baby based on a decision of the mother, not the life of a child. If this isn't cheapening the value of life nothing is. She made the decision to rob a home while pregnant no one else.


You don't think its a little disingenuous to equate shooting a pregnant woman in the back with a woman receiving an abortion? if you disagree with the abortion, when did two wrongs become a right? `Even my 6 year old knows better than that. The home owner was in the wrong the second he stepped outside and gave chase. He should be charged with criminally negligent homicide at the very least.


This old man shouldn't go to jail. It's time for people to accept responsibility for their criminal actions.

Knowing long beach someone will come for him anyway.


exactly. they should ALL be held accountable for their actions. Including the 80 year old home owner who is the epitome of a poor gun owner.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace
I had to look up Brooklyn Decker

I would have no issue if the homeowner was being attacked and shot them..even if strays did damage others it would at least imho be justified/excused(fortunatly it didn't happen but could of)..chasing them and shooting them in the alley at the time might of felt satisfying but being he was definatly not in immenent danger was not right. I dont want people shooting up my neigborhood unless there is no choice.
Cheers got to go.
edit on 25-7-2014 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I admit I overlooked where he said he knew she was pregnant. While he may have still been irrational from the attack, and who wouldn't be, he crossed the line shooting her in the back chasing her down an alleyway.

Okay so she broke into your home, but you don't shoot a pregnant woman over that, and risk killing an unborn child.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I think since they where physical with him he was justified to shoot. Me personally would have grabbed my tazer or paintball gun full of pepper balls. IF I couldn't take them in a fight, and IF they didn't have weapons. But I'm not 80 years old either and I can fight. Yes I'm very arrogant...
edit on 25-7-2014 by 3u40r15m because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

When in todays society does anyone have to accept responsibility for their actions? They made the decision to break into a home, then they made the decision to beat the man to point of broken bones. Then ran from an 80 year old man that was seriously injured. Did they call 911 for him, did they even know if he had died? They acted like animals and surely should be treated like one.

but the criminals weren't given the opportunity to accept their responsibility for the crime.` They were denied their due process under the law. They didn't run from a seriously injured man, they ran from a man who was able to chase them while firing a weapon.

Oh they definitely accepted responsibility for their crime, and received the maximum penalty. They didn't in anyway offer the old man due process, the courtesy of a 911 call after beating him. or show the slightest concern for his well being. They only ran because he became armed. They were comfortable beating him while trying to open his safe. These are societies finest people for sure.


Why should it be murder for the unborn child? Again accepting no responsibility for your actions, abortion is completely legal, and totally acceptable. To prosecute the man for killing the baby says it's ok for the mother to kill the baby but not the old man. That means its ok to kill a baby based on a decision of the mother, not the life of a child. If this isn't cheapening the value of life nothing is. She made the decision to rob a home while pregnant no one else.


You don't think its a little disingenuous to equate shooting a pregnant woman in the back with a woman receiving an abortion? if you disagree with the abortion, when did two wrongs become a right? `Even my 6 year old knows better than that. The home owner was in the wrong the second he stepped outside and gave chase. He should be charged with criminally negligent homicide at the very least.

Can someone explain what shooting someone in the back has to do with the price of tea in china? Are you willing to wait for them to turn around and possibly be armed themselves? Again you are making excuses for a pregnant woman breaking into a home without conscience, she put the baby in danger no one else. Maybe you're missing the point, why is it murder for the old man and if she gets an abortion it ok? Your legislating the mother decision process at that point and since it wasn't her decision the old man gets murder.I don't see where it is two wrongs only one. I will say it again Don't break in, don't assualt, don't steal, then you don't have to have a homeowner shoot your dumbass.


This old man shouldn't go to jail. It's time for people to accept responsibility for their criminal actions.

Knowing long beach someone will come for him anyway.


exactly. they should ALL be held accountable for their actions. Including the 80 year old home owner who is the epitome of a poor gun owner.

Poor gun owner maybe, but one that is alive.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
He should've cooked them dinner and shared with them his jewelry and bank account.

Seriously though, he was right in killing all of them had it been in the house. Once he chases them outside and continues killing them, that's where it needs to be looked at. Why did he feel he had to chase them down once they left his residence. IDK. It sounds like a toughy.

And if you're pregnant then you should think about that carefully before robbing someone.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: MarlinGrace

So in your mind all breaking and entering crimes involving assault deserve the death penalty? ?


You assume that risk when you commit the crime. It's on the burglar/criminal not the home owner. All you have to do is not break in.

That didn't answer the question. You seem to have the view point of if they break the law then then they need to die.
You must not like the constitution very much, cause your logic goes completely against it.
So again, do all breaking and entering with assault crimes deserve the death penalty?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
This really is a tough one, And Being that it is California I think we all already know the answer to the question.

Inside his house, he has every right to shoot to kill, no doubts there, this is further justified by the vicious beating he incurred. The burglars had no problem killing the 80 year old man, proven by the fact that they BODY SLAMMED an 80 year old man, that is intent to kill. They didn't just slap him around a bit. His resilience to the beating is irrelevant.

That being said he did have the right to shoot to kill in his home, and on his property but the problem arises when the burglars escape, this becomes a pursuit at this point, something only the Police can do. So I guess legally he was out of bounds at this point, I feel that's unfortunate because the two, in my opinion, deserved what they got.

The pregnancy is irrelevant as the mother put the child into an extreme life and death situation. She had no remorse and used her pregnancy as some bargaining chip for her life.

I think I know what was going on in his mind though, these are repeat offenders, and they WILL be back, even after he shot at them, he'll just wake up in the night to repeated drive by's till he's dead, until the burglars are apprehended or deceased his life was in danger, but the law doesn't take this into account.

By killing the 2 he perhaps saved a future victim from a worse fate, but he's probably going to be martyred by this, its California and the criminal always wins in that state, its run by criminals.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
but you don't shoot a pregnant woman over that, and risk killing an unborn child.


While I don't think the old man was justified shooting the woman as she fled, I fail to see how her claim of pregnancy has any relevance on the matter at all. She put hers and her child's life on the line. And lost.
edit on 7/25/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

This was a far different scenario than that twist old man who shot the two teenagers at his leisure while taunting them.

Was this guy "justified" when he chased them and opened fire? It depends. If he felt they would return to finish him off, I can understand his fear. I can't even say that I wouldn't have done that had I just been beaten, broken, and almost killed. The man might have been in shock and just running on cold instinct at the time. Worst case, I'd say he was in an understandable state of impassioned rage.

His actions doesn't necessarily paint him as a sadistic killer based on what you posted. I think many people would have responded the way he did, given the circumstances.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

So another person using hypothetical situations to justify just killing.
All I see is well they could of done this or they could of done that... it's disgusting.
Yes they did commit a crime and deserved to answer up to it. That is the way this country works, don't like it? You can move.

I am all for protecting your self when the situation calls for it. This was not that situation. And if your going to response to me please do your best to stick to the actual events not the ones you can make up in your head



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

If the owner is not home, then no.

If the owner is home, then its up to the burglar whether they want to live or die, they need to run FAST, or, should they choose to engage the home owner, their life is forfeit. They are the ones trespassing. The homeowner has reasonable fear for there life, at all times, during a breaking and entering.

How can the homeowner assume the burglar will do them no harm? You don't know that.

Should you hold them and gun point and call police if possible, absolutely, should you shoot out there knees before shooting to kill, ideally yes. But if the burglar pulls out a weapon, or comes at you, you shoot to kill, no ifs ands or buts.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: XTexan

So another person using hypothetical situations to justify just killing.
All I see is well they could of done this or they could of done that... it's disgusting.
Yes they did commit a crime and deserved to answer up to it. That is the way this country works, don't like it? You can move.

I am all for protecting your self when the situation calls for it. This was not that situation. And if your going to response to me please do your best to stick to the actual events not the ones you can make up in your head


You do realize, that by the time you realize the people are here to kill you, its to late, right? Think about it, You're standing there, and a man in a ski mask walks into the room. You lock eyes, saying nothing. Your gun is in the bedroom. You tell yourself, if I leave him alone, hell leave, Being the good progressive you are. he walks up to you and grabs you. Now you realize this guy isn't leaving, but its too late, what are you going to do? he duct tapes your hands and forces you to your knees, he pulls out his pistol and puts one in your head.

Should have been a little more defensive shouldn't you have?

If you valued your own life, why would you give any leeway what so ever to a burglar? That is just dumb, and you deserve what you get.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Mikeyy

So again, let's stick to what happened. They were not in his home any more, they were fleeing.
Stick to the facts of the story, we can go into what ifs all day and it won't get us any where.
How are you in fear for your life when you are the one chasing some one with a gun?
And of course if a burglar pulls a weapon on then you can, not sure what that has to do with this situation



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Mikeyy

Why do continue to reply in hypothetical situations? ?
We have the actual event here, let's stick to that



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fylgje
...Once he chases them outside and continues killing them, that's where it needs to be looked at. Why did he feel he had to chase them down once they left his residence. IDK. It sounds like a toughy.

...

This is all hypothetical - since we don't know the whole story, nor, do we even know how much of the story we're dealing with...is fact.

But...I do not see the relevance of questioning "why he felt the need to chase them down"...

If they were not injured by gunfire in the house - there is no way he could have caught up to them...on foot - unless - they were still near the scene - meaning...they were not, in fact, fleeing.

Whether he was injured seriously, or not...they should easily have been able to disappear before he could get within comfortable shooting/aiming distance...if it was a handgun.

I can envision him going to the last place he saw them running...being...into the alley... Then, spooking one or both of them (perhaps, hiding behind a dumpster or in shrubbery) - and they take off running from there - and he is able to get off some relatively accurate shots.

Again - we don't know, yet...
But - If they were hiding in the alley - and he spooked them - they still presented a threat (imo).
And - If he spooked them - That probably spooked him, too...



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
They tried to kill him first or at least hurt him badly, if I were in charge of the kangaroo courts these days I'd be giving the "Greybeard" a medal of honor. He killed one of them well in my opinion the guy deserved it too. Hopefully the old man's life will be peaceful from now on.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: MarlinGrace

So in your mind all breaking and entering crimes involving assault deserve the death penalty? ?


You assume that risk when you commit the crime. It's on the burglar/criminal not the home owner. All you have to do is not break in.

That didn't answer the question. You seem to have the view point of if they break the law then then they need to die.
You must not like the constitution very much, cause your logic goes completely against it.
So again, do all breaking and entering with assault crimes deserve the death penalty?


Instead of trying to corner me into an answer why don't you describe a scenario and I will do my best to answer. You went from breaking, entering, and assault to just break the law and die. If you want to litigate different levels of breaking and entering, and then assaulting. Let me continue to make it clear don't break in, assault, and you have nothing to worry about. The law is there for those that don't assume responsibility for their actions. Society or in this case a member of society took responsibility. Quit trying to make excuses for bad people doing bad things.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join