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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
Hi wrabbit2000
It's a sad story all the way around.
He was fully justified in defending himself, but he crossed the line when he pursued them out if the house, California law is very clear on that.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Break bones of an 80 YO. That will probably start his health down hill toward death. Perp sits in jail a year and goes on his merry way.

Notice how some of these type shootings happen to people who have been robbed several times and it just keeps happening. Of course they see no end by the system.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Question #1

At THIS point, was he justified in shooting to kill? One male, one female and both young with strength have beaten a 80yr old man to the ground with enough force to break bones, and didn't seem inclined to care or stop any time soon. He got his gun in a free moment and turned it on them. Do you shoot now?

Damn right he was. kill the eff out them. He already has taken a beating and sustained broken bones. He is in physical danger.

Question #2

IF he was justified in opening fire within the house, were his actions justified after that, when the suspects fled and he somehow managed to give chase? (I am imagining this 80yr old trying to follow with broken bones and all.. Wow!) Could he have been justified in fear they were returning criminals and would return again if he didn't pursue them out?

I personally think the actions were justified after that but I know not all will agree. In the heat of the moment, adrenaline pumping, injured, scared, pissed off, I think trying to kill your attackers even while fleeing is justified and understandable. Provided, if he didn't reload after hitting them and didn't execute them when they were down his actions were reasonable. Imho.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I almost think if after a break in, beating an 80 YO, and fleeing, if he can get close enough to do whatever, then the perps deserve it. Seems obvious they thought they could rob and beat him then get way.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace


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.


Totally irrelevant. We are either a nation of laws or we aren't. If its ok for him to kill indiscriminatly then it should likewise be OK to commit any other crime with the same impunity. It's one or the other. You can't have it both ways.



Can someone explain what shooting someone in the back has to do with the price of tea in china?

Its got no more to do with Chinese tea than it does to abortion



Are you willing to wait for them to turn around and possibly be armed themselves?


When I'm armed and they're running for their life, yup.


Again you are making excuses for a pregnant woman breaking into a home without conscience, she put the baby in danger no one else.


No, I'm pointing out that they were robbing his house. It's just stuff. Stuff can be replaced. The penalty for their crime is around 2 years in prison for the B&E and another 3-7 for the assault. There are laws in place, you can't claim the moral high road in one breath and then pontificate and competely rationalize how its ok to murder someone in the next.


Maybe you're missing the point, why is it murder for the old man and if she gets an abortion it ok?


because its her body, if she doesnt want to be pregnant its A none of my business and B. prrfectly legal for her to opt for that. if she wanted to keep the baby and someone kills her and the baby then its 2 charges, one for each death. not sure Why thats so complicated if a notion to grasp.


Your legislating the mother decision process at that point and since it wasn't her decision the old man gets murder.


Maybe you do get it after all, because that's exactly it. The baby's death wasnt the mothers choice, thus a charge of criminally negligent homicide is in order.



I don't see where it is two wrongs only one.

And therein lies the problem. We can't claim to be a nation of laws if they're not applicable to everyone. We can't just decide that oh well... They've wronged me and broken the law but screw it, I'll just take the law into my own hands and become judge jury and executioner because being a vigilante feels darned good. The bottom line is this guy crossed a line and what he did was illegal. More illegal than the burglary.He should be charged. It doesn't take away from the fact that the two who broke into his home are scumbags and criminals, but everyone is entitled to their due process under the law. Instead of them going to jail, now the homeowner will likely end up dying in jail due to his age and the requisite sentence he will be facing.


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.


Lets hope that hypocrisy doesn't come back and bite you in the ass one day.



Poor gun owner maybe, but one that is alive.


Alive long enough to die in a jail cell once he's charged, tried and convicted.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
I wonder if the perps left with his stuff. Some states allow use of force to stop a person fleeing with property. Doesn't sound California-ish though.

According to the article on KTLA - when they ran from the house, they took items from the home with them.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: WanDash

I have not looked but I bet that in California if the perp get out you have no recourse other then reporting it to the police.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
i'm not going to lose any sleep tonight



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I am going old school and "irrational" here. If they did not break into his house they would still be alive. He got beat and broke some bones as a result of it. I don't even know if I can argue against not shooting them after their initial attack. Regardless of inside or outside the house. Do people that beat the elderly and break their bones with intent to rob deserve to live? They could have already killed someone during a break in. Good for the old man. He probably saved some innocents life by putting an end to their career.

If they did not break into his house this thread would not exist.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlastedCaddy
I don't even know if I can argue against not shooting them after their initial attack. Regardless of inside or outside the house. Do people that beat the elderly and break their bones with intent to rob deserve to live? They could have already killed someone during a break in. Good for the old man. He probably saved some innocents life by putting an end to their career.


So, no need for the legal system, then. We might as well become a lawless nation and go back to the wild west.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlastedCaddy
I am going old school and "irrational" here. If they did not break into his house they would still be alive. He got beat and broke some bones as a result of it. I don't even know if I can argue against not shooting them after their initial attack. Regardless of inside or outside the house. Do people that beat the elderly and break their bones with intent to rob deserve to live? They could have already killed someone during a break in. Good for the old man. He probably saved some innocents life by putting an end to their career.

If they did not break into his house this thread would not exist.


I was under the impression that in the States one was innocent until found guilty. Doesn't that require due process?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
There is due process unless the government is after you for any reason or you are very wealth. For those conditions it may be non existent.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: MarlinGrace


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.


Totally irrelevant. We are either a nation of laws or we aren't. If its ok for him to kill indiscriminatly then it should likewise be OK to commit any other crime with the same impunity. It's one or the other. You can't have it both ways.

Now who is being a little disingenuous it was hardly indiscriminate.



Can someone explain what shooting someone in the back has to do with the price of tea in china?

Its got no more to do with Chinese tea than it does to abortion

If you can't grasp the concept of killing the baby by mothers choice or by her choice to commit the crime while being pregnant I can't do anything or say anything else.



Are you willing to wait for them to turn around and possibly be armed themselves?


When I'm armed and they're running for their life, yup.

See I knew would would understand the concept of assuming risk.


Again you are making excuses for a pregnant woman breaking into a home without conscience, she put the baby in danger no one else.


No, I'm pointing out that they were robbing his house. It's just stuff. Stuff can be replaced. The penalty for their crime is around 2 years in prison for the B&E and another 3-7 for the assault. There are laws in place, you can't claim the moral high road in one breath and then pontificate and competely rationalize how its ok to murder someone in the next.

Yet you rationalize making excuses for bad people doing bad things, her being pregnant she wouldn't even have severed one year, then 1/2 that for good behavior, he wouldn't have served 2 years.


Maybe you're missing the point, why is it murder for the old man and if she gets an abortion it ok?


because its her body, if she doesnt want to be pregnant its A none of my business and B. prrfectly legal for her to opt for that. if she wanted to keep the baby and someone kills her and the baby then its 2 charges, one for each death. not sure Why thats so complicated if a notion to grasp.

Now that would be considered indiscriminate. So let me see if I understand this hypocrisy because it's her body she has the right to terminate the life of a child without the slightest bit of conscience but if she is shot during the commission of a crime being committed by her it is murder, and in your mind you can justify this? Really?


Your legislating the mother decision process at that point and since it wasn't her decision the old man gets murder.


Maybe you do get it after all, because that's exactly it. The baby's death wasn't the mothers choice, thus a charge of criminally negligent homicide is in order.

I completely get it, its the hypocrisy I don't get.


I don't see where it is two wrongs only one.

And therein lies the problem. We can't claim to be a nation of laws if they're not applicable to everyone. We can't just decide that oh well... They've wronged me and broken the law but screw it, I'll just take the law into my own hands and become judge jury and executioner because being a vigilante feels darned good. The bottom line is this guy crossed a line and what he did was illegal. More illegal than the burglary.He should be charged. It doesn't take away from the fact that the two who broke into his home are scumbags and criminals, but everyone is entitled to their due process under the law. Instead of them going to jail, now the homeowner will likely end up dying in jail due to his age and the requisite sentence he will be facing.

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.

Lets hope that hypocrisy doesn't come back and bite you in the ass one day.

This is where I assume the risk.

Poor gun owner maybe, but one that is alive.

Alive long enough to die in a jail cell once he's charged, tried and convicted.

Possible but they won't be on the street to do it to anyone else, wanna bet they haven't already done this before and both have records?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
If I were attacked, I'd chase em out of my territory. My territory = area of my home.

He legally defended himself. Heck even if he gets convicted, he by nature, legally defended himself and did good.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace
We still don't even know that she was pregnant.
The police chief said - "She didn't look pregnant". And followed up with, we'll find out after the autopsy.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: BlastedCaddy
I am going old school and "irrational" here. If they did not break into his house they would still be alive. He got beat and broke some bones as a result of it. I don't even know if I can argue against not shooting them after their initial attack. Regardless of inside or outside the house. Do people that beat the elderly and break their bones with intent to rob deserve to live? They could have already killed someone during a break in. Good for the old man. He probably saved some innocents life by putting an end to their career.

If they did not break into his house this thread would not exist.


I was under the impression that in the States one was innocent until found guilty. Doesn't that require due process?


There is due process but if you're killed during the commision of a crime, court is somewhat redundant. lol



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: BlastedCaddy
I am going old school and "irrational" here. If they did not break into his house they would still be alive. He got beat and broke some bones as a result of it. I don't even know if I can argue against not shooting them after their initial attack. Regardless of inside or outside the house. Do people that beat the elderly and break their bones with intent to rob deserve to live? They could have already killed someone during a break in. Good for the old man. He probably saved some innocents life by putting an end to their career.

If they did not break into his house this thread would not exist.


I was under the impression that in the States one was innocent until found guilty. Doesn't that require due process?


There is due process but if you're killed during the commision of a crime, court is somewhat redundant. lol


Then this was an illegal execution then. No due process.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Thank you all for 4 pages of serious, well considered and thoughtful replies. I was hoping this would start some discussion, given how many factors existed and even came to contradict in some areas of justification.

To add my personal opinion to the mix... I think the man was 100% and fully justified in his initial engagement while inside the home. They were an immediate threat and had demonstrated their willingness and ability to physically injure him for their own needs. Perhaps it would have occurred to them by the end, they had committed major felony crimes well beyond burglary when they encountered a homeowner and did anything but run with all speed. They might have decided to finish it, and left us a story of a tragic death to 80 years of life in a quiet Long Beach neighborhood. I'm glad it didn't end that way.

Having said that...

By my own training and more importantly, by my own moral compass? He stopped being justified when they cleared the doorways on their way out in a mad dash to escape. They not only stopped being a threat, by law, but were in full flight mode, with all the fight scared out of them by that stage. He was right.....before he was wrong.

Now, having said THAT......

There isn't a chance in this world I would vote to convict him on a Jury. He was wrong. Yes. He was also in fear for his life and in a very fuzzy state of mind from a physical beating, the pain of broken bones still in motion in his body and the plain terror mixed with adrenaline from having survived ...up to that point...in a situation I'm sure he wasn't taking that as a given with.

Basically...I'd say by LAW he's guilty of manslaughter because he shot her and may have delivered the fatal shot from behind with a person in full retreat mode. By common sense and all that is right in the world? We should find the mercy in us to see past his technical crossing of lines while considering the total situation to his actions.

I think AT WORST....if they actually push and then got a conviction? It should be suspended with minimal further supervision or terms.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
If you listen to the interview with the guy it makes it clear this is cold blooded murder. He says he knows they were unarmed, that they were running away, that he chased them, that the girl said please do not shoot I am pregnant and shot her twice in the back anyway because she was the slowest at running away of the two.

Somebody comes in your house you defend yourself, if he would have shot her inside when he found them or when they shoved him out of the way or even when they were still in the house trying to get in the safe I would have no problem with it. Granted killing a pregnant woman is would not be pleasant experience but, you could be in danger.

When they ran off all sense of danger was gone. Chasing unamred people and gunning down a pregant woman is not self defense. Maybe he can claim he is crazy but, when talks in the inerview he sounds fine and even proud he just shot a fleeing pregant woman in the back.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
I think AT WORST....if they actually push and then got a conviction? It should be suspended with minimal further supervision or terms.


And that's what a human life is worth? Sad.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join