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: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I live in a small(ish) town in the deeeeeeep south. You break into someone's house around here you better expect to get shot, or worse. It's ridiculous that we have to even ask this question.

These space wasting bone bags break into an 80 year old man's home, whoop his ass and try to rob him of his hard earned belongings...how is there any debate on whether the man was in the right to shoot them?




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

That is an interesting addition. I'm far from home and my connection or usual equipment so may I trouble you for an embed or link to that interview? I'd be interested in follow up on his tone and demeanor.

To be honest, I was very uncertain about the Indiana state dept guy with his little basement of horrors on another burglary couple awhile back..until hearing how cold and vicious the man actually was by words and deeds. I don't think it's likely I'll change anything in how I feel with this one, but it's possible.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

I am not cornering you into anything. You said she got what she deserved. So I am asking if everyone one else that has done similar just deserves to die. No need to recreate the situation when we already have one to go off of.
I am not making excuses for what they did,I said it was wrong. Just asking you to justify a claim you made



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
So the long and short of those that think it was 100% justified is that since he was attacked, that the people deserved to die... Seems very rational.

Greer said that he was tackled and thrown to the ground but managed to get his .22-caliber revolver and confronted them as they ransacked a safe containing cash.

www.rawstory.com...
So Greer says here that he was tackled and thrown to the ground. But in the OP article it was that he was beaten with fist and then body slammed to the ground. Attacking the man was wrong but seems how badly they did attack him is still fuzzy in the mind of Greer. Which makes sense since he is 80 and things happen rather fast.
But I am under the impression they did not beat him with the intent to kill like so many are painting the picture in this thread.
Of course I will get flamed for being a sympathizer to the criminals and that's fine if people don't care about conflicting stories and would rather just believe what helps them justify the killing.

Here is the man savagely beaten.
They both deserved their day in court to be judged by a qualified individual as due process dictates



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
Here is one link to the/an interview...
NBC Los Angeles



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaosComplex
I live in a small(ish) town in the deeeeeeep south. You break into someone's house around here you better expect to get shot, or worse. It's ridiculous that we have to even ask this question.

These space wasting bone bags break into an 80 year old man's home, whoop his ass and try to rob him of his hard earned belongings...how is there any debate on whether the man was in the right to shoot them?


Because they were unarmed outside running away and the woman pleaded with him not to shoot, so he shot her twice in the back anyway. Anybody would defend their home but, chasing unarmed people outside and gunning them down ins not defending your home.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

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.


Well ill tell you what intrepid next time somebody breaks into your house feel free let them have it. Hopefully they don't shoot your dog, rape your wife, or fondle your children in the process, right?

Not like your man enough to protect them anyway.

I'll handle things in my house the way I see fit. I don't stand for those things.
edit on 25-7-2014 by Mikeyy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mikeyy

originally posted by: intrepid

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.


Well you what intrepid next time somebody breaks into your house feel free let them have it. Hopefully they don't shoot your dog, rape your wife, or fondle your children in the process, right?


I don't have a dog. I'm divorced and all my kids are grown.


Not like your man enough to protect them anyway.


I love keyboard warriors.


I'll handle things in my house the way I see fit. I don't stand for those things.


I hope the dog, wife and kids don't mind going to prison to visit you.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Mikeyy

Still stuck on making up hypothetical situations to justify huh?
Keep living in that fear and you will make a grave mistake, one that you might not be able to live with all cause you were scared of what some one might do. You keep telling your self you have the right to kill anyone that scares you and you are going to kill someone that didn't deserve it
See, I can make things up too



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mikeyy

originally posted by: intrepid

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.


Well ill tell you what intrepid next time somebody breaks into your house feel free let them have it. Hopefully they don't shoot your dog, rape your wife, or fondle your children in the process, right?

Not like your man enough to protect them anyway.

I'll handle things in my house the way I see fit. I don't stand for those things.


So you think a man is someone who chases an unarmed woman down outside and shoots her in the back after she begs you not to because she is pregnant? That is what you think is a man? Nobody has a problem with people defending their homes but, gunning down unarmed pregnant woman in the back on the street while she begs for her life is in no way shape or form defending your home. Yeah an by the way the man freely admits she begged and shot her anyway. Some man that is.
edit on 25-7-2014 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Mikeyy

Still stuck on making up hypothetical situations to justify huh?
Keep living in that fear and you will make a grave mistake, one that you might not be able to live with all cause you were scared of what some one might do. You keep telling your self you have the right to kill anyone that scares you and you are going to kill someone that didn't deserve it
See, I can make things up too


I just want to make sure where all on the same page here.

Bad guy, my living room. Right?

What's the S.O.P. then since you guys apparently have the answers.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mikeyy

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Mikeyy

Still stuck on making up hypothetical situations to justify huh?
Keep living in that fear and you will make a grave mistake, one that you might not be able to live with all cause you were scared of what some one might do. You keep telling your self you have the right to kill anyone that scares you and you are going to kill someone that didn't deserve it
See, I can make things up too


I just want to make sure where all on the same page here.

Bad guy, my living room. Right?


Wrong. Bad, pregnant girl outside running for her life. That ain't defense.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Mikeyy

Lot more logistics to go into bedsides "Bad guy in my living room" for me to give you an honest answer.
If that is all it needs for you to justify shooting him then that is a little scary but I guess that is your right?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Break into someones home and/or attack them, you get everything that is coming to you.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: Mikeyy

originally posted by: intrepid

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.


Well ill tell you what intrepid next time somebody breaks into your house feel free let them have it. Hopefully they don't shoot your dog, rape your wife, or fondle your children in the process, right?

Not like your man enough to protect them anyway.

I'll handle things in my house the way I see fit. I don't stand for those things.


So you think a man is someone who chases an unarmed woman down outside and shoots her in the back after she begs you not to because she is pregnant? That is what you think is a man? Nobody has a problem with people defending their homes but, gunning down unarmed pregnant woman in the back on the street while she begs for her life is in no way shape or form defending your home. Yeah an by the way the man freely admits she begged and shot her anyway. Some man that is.


They tried to kill him first /shrug

I'm not sorry for her luck at all.

But in my first post of the thread I did agree that killing them off property is illegal.

I even wrote that killing them on your property was last resort. I posted 2 better scenarios before the shoot to kill step.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Break into someones home and/or attack them, you get everything that is coming to you.


Is that in the Constitution? You can legally shoot a fleeing person?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Didn't say legal.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: intrepid

Didn't say legal.


So it's OK and illegal in your eyes? How about all those immigrants that are illegal. OK with that too?



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

What I was taught and drilled on here is simple. If they are a threat a reasonable person would recognize as being one, then you are clear to use lethal force. Threat is defined as immediate fear of death or great bodily injury. I.E.... A teenager kicking the stuffing out of another teenager isn't a lethal force situation. A teenager kicking the stuffing out of an elderly adult absolutely WOULD be.

Likewise and more importantly. The moment they disengage and end their aggressive actions to surrender OR run, the window for using force (especially deadly force) has passed and it's now changed from defense to aggression in it's own right. Justification to Homicide. It was covered ad naseum with our class. The difference for that line can happen in a split second and it can be subtle in the moment, while being a billboard of "GUILTY!" later in the quiet calm of a court room.

Nope..The rights of defense never make it right to pursue and kill while the target is fleeing. Hell, that's not even considered acceptable in hunting animals among hunters I know.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Mikeyy

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Mikeyy

Still stuck on making up hypothetical situations to justify huh?
Keep living in that fear and you will make a grave mistake, one that you might not be able to live with all cause you were scared of what some one might do. You keep telling your self you have the right to kill anyone that scares you and you are going to kill someone that didn't deserve it
See, I can make things up too


I just want to make sure where all on the same page here.

Bad guy, my living room. Right?


Wrong. Bad, pregnant girl outside running for her life. That ain't defense.


By law it's not. Your right. But i never said it was legal to shoot them in the alley?




top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join