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: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
my take on this (having lived in California before moving to mt) he was with in his rights to shoot them when they were in his house,the minute he chased them as they ran away he became the aggressor and his force level was not warranted for the situation and thus it would be an unlawful shoot.now had they been armed and firing backwards as they fled that would have been a different situation.due to his age he will most likely get a reduced sentence also probably a bit more leniency due to him being attacked and well not being in the right mind he could always claim temporary insanity or diminished capacity.

long and short of it is if your home is broken into and you dont shoot them in your home courts are gonna look at it in a bad way.only exceptions to this i can see is in castle doctrine states /stand your ground states where they are fleeing to a vehicle to possibly obtain a weapon to shoot back ,or if the suspects are firing back at you as they flee then sure fire back but be cautious where your rounds end up.

on the comments to wound or not shooting some one in the back: well if your shooting them in the back they better be in your house and they better be armed(as a corpse) when the police show up .

on shooting to wound unless you are a police sniper(and making the shot at range) don't go for Hollywood trick shots and bluntly from a legal point of view if you shoot some one in your house you are better off if they die,as then 1 they arent allowed to tell their side of the story and two aren't alive to sue you.this will ruffle some feathers of the "no one deserves to die" group but its the honest truth in most situations as horrible as it may come across




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Ya the kill so you don't get sued defense is pretty weak IMO.
The kill so they can't tell their side of the story defense is even worse.


There is one man going through a lot of heat right now for, "only following the laws he wants to follow".
We all know who that is.
Seem like it is pretty common theme tho. This thread and most about people killing a home intruder or attacker with their right to bear arms always seem to show that.
You have the right to own the gun, no doubt. That does not give you the right to kill with it.
And this last paragraph was not directed at you ralaga.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: 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?


Yes he was justified. The suspects demonstrated a depraved indifference in beating the man. The broken collar bone would factor in as well since it can affect his ability to defend himself. The fact they remained in the house after he went to another room continued to demonstrate a threat.

I don't know if California has a castle doctrine law.



originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
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?


In this instance I dont think he is justified. If I remember right California is a duty to retreat state. The moment they fled the residence, the threat to the victim ended.

General rule of thumb -
A person can defend himself up to the point the resistance / threat from the suspect stops / deescalates. If the victim continues after the threat ends / reduced, they are in essence breaking the law by assaulting the suspect.

I know it sounds goofy but the intent is to prevent a victim from going beyond the point of no return (vigilante justice).

Just my opinion.. There might be other factors involved via California law.


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



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Doom on those that break into someones house. Don't want to pay the consequences, legal or illegal, don't do the illegal act.

AS for illegals??? Deport them all.

Funny, as people can be shot forcing their way into a Govt or Military location, but not forcing their way across a national border.



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

So illegally shooting someone is OK. Someone here illegally isn't. That doesn't add up.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: macman




Funny, as people can be shot forcing their way into a Govt or Military location, but not forcing their way across a national border.

So we know what macs solution to the border is, just shoot them coming in.
Another huge violation of due process.
Do you ever criticize barry for not following the constitution?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

well in the context of legal repercussions it makes great sense you dont have to like it but its the blunt truth of the matter,been given this advice many times over they years and even from a few police officers.this does not mean execute the people like that one idiot that basically shot those two kids execution style.if your shooting some one in your home you better be in fear of your life and if your in fear of your life you shoot to kill not wound,shooting to wound implies you had other options at your disposal and were in fact not in fear of your life thus in general negating your right to self defense and complicating things from a legal stand point.


(post by mmmali removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
Like I said California law is prety clear on this subject , while the assailants were stil in the house he had every right to defend himself , but no right to follow into the alley shooting.
I feel for the guy as he was assaulted, but from his statements I feel he is likely a jackass.

"She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant, I'm going to have a baby,' and I shot her anyway,"

edit on 25-7-2014 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: mmmali

Mods quick to the snip


edit on thFri, 25 Jul 2014 16:58:53 -0500America/Chicago720145380 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
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.


I really can't argue against that, if they were running away the threat was gone. I agree the man may have gone too far, but I also agree with the poster who said something along the lines of "You break into someone's house, you get what comes to you.", whether that means getting blasted 78 times in the living room or dodging bullets with your tail between your legs as you retreat to the hole you came from.

I understand the laws pertaining to what is/is not life threatening and what warrants lethal force, and I understand why they exist. I think this was a case of an old man being fed up with being a victim (assuming his home was broken to before, as the story goes). Emotions clouded his judgement and he screwed up. Not like Turd Ferguson and his preggo girlfriend were following the law when they broke into the house, why should the old bastard have to worry about dealing with them in a "legal" manner? I know, I know, an eye for an eye blah blah blah.

Punish the guy, but keep in mind he didn't go out looking for someone to kill. This wasn't a case of road rage, this wasn't a lover's quarrel that went too far, this wasn't some deranged person killing for pleasure, this was an angry old man doing what he thought was protecting him and his own.

Also keep in mind that if the guy was a better shot this conversation would have gone completely differently. The same loss of life, but if it happened "within the limits of the law" it would almost be a non-issue.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   


This case is currently being decided for charges to be filed...so if you were the Southern California D.A. on this very general thumbnail and source to read more ....would you throw the book at the guy, give him a medal or just agree a tragedy occurred and pursuit of a conviction on the homeowner wouldn't be appropriate?


Is this going to go up in front of a jury or not?

I hope so.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaosComplex




Punish the guy, but keep in mind he didn't go out looking for someone to kill.

But he did... He perused them and decided kill her would to send a message to the male.
He wanted to kill the people that broke into his house. He was looking to do it.



“I shot her so that’s going to leave a message on his mind for the rest of his life.”

www.rawstory.com...



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Isn't that "defense" though?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:25 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.


Is this what you say when a bank robber is shot to death during a bank robbery by police, that he didn't get due process?

Not getting due process is when you are killed with a hellfire missile from a drone as an american citizen from someone in the halls of washington dc.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

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.


Is this what you say when a bank robber is shot to death during a bank robbery by police, that he didn't get due process?


That would have been an excellent example if it had any relevance to the topic. Keep trying. Maybe something will stick to the wall.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Apparently, defense of your pride and stuff.
Two things totally worth killing some one over



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: intrepid

Apparently, defense of your pride and stuff.
Two things totally worth killing some one over


That's constitutional, right?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Ya of course, the 2nd means that you get to kill people with that gun that you are allowed to have.
If they touch my stuff, im gonna kill them! I'll just say that they were going to rape my wife,kids and dog.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mikeyy

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.


He says the shoved him out of the way never that they beat or tried to kill him. In fact he says they could not get the safe open and he suggested getting a tool from another one of his rooms. They barely seemed to be paying attention to him and that is when he went to another room and got his gun. At that point he said he knew they were no armed. Still in the house if they came at him he could have shot them dead because even unarmed they were a threat at his age. Chasing them down and proudly stateting she that she begged him not kill her and he shot her anyway goes beyond any reasonble response. I do not know if he has some mental issues at his age and maybe not everything he said happened as it did but, his interview is pretty damning.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join