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: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

In terms of a beating for lethal force, we may have different definitions of that. In my sense of things, virtually any violence to the level of broken bones on an elderly man is going to be a brutal beating and lucky for the guy physically if nothing else, it didn't go further. Under my own state's law it's quite sufficient at the level this happened for fulfilling 'immediate threat of great bodily injury'. 2:1 and youth vs. elderly makes that cake and bakes it too.

I'm also not entirely clear what level of engagement happened inside vs. outside and where shots hit. Obviously and by the report I OP'ed with, the final hit was outside but was it the fatal one? This did seem to be a case with complexity beyond the 7 second sound byte and quick pronouncement either way, IMO.

Whatever else, this did all start as a major crime (at least it was when I lived in orange county) for residential burglary, coupled with violent assault on the homeowner. I think inside/outside is where the ultimate question lay for California's sense of fine points and valid defense boundaries.

For what it's worth... Missouri law, as last I looked to read it over, had my property line as the edge of the figurative castle. The people can't be running away, obviously, but outdoors doesn't change everything the same way. My castle even moves with me, as carjacking and lethal force to respond to that is also covered. I think California calls it inside the door threshold though.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000


In my opinion at no point was firing his weapon the wrong thing to do. As soon as the story stated they were in his home my mind was already set. He wasn't doing anything wrong, just coming home and BAM, unknown people in his house, not his fault. The suspects running away means absolutely nothing, that doesn't take away from what they had already done. If this happened more often maybe less people would enter homes they don't belong in.

Regardless of how I feel about the situation, legally he's probably screwed.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Agreed this was all started with a violent,for the sake of argument anyway, and serious crime, but it also ended with a separate violent and serious crime.
And if we go by his words it does seem all the shots were shot outside. He said he shot her after she pleaded with him which happened outside, or at least that is how I read it.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: 2wheelvet

So your in the boat of all breaking and entering deserve the death penalty?
Would you want the ones that don't get shot by the home owner to be then killed by the court system?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
When we have the results of the Prosecutors office and decision to charge or not, we'll know if a crime was committed by him. He is right on the line, by almost any standard. Legal or otherwise, and I think this is one of those 'by a hair' decisions for whether to file charges. It absolutely was still up in the air as to whether they would, as of this afternoon.

On the other hand, we DO know they had already comitted at least 3 major felony crimes under California state law. For what it's worth, had the old man hit his head as they slammed him to the ground and they'd have killed him? They'd have special circumstances under California law for Capital Murder. Good thing for the guy, the old man was strong enough to take their beating.


Police confirmed that the intruders beat Greer with their fists, body slammed him to the ground and tried to break into his safe.

But in a news conference Thursday, Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the investigation is not over, and detectives will present their report to county prosecutors to determine if Greer was justified in slaying the woman.
Source

That's the LA times this afternoon along with their confirmation by autopsy that she wasn't pregnant and simply lying to get away by saying it. A despicable couple, both of them, and who knows if the body wouldn't have been the homeowners if he hadn't had something more than failing strength to fight with. He'd already been overpowered and worked over beyond need.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I don't think her saying she was pregnant makes her more despicable, I bet people would say a lot of things with a gun pointed at them.
Them breaking in the house and stealing is all it takes.
I doubt they will charge him, he is 80 years old and they would never send him to jail. Shoot I would agree that no jury would convict him.
I do think they are going to embellish parts of the stories to pad their reasoning of not charging him and going the self defense route.



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...
I still go off this quote which is from greer about the assault that took place. I agree that he should be charged with assault and anything extra that comes along with attacking an elderly man.
I'll even come around and agree that he, the male accomplice, could be charged with her death.
I do also agree that there was a chance that the blow to the head could kill him but still can't see intent to beat to kill from the suspects.
One thing I did find odd, from your source.



But when Greer produced a .22-caliber handgun, they fled. Greer told KNBC he chased the pair and shot Miller twice in the back in the alley, then pulled her body back onto his lot.

Nit picky i know, but isn't this tampering with evidence?



“I shot her anyway,” Greer said. “The lady didn’t run as fast as the man so I shot her in the back twice --she’s dead … but he got away.”

This also clears up where the shooting happened.

edit on thFri, 25 Jul 2014 21:27:41 -0500America/Chicago720144180 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Well, I suppose we both have our opinions and opinions on a thing like this are greatly formed from life experiences. Everyone is unique in that way, and so no surprise disagreement comes. Right or wrong is what we live with and the legal side is what a court decides.

Did they break into a residential home? Yes. Were they willing to commit violence if they encountered a homeowner (and why residential burglary is very often taken more seriously than commercial for outcomes), I'd say the answer came in the what happened here. They were willing to beat down an old man.

Is the old man an objectionable old fart? Probably. Was he still beaten with a broken collar bone to show for it? Yes. By Police statements, he definitely was. He was also, by his statement, of the belief these were the same people to have burglarized his home twice before. That charged the situation beyond simply being beaten in his own home to facing an ongoing and persistent threat which had escalated into violence in this instance.

In my own opinion, it's just not simple enough to say one way or another on him without more information than I think we'll get on an open case or may ever get on a case like this. Of course, if it goes to trial, all that changes.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
If you put me on the jury gramps would go free.

At some point the citizens need to take back control.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: nrd101
it was cold blooded murder how many times do I have to say it...


keep saying it till maybe it'll make sense.

Since he chased them and kept firing I assume he will be charged. I believe he was in the right.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80
First you are wrong about the weapon. If you pull it on a person, you use it, or it can be taken away from you and used against you. These 2 had already shown that they were willing to do violence against the victim. So what would have stopped them from taking the gun from him and using it on him? Or coming back, to take it from his home and using it to commit other crimes?
If I was in their place, and a person pulled a gun and I got away, good chance that I may be back with either a gun or breaking in and taking him.

I do not advocate the killing of a thief, however, the problem is that the streets are not safe, the police are either not helping or are corrupt in the larger cities, and ultimately the question is what is a person to do to be safe in their own homes? And if the criminals think and believe that they can act with impunity, or fear of the consequences.

People are tired of being afraid, tired of seeing criminals running around and acting without consequences, a judicial system that is not doing anything, along with a law enforcement that tends to fail to protect the very people they are suppose to.

There has to be change, and unfortunately, it is going to either be more of these kinds of events, or far worse laws, so which do you prefer?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: 2wheelvet

So your in the boat of all breaking and entering deserve the death penalty?
Would you want the ones that don't get shot by the home owner to be then killed by the court system?


There is no excuse for being in someone elses house. It's not like this was an accident and they 'forgot' it wasn't their home. As for your question, sure why not? This along with other violent crimes should have a much harder punishment. If people saw that there were real consequences to their actions I'm 100% positive that violent crime would be reduced.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


These 2 had already shown that they were willing to do violence against the victim. So what would have stopped them from taking the gun from him and using it on him? Or coming back, to take it from his home and using it to commit other crimes?


You raise a point here that gave me another thought I hadn't even considered. Whatever bravado and talk he's putting on for the public right now, this had to be a very rough experience to live through, whatever his life background, right?

So, take your point one step further.... HE knew the gun was there, loaded and ready to use but THEY hadn't yet discovered it. They were there and not leaving. He had to figure they would eventually find it themselves....and then what?

I'd first been thinking he was naturally going for the gun to remove the physical threat with the ultimate equalizer, but he may have also been getting to it before they did and for pure survival given how things had already gone.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Again I agree with most, that home burglaries can lead to much more then just theft, doesn't mean that every single one will. They did show some violence, I still see it as them getting him to the ground to get him out of their way cause they felt he couldn't do anything to physically stop them. Breaking his collar bone in the process but isn't that one of the easiest bones in the body to break? Happens from falls and impacts more often then it does from a beating IMO. Broken ribs and jaws are from beatings. Doesn't mean they didn't assault him and threaten his life at that point. Which is why he got his gun and confronted then in his house. He didn't shoot then tho, and at that moment he had every right. He let them flee and then decided to chase to get his message across. I don't see that as self defense, self defense was out the window when he became armed and chasing them. I see that as vigilante justice. Even dragging the body back onto his lot for whatever reason.
I see your point about the repeated robberies and him wanted to nip that in the butt, but there is other options to that then killing the first person he can get his hands on.
I guess we will just have to wait and see at this point.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

What stopped them from beating him unconscious when they had him on the ground? They had the opportunity to do all the damage they needed right there. So while they did show violence, they also showed a lack of wanting to serious bodily harm to the man.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: sdcigarpig

So while they did show violence, they also showed a lack of wanting to serious bodily harm to the man.



Well then all is good, what was the old man thinking?


There is something wrong with your thinking dude.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

Why? Cause I don't think the lady deserved to die?
Sorry that I think the human life, regardless of the past is worth more then the crime of theft and assault.
If they wanted to cause great bodily harm, like it is said they could have gotten his gun and killed him, then they had their chance and they didn't. They left him to his own accord long enough for him to get up and get his gun. At that point they knew they were no longer in control and left. Didn't attack him more or try and get this gun, they fled and he decided that wasn't enough and followed the girl and killed her.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Breaking a bone on an elderly person is serious harm. This was not a finger, but one of the stronger bones in the body, and to break it shows the amount of force that they used was very excessive. And with someone who is of that age, it takes it to another category.

But beyond that, lets take this into a different context and one that should prove to be interesting to look at.

Remove the ages, remove the firearm from the equation. What if they had killed this man from beating him, would there had been this much of an outcry?
Or is this a controversy all cause the victim of the crime used a fire arm against the suspects?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Only if you were in his shoes.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Well if they killed him then there would be an outrage that he died, but that didn't happen so try that appeal to emotion else where.
The controversy is that fact he let them flee out of his house before he killed her. He is well within his right to defend himself inside his house. Once they run away and he chases one down, hard to say that is self defense.
He wanted to send a message, he even said so.
I don't agree that he was in the right to kill the female in the alley way to send that message.

ETA: The collar bone is not a strong bone, it is one of the easiest to break.
www.eorthopod.com...

The collarbone, the clavicle, is one of the easiest bones to break because of its role and its location. While it is possible to break it by a direct hit, it also can be broken by a transfer of shock. This means, if you fall hard on your shoulder or on an outstretched hand, the shock of the impact could travel along to the collarbone, breaking it.

edit on thFri, 25 Jul 2014 23:58:45 -0500America/Chicago720144580 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)

edit on thSat, 26 Jul 2014 00:01:36 -0500America/Chicago720143680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I'm sure this used to be something we all understood. A backshooter has no honor. A backshooter is a treasonous worm and whining about it being "justified" only makes it more shameful. The very men some of you seek to emulate knew this well. Morality and law aside--because this is true for criminals and cowboys, it's an underlying law of conduct--a backshooter is and always has been the most pathetic kind of coward.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join