To shoot or not to shoot? One California homeowners fate is being decided.

I wouldn't send that old man to jail. How many times have we seen police shoot someone in the back trying to flee.

originally posted by: Echo007
I wouldn't send that old man to jail.

Well hopefully he won't have to deal with people that would hang an 80 yo. Or a 90 yo. Yes, I DO have a point.

a reply to: Echo007

And to be fair what is the public outcry when that happens? They want the cop in jail.
I can't say that it would make sense to look up an 80 year old in prison, but I do think he deserves to get charged. Wrongful death case at the very least.
Gonna need my fire retardant suit for the backlash on this one.
But i think the family of the girl has a civil case against him. I have already seen people condoning the parents are scum as well, which I find amazing cause none of this is about them. But at the end of the day they lost a daughter to a man that killed her in cold blood.

Having read the article the following can be stated:

The first thing that all people who are debating this should understand that if you pull a weapon, you use it. You do not want to shot up in the air. You aim for the center of the mass and pull the trigger; it is the easiest way to stop a person.

But here is the issue and the crux of the matter, how fair of a fight that it is a man who is in his 80’s versus 2 people who are at least half his age if not younger? Is that fair to ask an old man take on 2 people at the same time? She having been 28 and the man being 26?

Was it murder, no, it was not murder, these 2 people broke into his home, they were stealing what did not belong to them. Ask yourself this, how do you put a price on a memory? Many items that people acquire over the years have specific memories attached to them. Would you be so forgiving it if was say something that had been in your family for years, that had a history attached to it? Could you ever feel safe if you walked in all alone and found 2 people in your home, rifling through your things that you did not know, or who threatened you?

The man decided to stop being a victim, he took matters into his own hands, for the better or worse. There was no way of telling or knowing if the suspects would have returned back to the home. And if they had broke in before without fear of the consequences, then there is a chance they would have done it again. It is a hard choice and lesson, and in this case, should the man in the case be prosecuted, yes and no. Yes he should be charge, but with as minor of a charge as possible, a slap on the hand as it were, a small fine, and then let go. The other person, the 26 year old, should have the book thrown at him, as he did break the law, it did result in a person dying.

Just like the fear of legal action motivates homeowners to deal with intrusions in a very specific way, taking care not to cross any of the many thresholds that change their actions from "self-defense" to "murder", something needs to motivate people to refrain from entering people's homes and taking their stuff and current legal repercussions for being a slimy thief are far from adequate.

A guy from my county broke into a couple houses in the city, got caught, ended up in a police pursuit, they crashed him into a tree, he beat up a couple cops, then was arrested. Good. He sucks, take him away. Guess what? He went to prison for four years. Again, good. He sucks, take him away. Guess what? If he didn't run from the police and "endanger their lives" he would have sat in jail for a day or two until he got bailed out and got probation. Pay some fines and be on your way. What the hell does that teach someone? I'd say the only lessons there are "Don't fight the police", and "Getting caught is expensive".

A couple from my county was going around robbing old people, the woman would knock on the front door and distract the people with some sob story while the man (unfortunately an old friend of my family) would sneak in the back and take whatever he could. The guy had a gun, he never shot anyone, but he would just point it in the people's faces if he was caught in their homes. Well fast forward about a year into their scheme, and the man flashed his gun only to get stabbed in the gut by an old vet. The guy ran off into the woods, ended up making it a little over 10 miles to town and he called a friend to come pick him up. The friend called the cops, turned him in, but nothing came of it legally because the guy who got robbed never called the cops. However, the guy who got stabbed learned that you just don't go into someone's home to take their s***. And when you do, you better be prepared for war.

www.nbclosangeles.com...

Seems that she was not pregnant.

originally posted by: thesaneone
www.nbclosangeles.com...

Seems that she was not pregnant.

Did you read that?

Tom Greer appeared to have no regret when he told NBC4 Wednesday night that he shot the woman twice in the back with his .22-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver as she was fleeing with a male accomplice.

*snip*

"She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant -- I'm going to have a baby.' And 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."

Your source.

So he only killed one person then.

a reply to: intrepid

Adrenaline is a hell of a thing.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: intrepid

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

Man has been killing each other over pride and stuff for a millennia. Is it constitutional? Nope but neither was breaking in while one delivered the beating and the other attempted to get into the safe. Again with the excuses for bad people.

Now this will seem of topic but hear me out. If your belief system is creation then maybe the old man should be put under additional scrutiny, but if your belief system is evolution then we have a tendency to act like animals and be very territorial, taking pride in our home/nest. When threatened the animal instinct takes over, I think there is a certain amount of this that needs to be taken into consideration.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: intrepid

Adrenaline is a hell of a thing.

Awesome stuff. I love it, you know me. That doesn't make it legal or moral.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
When threatened the animal instinct takes over, I think there is a certain amount of this that needs to be taken into consideration.

Especially when surrounded by the Institutional Conservative. This species has the ability to redefine what has previously been said to make a position in one area to not look like hypocrisy when dealing with another. I am only talking about the IC here. Not all conservatives.

a reply to: intrepid

I never said it was a moral or immoral issue I just posted an update on the story.

This old man got his butt kicked in by some 20 something year old coward I think the guy was justified but this is up to the law to decide what should happen.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

No there is no rule that if you pull a weapon then you use it. That is crazy.
Who was asking this man to fight off the two people fleeing? That is the point. I would agree that he was in the right if he shot them in his house. At that point there were a threat to his life. When they are running away cause HE is armed and they are not, the tables have now turned. When he chases and finds to execute, he was not in fear for his life.
We can go into what if's all day. I will just answer, what if that wasn't the case for each and every one.

Sounds like you are in the boat of theft=death. So does that mean in your eyes that all previous and future cases that are breaking and entering involving theft and assault should receive the death penalty? See how I used the events that we know actually happened not some made up what if situations?
Both these people deserved to sit in front of a judge like our constitution says. And the male did not cause the death of the female, Mr. Greer deciding to chase her down and shooting her caused her death.

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?



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

Nope no living room shooting in this thread..running down the fawkin alley shooting in the back..shooting in the living room would of been acceptable..you get it now?
What a bunch of cowardly @#$%^

a reply to: MarlinGrace

So two wrongs make a right, good deal.
Don't think that is a principle you live by but I could be wrong.
And yes our primitive ancestors fought over pride and stuff, was hoping our civilization could get over that by now. Guess not.
I am not giving excuses for the people that broke in, I am calling out the man for killing some one.

Again, here is the man that was beaten. Guess we all have different definitions of what a violent beating entails .
He was taken to the ground yes, does not mean that he was savagely beaten.

I agree that animal instincts take over, but animals don't have guns. An old animal would not chase down two younger animals with the intent to continue the attack. Their instincts would tell them not to, and I am sure you would agree there. Well maybe not in this thread cause it would go against what you are saying.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Under the laws of many states, that isn't how it works on responsibility for her partner. The legal theory is very simple and in some states it's called guilty hands. In others, more colorful terms, but it amounts to the same thing. If you initiated or helped to participate in a crime, then any bad outcome during the commission of the crime is good to hang on you.

It's the same way you occasionally hear about someone going up on arson and murder charges for an abandoned building or some such. If a fireman died fighting a fire which should never have existed, and he was only there in a position to be killed by the actions of a specific individual, even by such separation in time and distance? It's still the proximate cause for the death and hence, murder. It's an interesting thing to have watched evolve over time, but I largely support the concept.

In this case, I still have to think back to the fact he was a multiple victim from previously hits to this same house. He stated he believed these to be the same people, and right or wrong in that assumption? I am sure it played heavily into whether he should give some chase and insure they were gone or turn his back at the door and hope they didn't turn back.

We know a lot more in hindsight and the clear thoughts of a quiet room in front of a computer than he did in the moment. A man who just underwent a brutal beating and legitimate question whether he'd survive the night, even then (he couldn't know the extent or lack thereof for his injuries at that moment), wouldn't likely be given to moments of reflection to consider all the angles...in the heat of the moment.

At THIS point, was he justified in shooting to kill?

Yes it fits the calif law on self defence.

Should he have shot them out side no but.

If i was his lawyer i would have used that the injuries to the 80 year old at the hand of the home intruders had caused temporary brain damage.

This would allow the jury to clear the 80 year old because the home intruders had caused the injuries that caused there deaths.

If i had be on the jury there is no way i would convict him anyway.

I think the cops were mad because he shot and killed both so that there was no survivor to charge with murder.

In calif there is a law with extra time for beating someone elderly or disabled.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Its not our ancestors, look around today. Russia, Palestine, Israel, ISIS, Syria, and the list goes on. Man isn't in anyway shape or form over this, and governments haven't even slowed down to look around. There wouldn't be two wrongs if they just didn't break in and break the old man bones. Isn't this what they call cause and effect? Don't break in don't get shot. Don't act like a criminal and you won't treated you like one. For me it is that simple. There is little grey area here, they brought this on themselves. I don't even try to argue the legal aspects, just the common sense side, and it's why the defense will never put me on the jury.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
If you catch people in your home, what do you do?
Do you disengage or do you attack?

If I can't get out of the home to safety unnoticed and if I'm threatened, I shoot. If they run off, I thank God that they did so and I lock the door after they leave and call the cops. And if one is pregnant that changes nothing in regards to my self defense. Sorry baby .. but your mother was an idiot.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000
I get the logic of if she wasn't there with him then she wouldn't of died.
But at the same time if Mr.Greer didn't chase her down and target her then she wouldn't be dead.
If she died in the commission of the crime inside the house, deal charge the guy. I would still stay they would need to prove that he forced her hand and she wasn't acting on her own accord.
And I still have a problem with the description of a brutal beating. Plenty of pictures and video him and i don't see the result of a brutal beating. I will agree they assaulted him by taking him to the ground and causing his collar bone injury.
But a brutal beating on an 80 year old man would be noticeable and IMO he would have much more injuries.
Nothing on his face and haven't heard anything about broken ribs, so where did they brutally beat him at.