Old Man Kills Intruder

[Geilinor]

Regardless of the law? I thought you claimed to be a law student at one point....

The good thing about the law is that I'm always free to interpret it my way. I'll just take some technicality, read it in a novel way, and get the old man off. That's legal reasoning for you.

That isn't what a good, professional lawyer does. You can't interpret the law however you want.

[Trotskylvania]

The old man and intruder are wrong but the intruder is worse as they belittled this poor old man and ruined her and her child's life. Nobody can be punished that should be here.

Loooool

I suggest you read the whole thing, as she was trying to get out of punishment and manipulating the old man into thinking she was pregnant.

No. The man gave chase and murdered a fleeing person.

Your right to self-defense ends the moment the threat ends. When your assailants are retreating, leaving your home and shooting them in the alley while they plead for their life is first degree murder.

[Soselo]

Considerations of conscience outweigh authoritarianism when the values up to test are more consistent.

Try to speak a little louder, I'm slightly deaf in my right ear.

Considerations of conscience outweigh authoritarianism when the values up to test are more consistent!

[New Acardia]

Me, personally? No.... some can and will. And pulling 12 random people you will not end up with 12 who will all think the same on this, and 2-3 will sympathize with Mr. Greer.... they will not budge, the jury would deadlock and you end up with a mistrial. Might not be officially "losing" the case..... but for all intents and purposes it will be.

And that is a problem. Even if that is the case then I'd still be in favour of a trial taking place. At least the state can inconvenience the chap.

Any DA who brings this to trial should be labeled pro criminal.

[Infected Mushroom]

The good thing about the law is that I'm always free to interpret it my way. I'll just take some technicality, read it in a novel way, and get the old man off. That's legal reasoning for you.

That isn't what a good, professional lawyer does. You can't interpret the law however you want.

If I were on the jury, I could insist on following my conscience. And I would use my lawyering skills to interpret ANY technicality I find to get the old man off. I follow my conscience and I serve Justice. Both of those things are more important than legal precedents or rigid readings of badly written laws. My sympathies are completely with the old man.

They can mistrial if they want. Let's see how far the state will go to re-victimize an old man over the letter of the law.

[Geilinor]

That isn't what a good, professional lawyer does. You can't interpret the law however you want.

If I were on the jury, I could insist on following my conscience. And I would use my lawyering skills to interpret ANY technicality I find to get the old man off. I follow my conscience and I serve Justice. Both of those things are more important than legal precedents or rigid readings of badly written laws. My sympathies are completely with the old man.

Common law is based off of legal precedents.

[Trotskylvania]

Regardless of the law? I thought you claimed to be a law student at one point....

Sometimes following the law too rigidly means having endless sleepless nights. Sometimes the law is plain wrong; sometimes rigid application of the law leads to the victimization of good people. I have a higher duty to Justice, the Law does too.

I think it's wrong to put an old man who has been victimized by assault, robbery and trespass and who suffered physical injury in jail. He was just taking out his attackers.

The good thing about the law is that I'm always free to interpret it my way. I'll just take some technicality, read it in a novel way, and get the old man off. That's legal reasoning for you.

There is no justice in taking the law into your own hands. We punish vigilantes for a reason. We have institutional safeguards and huge levels of scrutiny in the judicial system. This isn't a dime store western, this is reality. The worst sort of lawlessness is the misguided righteousness of people who take it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner.

[Korouse]

Loooool

I suggest you read the whole thing, as she was trying to get out of punishment and manipulating the old man into thinking she was pregnant.

No. The man gave chase and murdered a fleeing person.

Your right to self-defense ends the moment the threat ends. When your assailants are retreating, leaving your home and shooting them in the alley while they plead for their life is first degree murder.

I'm not going to go in circles about this again, it's time for the real fun - devil's advocate.

[Scomagia]

Regardless of the law? I thought you claimed to be a law student at one point....

Sometimes following the law too rigidly means having endless sleepless nights. Sometimes the law is plain wrong; sometimes rigid application of the law leads to the victimization of good people. I have a higher duty to Justice, the Law does too.

I think it's wrong to put an old man who has been victimized by assault, robbery and trespass and who suffered physical injury in jail. He was just taking out his attackers.

The good thing about the law is that I'm always free to interpret it my way. I'll just take some technicality, read it in a novel way, and get the old man off. That's legal reasoning for you.

You should not and will not ever be an attorney.

[Fartsniffage]

Try to speak a little louder, I'm slightly deaf in my right ear.

Considerations of conscience outweigh authoritarianism when the values up to test are more consistent!

Sorry, still not getting it. You should enunciate better.

[Trotskylvania]

And that is a problem. Even if that is the case then I'd still be in favour of a trial taking place. At least the state can inconvenience the chap.

Any DA who brings this to trial should be labeled pro criminal.

He says while not only lionizing a criminal, but someone who has by his own admission committed first degree murder.

[Scomagia]

And that is a problem. Even if that is the case then I'd still be in favour of a trial taking place. At least the state can inconvenience the chap.

Any DA who brings this to trial should be labeled pro criminal.

Pro criminal because they're prosecuting someone for committing a crime?

[Geilinor]

Try to speak a little louder, I'm slightly deaf in my right ear.

Considerations of conscience outweigh authoritarianism when the values up to test are more consistent!

Courts are authoritarianism?

[Fartsniffage]

That isn't what a good, professional lawyer does. You can't interpret the law however you want.

If I were on the jury, I could insist on following my conscience. And I would use my lawyering skills to interpret ANY technicality I find to get the old man off. I follow my conscience and I serve Justice. Both of those things are more important than legal precedents or rigid readings of badly written laws. My sympathies are completely with the old man.

They can mistrial if they want. Let's see how far the state will go to re-victimize an old man over the letter of the law.

But as a lawyer, you can't be on a jury, right?

And you really think that murder laws are badly written?

[Trotskylvania]

No. The man gave chase and murdered a fleeing person.

Your right to self-defense ends the moment the threat ends. When your assailants are retreating, leaving your home and shooting them in the alley while they plead for their life is first degree murder.

I'm not going to go in circles about this again, it's time for the real fun - devil's advocate.

I can assure you I need no advocate, son.

[Soselo]

Loooool

I suggest you read the whole thing, as she was trying to get out of punishment and manipulating the old man into thinking she was pregnant.

No. The man gave chase and murdered a fleeing person.

Your right to self-defense ends the moment the threat ends. When your assailants are retreating, leaving your home and shooting them in the alley while they plead for their life is first degree murder.

Perhaps the retreat was feigned, to falsely convince the chasing old man that they were defeated, only to charge back once the elderly man again had his guard down. What way would he have of knowing? Again, they laid about being pregnant; what places the thief above the possibility of lying of defeat?

[Ratateague]

No. The man gave chase and murdered a fleeing person.

Your right to self-defense ends the moment the threat ends. When your assailants are retreating, leaving your home and shooting them in the alley while they plead for their life is first degree murder.

Perhaps the retreat was feigned, to falsely convince the chasing old man that they were defeated, only to charge back once the elderly man again had his guard down. What way would he have of knowing?

Human nature? They got caught in the act, got in a nasty scuffle, he pulled out a gun, and shot Andrea, and they fled. Why would you return to run headlong into the barrel of a gun?

[Soselo]

Considerations of conscience outweigh authoritarianism when the values up to test are more consistent!

Courts are authoritarianism?

They are when justice is determined by the state.

[Trotskylvania]

No. The man gave chase and murdered a fleeing person.

Your right to self-defense ends the moment the threat ends. When your assailants are retreating, leaving your home and shooting them in the alley while they plead for their life is first degree murder.

Perhaps the retreat was feigned, to falsely convince the chasing old man that they were defeated, only to charge back once the elderly man again had his guard down. What way would he have of knowing?

Objection: assuming facts not in evidence.

You're grasping for straws. When an assailant flees when presented with the threat of deadly force, the threat is over. This isn't a fucking comic book. People don't spin huge gambits and cackle "Just as planned!" when people fall victim to them. Thieves are looking for a quick pay out and to escape without harm or the police breathing down their neck.

No reasonable person would fear for their life once the assailants ran away. No reasonable man would give chase, putting himself back into danger, and then kill their fleeing assailants.

You know what you do if you're still afraid after the run? Don't put your gun away and call the fucking cops like a decent citizen. Don't pretend you're Judge Dredd.

[Infected Mushroom]

If I were on the jury, I could insist on following my conscience. And I would use my lawyering skills to interpret ANY technicality I find to get the old man off. I follow my conscience and I serve Justice. Both of those things are more important than legal precedents or rigid readings of badly written laws. My sympathies are completely with the old man.

They can mistrial if they want. Let's see how far the state will go to re-victimize an old man over the letter of the law.

But as a lawyer, you can't be on a jury, right?

And you really think that murder laws are badly written?

The current laws give far too many rights to violent trespassing criminals. It often leads to the absurd and morally offensive outcome (as it might here with this poor old man) of the courts supporting claims from the criminals against their victims.

It's re-victimization.

[Viritica]

Sometimes following the law too rigidly means having endless sleepless nights. Sometimes the law is plain wrong; sometimes rigid application of the law leads to the victimization of good people. I have a higher duty to Justice, the Law does too.

I think it's wrong to put an old man who has been victimized by assault, robbery and trespass and who suffered physical injury in jail. He was just taking out his attackers.

The good thing about the law is that I'm always free to interpret it my way. I'll just take some technicality, read it in a novel way, and get the old man off. That's legal reasoning for you.

There is no justice in taking the law into your own hands. We punish vigilantes for a reason. We have institutional safeguards and huge levels of scrutiny in the judicial system. This isn't a dime store western, this is reality. The worst sort of lawlessness is the misguided righteousness of people who take it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner.

But what about Batman?

[Trotskylvania]

Perhaps the retreat was feigned, to falsely convince the chasing old man that they were defeated, only to charge back once the elderly man again had his guard down. What way would he have of knowing?

Human nature? They got caught in the act, got in a nasty scuffle, he pulled out a gun, and shot Andrea, and they fled. Why would you return to run headlong into the barrel of a gun?

No, according to his own statements, the assailants fled before the shooting.

He shot her in the alley, outside of his house. And was kind enough to incriminate himself when interviewed.

[New Acardia]

Any DA who brings this to trial should be labeled pro criminal.

Pro criminal because they're prosecuting someone for committing a crime?

Pro criminal for prosecuting some one for defending himself . If anything Mr Greer should get a .award for community service.

[Fartsniffage]

But as a lawyer, you can't be on a jury, right?

And you really think that murder laws are badly written?

The current laws give far too many rights to violent trespassing criminals. It often leads to the absurd and morally offensive outcome (as it might here with this poor old man) of the courts supporting claims from the criminals against their victims.

It's re-victimization.

Okay. But what does that have to do with murder laws?

[Scomagia]

Pro criminal because they're prosecuting someone for committing a crime?

Pro criminal for prosecuting some one who defending himself . If anything Mr Greer should get a .award for community service.

Defending himself by shooting people who posed no immediate danger?