Old Man Kills Intruder

[Rephesus]

If the guy he killed just attacked him broke his collar bone and ran off with his possessions that would be a fair comparison.

You don't think having your 1 y/o daughter raped would enrage someone? It's a perfectly valid comparison.

It's not about being enraged, the fact is that man was not personally assaulted, whereas this one was personally assaulted and injured. This wasn't a First Degree Murder.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

crime of passion is still a crime. Can you blame a guy for killing a dude who just raped his 1 year old daughter? No, but he still is gonna spend 15 years in prison.

While I have never come across an instance of this occuring, I do have to question the morality of locking a man up for fifteen years for losing control because he saw his kid being tortured.

I have.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You don't think having your 1 y/o daughter raped would enrage someone? It's a perfectly valid comparison.

It's not about being enraged, the fact is that man was not personally assaulted, whereas this one was personally assaulted and injured. This wasn't a First Degree Murder.

No one is saying it is. Well, no one who understands application of the law is. It's 2nd Degree, which will either get plead down to voluntary manslaughter, or the DA feeling he won't be able to get a conviction won't even bring it to trial. They'll try to get a plea deal though.

[The Grey Wolf]

You don't think having your 1 y/o daughter raped would enrage someone? It's a perfectly valid comparison.

It's not about being enraged, the fact is that man was not personally assaulted, whereas this one was personally assaulted and injured. This wasn't a First Degree Murder.

I don't think the hypothetical scenario would be considered First Degree Murder. Probably manslaughter.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It's not about being enraged, the fact is that man was not personally assaulted, whereas this one was personally assaulted and injured. This wasn't a First Degree Murder.

I don't think the hypothetical scenario would be considered First Degree Murder. Probably manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter.

[The 502nd SS]

It's not about being enraged, the fact is that man was not personally assaulted, whereas this one was personally assaulted and injured. This wasn't a First Degree Murder.

I don't think the hypothetical scenario would be considered First Degree Murder. Probably manslaughter.

I would give the man a medal and pardon him.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I don't think the hypothetical scenario would be considered First Degree Murder. Probably manslaughter.

I would give the man a medal and pardon him.

pardoning is still an admission of a crime.

[Farnhamia]

I don't think the hypothetical scenario would be considered First Degree Murder. Probably manslaughter.

I would give the man a medal and pardon him.

So you approve of killing human beings?

[The 502nd SS]

I would give the man a medal and pardon him.

pardoning is still an admission of a crime.

I know

[Emrys Mercer]

I would give the man a medal and pardon him.

So you approve of killing human beings?

I approve the killing of human beings. If you're dumb enough to barge into someone's house, beat them, and try to take their things, I think they deserve a bullet. I would do the same. The moment the intruder produces a weapon, or commits violence against the victim is the moment they lose their right to life.

[The 502nd SS]

I would give the man a medal and pardon him.

So you approve of killing human beings?

If you have a good reason for example killing an enemy soldier in war, killing someone that broke into your house, killing someone that's raping a woman, etc.

[Farnhamia]

So you approve of killing human beings?

I approve the killing of human beings. If you're dumb enough to barge into someone's house, beat them, and try to take their things, I think they deserve a bullet. I would do the same. The moment the intruder produces a weapon, or commits violence against the victim is the moment they lose their right to life.

Very fierce of you. If you read the article in the OP, that's what Mr. Greer did. "Despite his injuries, Greer managed to grab his gun and fire at the suspects, causing them to flee through the garage and into the alley, police said." The point in question is not whether he was entitled to defend himself but whether he was also entitled to shoot someone who was running away from him and no longer a threat.

[The Alma Mater]

I approve the killing of human beings. If you're dumb enough to barge into someone's house, beat them, and try to take their things, I think they deserve a bullet. I would do the same. The moment the intruder produces a weapon, or commits violence against the victim is the moment they lose their right to life.

Very fierce of you. If you read the article in the OP, that's what Mr. Greer did. "Despite his injuries, Greer managed to grab his gun and fire at the suspects, causing them to flee through the garage and into the alley, police said." The point in question is not whether he was entitled to defend himself but whether he was also entitled to shoot someone who was running away from him and no longer a threat.

Well, that's what he said , isn't it ? He approves of the killing of human beings in this scenario.
So Mr Greer could have hunted him down across six states and would still be a hero.

[Farnhamia]

So you approve of killing human beings?

If you have a good reason for example killing an enemy soldier in war, killing someone that broke into your house, killing someone that's raping a woman, etc.

I only ask because you're so against what you call killing human beings in the abortion thread and I wondered, at the risk of a thread-jack, where you drew the line.

[Emrys Mercer]

It may not have been his right, but he shouldn't be punished. Considering what he's been through before, he was justified. People scoff at the idea of shooting and trying to scare off intruders, but almost guarantee you that few or no other degenerates will assault that man or illegally enter his home.

[Rephesus]

If you have a good reason for example killing an enemy soldier in war, killing someone that broke into your house, killing someone that's raping a woman, etc.

I only ask because you're so against what you call killing human beings in the abortion thread and I wondered, at the risk of a thread-jack, where you drew the line.

I'd go far enough to say it can be interpreted that he my believe unborn fetus' have a greater 'right to life' than a Criminal.

[The 502nd SS]

If you have a good reason for example killing an enemy soldier in war, killing someone that broke into your house, killing someone that's raping a woman, etc.

I only ask because you're so against what you call killing human beings in the abortion thread and I wondered, at the risk of a thread-jack, where you drew the line.

Fetus= Defenseless unborn child that has done nothing wrong except excist
Criminal= broke the law and can defend themselves.

[Farnhamia]

I only ask because you're so against what you call killing human beings in the abortion thread and I wondered, at the risk of a thread-jack, where you drew the line.

Fetus= Defenseless unborn child that has done nothing wrong except excist
Criminal= broke the law and can defend themselves.

Interesting, because the woman who was killed called out that she was pregnant and begged not to be shot. He shot her anyway. Now, it turns out that she was not pregnant, but Mr. Greer had no way of knowing that at the time. Should he have shot her anyway?

[Rephesus]

I only ask because you're so against what you call killing human beings in the abortion thread and I wondered, at the risk of a thread-jack, where you drew the line.

I'd go far enough to say it can be interpreted that he my believe unborn fetus' have a greater 'right to life' than a Criminal.

I only ask because you're so against what you call killing human beings in the abortion thread and I wondered, at the risk of a thread-jack, where you drew the line.

Fetus= Defenseless unborn child that has done nothing wrong except excist
Criminal= broke the law and can defend themselves.

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.

[The 502nd SS]

I only ask because you're so against what you call killing human beings in the abortion thread and I wondered, at the risk of a thread-jack, where you drew the line.

I'd go far enough to say it can be interpreted that he my believe unborn fetus' have a greater 'right to life' than a Criminal.

I feel that they deserve the chance to contribute to the world
Who knows how many potential world leaders have been murdered, or future scientist that would cure HIV or cancer.

[Farnhamia]

I'd go far enough to say it can be interpreted that he my believe unborn fetus' have a greater 'right to life' than a Criminal.

I feel that they deserve the chance to contribute to the world
Who knows how many potential world leaders have been murdered, or future scientist that would cure HIV or cancer.

And how many serial killers and genocidal maniacs and that's an empty comparison.

[The Alma Mater]

I'd go far enough to say it can be interpreted that he my believe unborn fetus' have a greater 'right to life' than a Criminal.

I feel that they deserve the chance to contribute to the world
Who knows how many potential world leaders have been murdered, or future scientist that would cure HIV or cancer.

Or burglars molesting old people

[Rephesus]

I'd go far enough to say it can be interpreted that he my believe unborn fetus' have a greater 'right to life' than a Criminal.

I feel that they deserve the chance to contribute to the world
Who knows how many potential world leaders have been murdered, or future scientist that would cure HIV or cancer.

Or terrorists, or criminals, or _____, really this isn't the place for it but frankly Criminals vary greatly. In this case, it was a duo who attacked a man in his home and tried to flee.

[The 502nd SS]

Fetus= Defenseless unborn child that has done nothing wrong except excist
Criminal= broke the law and can defend themselves.

Interesting, because the woman who was killed called out that she was pregnant and begged not to be shot. He shot her anyway. Now, it turns out that she was not pregnant, but Mr. Greer had no way of knowing that at the time. Should he have shot her anyway?

Now that's an interesting situation. He shouldn't have finished her off anyway but declaring she was pregnant isn't much of excuse when committing crimes.

[Magna Libero]

Outrageous. They can't just arrest him for defending himself and his property. This is what the state and the police will do; harming innocent people for the inevitable things that they had to do or harm people for no reason at all. The death of that female was a pity, but 101% her own fault.

My take on this, the guy should spend the remainder of his life in prison. Shooting once cool, he should have waited for the police to pick her up. Double tapping while down, not cool.

The old man might be a little slow, so he might easily lose his ground. Doing a mistake can happen even to the best warrior. That woman could crush the old man while they would be waiting for the police.

So they were running away and he kept shooting? That's not self-defense lol.

They were still in his house and they harmed the old man.

Well, thank God the woman wasn't really pregnant. I can understand the old man's intent - he shot at the intruders in self-defense, but, well, thank God he wasn't shooting at a pregnant woman, otherwise he would have also killed an unborn child and everyone (I mean everyone) would be calling for him to be imprisoned despite his age.

So, it's not that bad to hit or shoot a man, but it isn't okay at all to hit or shoot a woman? Wtf. Everyone are equal.

I approve the killing of human beings. If you're dumb enough to barge into someone's house, beat them, and try to take their things, I think they deserve a bullet. I would do the same. The moment the intruder produces a weapon, or commits violence against the victim is the moment they lose their right to life.

Very fierce of you. If you read the article in the OP, that's what Mr. Greer did. "Despite his injuries, Greer managed to grab his gun and fire at the suspects, causing them to flee through the garage and into the alley, police said." The point in question is not whether he was entitled to defend himself but whether he was also entitled to shoot someone who was running away from him and no longer a threat.

The couple harmed the old man, so sure he was entitled to shoot at them. It was his property. They should have ran faster.

At most this man should pay some fines, but it would be very awkward if they imprison this old man. But I don't think he should even pay any fines to the couple, because it was the couple's choice.