Old Man Kills Intruder

[Tekania]

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.

DA is really mostly a politician.... depending on public perception a DA may file charges that they can't win merely to show the public a desire to do something about a case. However, the public stances in this case seem to not be that strong overall in one direction.... I've a feeling based on the controversial element of the case, the lack of a chance to win, and the unlikelihood of the action been a boon to constituency views; that the DA will not ultimately file charges.

[Soselo]

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?

To surrender so as to avoid being pelted by bullets.

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

Actually, considering the unlikelihood/absence of premeditation (getting beaten and robbed from likely to result in a good deal of passion, not inviting planning of much of anything) and mens rea beyond 'they were just beating me!', first degree is pretty much out the window.

[Fartsniffage]

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

DA is really mostly a politician.... depending on public perception a DA may file charges that they can't win merely to show the public a desire to do something about a case. However, the public stances in this case seem to not be that strong overall in one direction.... I've a feeling based on the controversial element of the case, the lack of a chance to win, and the unlikelihood of the action been a boon to constituency views; that the DA will not ultimately file charges.

And what's your opinion on that?

[Ratateague]

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.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I was probably thrown off by this part:
"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."

[Scomagia]

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?

Brace yourself. Batman.......isn't real.

[Trotskylvania]

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.

The law prohibits vigilante justice and dueling to the death. If you reasonably fear for your life and cannot retreat, or are in your home where you have no duty to retreat, you can use deadly force.

The law does not give too many rights to criminals. It simply doesn't let ITGs like you be Judge Dredd. When you chase after someone who is fleeing you and kill them, that's murder, full stop. And I will not abide the kind of anarchy you're peddling.

[Ratateague]

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?

To surrender so as to avoid being pelted by bullets.

So run towards the bullets so as to appeal to the shooter. Got it.

[Soselo]

But what about Batman?

Brace yourself. Batman.......isn't real.

It is in his best interest for you to think so.

[Viritica]

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?

They'd just got done beating him. And he'd been robbed four times before. I think it's safe to say he felt threatened.

[Viritica]

But what about Batman?

Brace yourself. Batman.......isn't real.

Dream killer.

[New Acardia]

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?

They beat him .
In fact there should be a law any one who is killed while commenting a violent crime that's your tough luck .
Also the thug bitch would still be alive if she did not break in to Mr. Geer's house and beat him .

[Soselo]

To surrender so as to avoid being pelted by bullets.

So run towards the bullets so as to appeal to the shooter. Got it.

A safer alternative to near-certain death, certain death when the second shot had not yet been discharged.

[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.

Actually, considering the unlikelihood/absence of premeditation (getting beaten and robbed from likely to result in a good deal of passion, not inviting planning of much of anything) and mens rea beyond 'they were just beating me!', first degree is pretty much out the window.

No. Having the presence of mind to retrieve a pistol, and then give chase when they flee is proof of malice aforethought. The act of leaving the place of safety and giving chase is proof of premeditation.

This not a matter of heat of passion. Heat of passion is an affirmative, impartial defense. It'll bring you down to involuntary manslaughter at best, and it's very difficult to prove, and this man shows none of the signs. Heat of passion means the defendant can at best hazily recollect what actually happened. They're scattered, and usually horrified by what they did. This person in the interview showed himself to be completely lucid during the events, and incriminated himself. He acknowledged her pleas for her life and openly stated that he consciously disregarded them.

This is a textbook case, and the poor devil wasn't smart enough to lawyer up before he shot his mouth off to the media.

[Tekania]

DA is really mostly a politician.... depending on public perception a DA may file charges that they can't win merely to show the public a desire to do something about a case. However, the public stances in this case seem to not be that strong overall in one direction.... I've a feeling based on the controversial element of the case, the lack of a chance to win, and the unlikelihood of the action been a boon to constituency views; that the DA will not ultimately file charges.

And what's your opinion on that?

My opinion on that is it is the price to pay in a "of-the-people" type legal system as ours. I don't like it all the time, but I also would not want to do away with it.

[Ratateague]

So run towards the bullets so as to appeal to the shooter. Got it.

A safer alternative to near-certain death, certain death when the second shot had not yet been discharged.

And the shooter would not misconstrue someone, that he'd just shot, running towards him as anything else but reconciliation.

[Scomagia]

Brace yourself. Batman.......isn't real.

Dream killer.

It hurt me too when I found out. It hurt me too. *Sniffles*

[Scomagia]

Defending himself by shooting people who posed no immediate danger?

They beat him .
In fact there should be a law any one who is killed while commenting a violent crime that's your tough luck .
Also the thug bitch would still be alive if she did not break in to Mr. Geer's house and beat him .

Do you get paid a dollar or something every-time you call a woman a bitch?

[Trotskylvania]

Defending himself by shooting people who posed no immediate danger?

They'd just got done beating him. And he'd been robbed four times before. I think it's safe to say he felt threatened.

Self-defense requires imminence. There must be a clear and present danger to your life. And it must be reasonable. In California, an objective reasonable person standard is employed for self-defense.

When the assailants flee, the imminent danger is over and your right to use deadly force ends. And when you leave your home, the place of safety, and give chase and kill someone, that's murder.

Stop defending murderers. Quit being pro-criminal.

[Gauthier]

They'd just got done beating him. And he'd been robbed four times before. I think it's safe to say he felt threatened.

Self-defense requires imminence. There must be a clear and present danger to your life. And it must be reasonable. In California, an objective reasonable person standard is employed for self-defense.

When the assailants flee, the imminent danger is over and your right to use deadly force ends. And when you leave your home, the place of safety, and give chase and kill someone, that's murder.

Stop defending murderers. Quit being pro-criminal.

People just love Grand Theft Auto wet dreams where they can shoot anyone they want and not face consequences for it.

[Infected Mushroom]

Self-defense requires imminence. There must be a clear and present danger to your life. And it must be reasonable. In California, an objective reasonable person standard is employed for self-defense.

When the assailants flee, the imminent danger is over and your right to use deadly force ends. And when you leave your home, the place of safety, and give chase and kill someone, that's murder.

Stop defending murderers. Quit being pro-criminal.

People just love Grand Theft Auto wet dreams where they can shoot anyone they want and not face consequences for it.

I call Strawman

[Soselo]

Death was not certain before the assailant fled and the second shot was fired, we should not rule out the possibility of surrender.

[New Acardia]

They beat him .
In fact there should be a law any one who is killed while commenting a violent crime that's your tough luck .
Also the thug bitch would still be alive if she did not break in to Mr. Geer's house and beat him .

Do you get paid a dollar or something every-time you call a woman a bitch?

I call then as I see them and her actions say thug bitch .

[Viritica]

They'd just got done beating him. And he'd been robbed four times before. I think it's safe to say he felt threatened.

Self-defense requires imminence. There must be a clear and present danger to your life. And it must be reasonable. In California, an objective reasonable person standard is employed for self-defense.

When the assailants flee, the imminent danger is over and your right to use deadly force ends. And when you leave your home, the place of safety, and give chase and kill someone, that's murder.

Stop defending murderers. Quit being pro-criminal.

This is Castle Doctrine we're talking about here. They were on his property and he'd been robbed four times before. They'd just got done beating him and who's to say they wouldn't return? It's reasonable to say he would think they'd harm him again the future.

Stop trying to re-victimize this man.

[Geilinor]

Self-defense requires imminence. There must be a clear and present danger to your life. And it must be reasonable. In California, an objective reasonable person standard is employed for self-defense.

When the assailants flee, the imminent danger is over and your right to use deadly force ends. And when you leave your home, the place of safety, and give chase and kill someone, that's murder.

Stop defending murderers. Quit being pro-criminal.

This is Castle Doctrine we're talking about here. They were on his property and he'd been robbed four times before. They'd just got done beating him and who's to say they wouldn't return? It's reasonable to say he would think they'd harm him again the future.

Stop trying to re-victimize this man.

The castle doctrine applies when there is an imminent threat. The threat had stopped and the robber was retreating.