Old Man Kills Intruder

[Viritica]

Are you kidding me? I mean, I despise Nazis, but their uniforms were glorious. Simple yet eloquent.

The SS officer uniforms were redonkulous.

Those wierd puffed up thigh bag things.

I think that was mostly the officers. The regular guys had normal uniforms.

[The Liberated Territories]

The obvious solution here would be to ban old people. After all, how many times do we hear of young people killing intruders? this is sarcasm obv

[Britannic Realms]

Those idiot robbers deserved it. Maybe if they had thought about being killed before going round trying to steal things. If I were in a position to do so, I would give that man a knighthood.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Those idiot robbers deserved it. Maybe if they had thought about being killed before going round trying to steal things. If I were in a position to do so, I would give that man a knighthood.

Law doesn't work that way.

[Britannic Realms]

Those idiot robbers deserved it. Maybe if they had thought about being killed before going round trying to steal things. If I were in a position to do so, I would give that man a knighthood.

Law doesn't work that way.

That's why it needs to be reformed. In my opinion, his actions were perfectly acceptable.

[Unggoy Star Empire]

If you get beaten, and you get robbed, is it wrong to shoot someone? And I mean, was he really to believe a Pregnant Woman was robbing him? Is the idea here, "How dare he try to get the Things they robbed from him back?"

[Infected Mushroom]

Law doesn't work that way.

That's why it needs to be reformed. In my opinion, his actions were perfectly acceptable.

Indeed. He was just avenging his honor.

The law should be changed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm going to go, based on this article, with it not being self-defense once they were out of the property and into the alley; which is where the alleged shooting took place while she was running away.

The only thing is that due to the circumstances I don't think he should be charged with murder, or given a severe penalty; but rather a relatively minor penalty.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

If you get beaten, and you get robbed, is it wrong to shoot someone? And I mean, was he really to believe a Pregnant Woman was robbing him? Is the idea here, "How dare he try to get the Things they robbed from him back?"

Not the case. He pulled the gun, and fired and fled the scene, leaving the stuff. He persued and killed out of vengeance.

[Infected Mushroom]

If you get beaten, and you get robbed, is it wrong to shoot someone? And I mean, was he really to believe a Pregnant Woman was robbing him? Is the idea here, "How dare he try to get the Things they robbed from him back?"

Some people value the rights of criminals way too much

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's why it needs to be reformed. In my opinion, his actions were perfectly acceptable.

Indeed. He was just avenging his honor.

The law should be changed.

We used to do that in Latin America.

We changed the law kind of because of exactly the "honor" bit.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

That's why it needs to be reformed. In my opinion, his actions were perfectly acceptable.

Indeed. He was just avenging his honor.

The law should be changed.

Vengeance is not defensible, and honestly is fucking bullshit. Honor killings are barbaric and uncivilized.

[Reploid Productions]

But the thug bitch lied .
Ether way the thug bitch would still be alive if she did not brake in to the old man's house in the first place.

It seems to me that some people want to turn this thug bitch in to the victim . And the old man that this thug bitch beat in to a criminal for defending himself .

The thug bitch did seem to care about his life when the bitch was beating him .
So let's not turn this thug bitch in to the victim .

She would not have been killed in the first place if the bitch did not brake in to the old man's house and beat him .

And my point is the bitch would still be alive if she did not break in to a 80 year old man's house and beat him . So the bitch is no victim .

If the thug bitch did not break in to Mr. Greer's house.
The thug bitch would not got her thug ass killed in the first plac.

While it's unlikely that the dead intruder is or was an NS player, how about we argue our points without the needlessly incendiary language that serves no other purpose to the discussion save for to get people riled up? There are plenty of ways to argue whether or not the dead person deserved to be shot for what they did that don't require excessively flamebaiting expressions such as "thug bitch." I would recommend you consider using some of those, and quickly.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Glorious ReBublic of Alevstan]

That's why it needs to be reformed. In my opinion, his actions were perfectly acceptable.

Indeed. He was just avenging his honor.

The law should be changed.

Yes. Remove juries, now it's trial by combat! If you're rich enough, just bribe your nation's leader so you can be a noble and hang your enemies! Perfect, right?

[Roski]

Indeed. He was just avenging his honor.

The law should be changed.

Yes. Remove juries, now it's trial by combat! If you're rich enough, just bribe your nation's leader so you can be a noble and hang your enemies! Perfect, right?

That's not close to what he said, but nice strawman either way.

[Glorious ReBublic of Alevstan]

Yes. Remove juries, now it's trial by combat! If you're rich enough, just bribe your nation's leader so you can be a noble and hang your enemies! Perfect, right?

That's not close to what he said, but nice strawman either way.

I know. Most of this thread is pointless arguing over this anyways.

[Imperializt Russia]

There's this little law that allows you to protect yourself from home invaders or criminals, he had the complete right to protect himself.

Not if the criminals were no longer within his property.

That is not a provision, that's an interpretation. An equally valid interpretation of the law suggests that he was justified in shooting the woman once she had left the property because a situation of grave physical harm is not a game of keepaway. It doesn't have boundaries.

Retreating does not pacify you, surrendering does.
Pretty sure the police would quite happily tell you this. As would the army.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Not if the criminals were no longer within his property.

That is not a provision, that's an interpretation. An equally valid interpretation of the law suggests that he was justified in shooting the woman once she had left the property because a situation of grave physical harm is not a game of keepaway. It doesn't have boundaries.

Retreating does not pacify you, surrendering does.
Pretty sure the police would quite happily tell you this. As would the army.

With exception to the Cambodian and Pakistani borders.

Although that was only the 'official' stance.

[New Waterford]

What the intruders did was wrong, and they deserved to be punished, but the woman didn't deserve to die.

[Chestaan]

If you get beaten, and you get robbed, is it wrong to shoot someone? And I mean, was he really to believe a Pregnant Woman was robbing him? Is the idea here, "How dare he try to get the Things they robbed from him back?"

More like "How dare he shoot a person on the ground who is not threat to him".

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Not if the criminals were no longer within his property.

That is not a provision, that's an interpretation. An equally valid interpretation of the law suggests that he was justified in shooting the woman once she had left the property because a situation of grave physical harm is not a game of keepaway. It doesn't have boundaries.

Retreating does not pacify you, surrendering does.
Pretty sure the police would quite happily tell you this. As would the army.

Actually, A. The police won't, and B. It doesn't matter what the Army would say, their jobs and RoE are for different situations and environments. (Important to note this is against comparable military RoE as well).

This isn't a war, it's suburban California. Castle doctrine and reasonable standard of self defense both state that once assailant is fleeing, threat no longer exists, and any further action is now offensive as opposed to defensive.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1. They had left his home. 2. The "castle doctrine" does not apply. 3. The use of deadly force requires a reasonable, imminent fear for your life. Fleeing criminals don't satisfy that.

4. Your assuming a whole lot of shit. You don't know if they had robbed him before. He was robbed before, 5. but there's no evidence that it was them. And there's no reason to suppose they would again. And even if there were, the law requires a imminent fear for your life. This man is a murderer. 6. He stopped being the victim when he disregarded the law, and decided that he got to be judge, jury and executioner.

1. Were they not still on his property?

In an interview with KNBC, Greer said that as the suspects ran into the alley, Miller yelled, "'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!' and I shot her anyway."

I'm pretty sure last time I checked the back alley of my house wasn't my property.

[The Alma Mater]

1. Were they not still on his property?

I'm pretty sure last time I checked the back alley of my house wasn't my property.

Mine is.. so we cannot safely conclude that.
Not that I personally consider it relevant

[Greed and Death]

http://www.wklaw.com/voluntary-manslaug ... penalties/

This is a likely outcome. A Plea deal for voluntary manslaughter. 6 months in a county Jail Probation likely for the rest of his life.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

http://www.wklaw.com/voluntary-manslaughter-sentencing-penalties/

This is a likely outcome. A Plea deal for voluntary manslaughter. 6 months in a county Jail Probation likely for the rest of his life.

Probation can be worse than jail in some aspects