Man Shoots Pregnant Woman Who Robbed His House

[cosmicfish]

<p>

This time difference can be eliminated by simply stipulating that the bat and gun were lying next to each other, and just as the perpetrator turns her back to flee, the man had the option to pick up the gun or the bat, and he choose the bat.

Even if we start the scenario from the time the weapon is picked up, the time scale is simply different - unless I missed something, we do not know that he pursued them into the alley, just that this is where the woman died. Was she shot on the way out of the house? Did he have a line of sight from his original position into the alley? He could potentially have done everything (with a gun) in a few seconds without even getting up off the floor. </p>

<p>Conversely, the bat scenario assumes that he gets up off the floor and pursues into the alley - that is the time issue I am talking about. Perhaps he did get up off the floor, and chase them into the alley… but I have not seen any evidence of such, nor do I see any reason to presume that a battered old man could move fast enough in that time frame to even have a shot at the slower assailant.</p>

[actingmt]

<p>Good point. He was an old man with a broken collar bone. Why are we assuming he went running into the alley? Maybe he just fired at his assailants and hit one. That is not the same as chasing her and beating her with a bat, imho.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>But he did chase her. And he shot her twice. And his interview suggests he intended to kill her.</p>

[frugaldoctor]

<p>Either he was a world class sprinter for his old age, the woman was slow as molasses or the distance was really short for the scenario to happen. I am sure the facts will support how a law abiding old man, who was probably in the middle of doing old man things, survived thugs who broke into his house, beat him like a rented mule, was able to chase a woman down to shoot her. The more I read on this thread the more I question the reported news story.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@awcntdb

I am not at all comfortable deciding how others should choose to lawfully defend themselves and what type of assault they should be expected to endure, irrespective of what the criminals do. I just do not get the come hit me, and I will purposely defend myself less approach to personal safety. I view the choice of lawful self-defense as a personal issue, not to be decided by others.

</p>

<p>However, the law has to draw the line somewhere between lawful self defense and vigilante retaliation. Different states have drawn the line in different places, although this particular incident probably crosses at least into a gray area in even the states with more lenient laws on lawful self defense. (And that does not really have to do with whether any guns are involved – if a weapon other than a gun were used, this particular legal issue would be the same.)</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@actingmt

There is a driving test involved, though. I doubt if a voting test would fly. But, yeah, we need to get back to the topic.

</p>

<p>Voting tests have been used in the past, although often the test and grading were designed or implemented to apply racial (or otherwise considered undesirable today) discrimination.</p>

[BunsenBurner]

<p>Re: slow woman. From what I gathered from one of the referenced articles, she was wounded by the first shot and collapsed in the alley. That’s where he found her and shot her again despite her pleas. It could be true, or it could be not true, or it could be something in between.</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

However, the law has to draw the line somewhere between lawful self defense and vigilante retaliation. Different states have drawn the line in different places, although this particular incident probably crosses at least into a gray area in even the states with more lenient laws on lawful self defense. (And that does not really have to do with whether any guns are involved.)

</p>

<p>Agreed. However, I do not see it applying here.</p>

<p>This is one sequence of events. Vigilante scenarios require planning and rational thought to execute a pre-meditated plan to get someone, as there is a well-thought out purpose and intent. There is nothing here that indicates that this man was being anything more than reactive and self-preserving in the heat of battle. Even if his intent was to kill, it does not meet the smell test of being a vigilante after being beaten immediately prior, at least in my book.</p>

<p>However, if he waited 2, 5, or 10 minutes and then decided to go shoot her, you have an argument that is worth serious consideration. But, then there would still be the issue of PSTD and him not thinking straight after just being beaten to contend with. </p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

Voting tests have been used in the past, although often the test and grading were designed or implemented to apply racial (or otherwise considered undesirable today) discrimination.

</p>

<p>I do think it is only fair to assume actingmt meant today, as in it would not fly today. Just like slavery would not fly today, but existed in the past.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>Should do wonders for tourism.
<a href=“Controversial Iowa Law Raises Questions Over Gun Permits for the Blind - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/US/controversial-iowa-law-grants-permits-blind-carry-guns/story?id=20204245&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I am now reminded of all those Cheney jokes.</p>

[momsquad]

<p>

He was an old man with a broken collar bone.

</p>

<p>This battered helpless old man, by his own account, dragged the dead woman back onto his property after he killed her. </p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@awcntdb

This is one sequence of events. Vigilante scenarios require planning and rational thought to execute a pre-meditated plan to get someone, as there is a well-thought out purpose and intent.

</p>

<p>Vigilantism does not necessarily require planning or rational thought. For example, rival criminal gangs might attempt vigilante attacks against each other based on encountering an opportunity, rather than planning them out beforehand.</p>

<p>

@awcntdb

There is nothing here that indicates that this man was being anything more than reactive and self-preserving in the heat of battle. Even if his intent was to kill, it does not meet the smell test of being a vigilante after being beaten immediately prior, at least in my book.

</p>

<p>Was the female suspect already wounded and down when he fired the killing shot? If so, then the self-preservation motivation becomes weaker, because the escaped male suspect whose whereabouts were unknown and could theoretically return with more firepower would be a much greater threat. Indeed, it may have been better to not use any more ammunition on the wounded and down female suspect in order to have it in case the male suspect returned and needed to be resisted.</p>

<p>In any case, the law in even the more lenient states for self defense stops short of clearly making the killing in this scenario legal. While a conviction may be unlikely (and the DA may not prosecute at all), it is not so clear cut as you describe.</p>

[frugaldoctor]

<p>Now this old man seems like a Crossfit athlete. He suffers a broken collarbone, chases her into an alley and then drags her all the way back onto his property. Do we know how far away the alley is from his property?</p>

[momsquad]

<p>

Was the female suspect already wounded and down when he fired the killing shot?

</p>

<p>Greer didn’t mention details of the timing of the two shots in his interview, but columnist Navarrette claimed she was wounded and down before the lethal shot. Not sure if the journalist had other sources of information, or if he was taking license with the story given by Greer. At some point the evidence analysis should help fill in the blanks. </p>

[Torveaux]

<p>Apparently, very few of you have even been in this sort of situation. The human body is capable of many things when pumped up with adrenaline. The brain also filters out unimportant details. At the time, it is unlikely he was consciously aware of the property line or even really what she was saying or doing. Of course, the brain still records everything and fills in details that are not readily available or sometimes unpleasant. </p>

<p>Thought experiment: I would keep hitting someone with my bat until they were truly incapacitated. Maybe that results in death, maybe not.</p>

<p>If she were down on the ground, that would not necessarily mean she could not get back up and cause him harm. She lied about being pregnant, maybe she just went down because she was a bad runner and figured he would not pull the trigger.</p>

<p>In general, there are a lot of paper tigers on this thread. </p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>Looks like a pretty nice neighborhood. Seven bedrooms?
His house was also on the corner & looks to take up the bulk of the lot.
As soon as the burglars ran out of the house, they would have just been steps away from the alley.</p>

[cosmicfish]

<p>For clarity, the police said “While the suspects continued to burglarize the home, [Greer] was able to retrieve a gun from another room in the house. He returned to confront the suspects and fired his gun at them while they were still inside his house,” said Chief McDonnell. Police said Greer followed the suspects as they fled the house with what they had stolen and fatally shot Miller outside in an alley.</p>

<p>So apparently he was healthy enough to be up and walking around, that does make it more deliberate. I am curious as to whether or not the fact that they were still carrying his stolen property plays into the law - they were still in the commission of a crime at the time he fired. It does not indicate (anywhere I can see) that the woman was on the ground when she was shot the second time.</p>

<p><a href=“Police in Long Beach, California mull charges for Tom Greer, 80, who fatally shot female burglar who said she was pregnant - CBS News”>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-man-80-to-face-charges-for-fatally-shooting-burglar/&lt;/a&gt; </p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

For example, rival criminal gangs might attempt vigilante attacks against each other based on encountering an opportunity, rather than planning them out beforehand…

</p>

<p>Of course, BUT this not in the middle of a fight. Opportunism should not be confused with being reactive in a live situation. </p>

<p>The example you cite is vigilantism because they saw an opportunity, were NOT in actual danger, were not being attacked, and they did quickly plan and CHOOSE to attack. No way near the same as reacting in the middle of an actual fight where you were not the initial aggressor.</p>

<p>The qualitative difference is the gang above could have seen the other gang and could have calmly and rationally chosen to walk away. There is NO such thought process going on when when your life is perceived as in danger; at such a time, one is instinctively in fight or flight mode. Literally, self-preservation at all costs.</p>

<p>

…If so, then the self-preservation motivation becomes weaker…

</p>

<p>For the lawyers, sure. For the people living the actual situation, no.</p>

<p>Hormones re endorphins, adrenaline, epinephrine and a couple others do not have rationally-controlled “OK, I shut down now and instantly go back to normal” buttons. (Could not happen anyway because of their half-lives, even if there was an instant shut-off switch).</p>

<p>When triggered in the situation the man experienced, the body could stay in fight or flight mode sometimes for hours and days really depending on the level of trauma, which is individual specific per situation. This is why cops often tell family members after such events to be careful for a day or two or three because X might be jumpy and may lash out without meaning to at a noise or a quick movement and accidentally hurt someone. </p>

<p>These elevated hormone levels can even exist until the person burns so much energy “being up” that they just pass out. Given this, why in the world is anyone expecting rational thought just 15 or 30 seconds after being attacked and hormone levels are now peaking? Only lawyers can think that is medically and humanly possible. </p>

<p>I have to agree with @Torveaux here - way too much technical lawyering in the past tense and not enough medical understanding of “Holy crap, I was just beaten and will possibly be killed here, and my hormones are thru the roof” on this thread.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@awcntdb

Given this, why in the world is anyone expecting rational thought just 15 or 30 seconds after being attacked and hormone levels are now peaking?

</p>

<p>It is quite understandable that people’s thirst for revenge gets stronger when they get “hot” after being attacked (whether actually, or in perception, and not necessarily physically). That is why riots can be easy to incite in some situations, and why long running conflicts (e.g. Israelis and Palestinians, or more mundane situations like divorced ex-spouses suing each other over what others consider trivial matters) go on despite it being in almost everyone’s self-interest to make peace and move on. But thirst for revenge often results in people costing or risking themselves in order to harm others.</p>

<p>Of course, that thirst for revenge is understandable does not mean that acts of revenge are necessarily legal or desirable.</p>

<p>

@awcntdb

way too much technical lawyering in the past tense and not enough medical understanding of “Holy crap, I was just beaten and will possibly be killed here, and my hormones are thru the roof” on this thread.

</p>

<p>However, in terms of the possibility that he may be in legal jeopardy, the law as it exists, where it draws the line on self defense, and whether he crossed it, is what matters, not what the medical understanding of his state is.</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>^^^^Isn’t state of mind often considered in criminal cases, particularly in cases where self defense is alleged?</p>