<p>The woman’s last words were a lie. She wasn’t pregnant. He probably should not have shot her but I cannot image a jury giving a hoot whether he did so. Good riddance to her. </p>
<p>Wow! They kept beating a 80 year old homeowner and broke his collar bone AND this may have been the 4th time they broke into his house!?!?!? That’s pretty upsetting! Who is to say he didn’t fear they would return with a weapon, considering how much harm they did to him without one. I’m opposed to vigilantes, but these two thugs burglars sound pretty brazen and nasty.</p>
<p>I say this, should you decide to break into someone’s home, you are asking for whatever awaits beyond those walls. How is one supposed to think rationally in the heat of the moment? His home was violated, he was beaten. Can one be expected to have balanced/lucid thoughts at a time like that? I’d be issed off too!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As someone whose house was burglarized two weeks ago tomorrow night around 1:15AM, I can say I could never have a gun in the house. Because I was not thinking rationally at that point, I could barely get the words out to the dispatcher at 911 that they needed to send the cops right away. I had no idea what was going on, and who was where; H yelled at the burglar from the top of the stairs, right outside our bedroom, then all I heard were footsteps on the stairs. I had no idea if they were from H going down, or the burglar coming up. Then I heard absolutely nothing for about 30 seconds (during which time I called 911). I had no idea who was in the house at that point, and where they were; if I’d had a gun and used it, I could have just as easily shot H exactly because I did NOT have balanced thoughts at that moment. Even H (staunch believer in the second amendment) said later (when my sister-in-law from Texas suggested I come down there and have my brother teach me how to shoot), that would have been disproportionate to the crime. The guy wanted goods, not people and took off as soon as H yelled at him. If he’d been armed or wanted something to do with us and had a weapon, he would not have run when H yelled. But I learned that I go into a mode of freezing up, and would not have had the wherewithal to get a gun out from somewhere, aim it and shoot it. </p>
<p>If the lady was shot while running away, he should be prosecuted. </p>
<p>Note that, even in Texas, such a shooting may or may not be legal, depending on the details. Penal Law 9.32 allows for deadly force in defense of a person, but does not cover fleeing suspects. Penal Law 9.42 allows for deadly force to protect or recover property from a burglar or robber, including a burglar or robber fleeing with the property, but it is not clear whether the suspects in this case actually had any stolen property as they fled.</p>
<p><a href=“PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY”>PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY;
<p>Regardless of what the actual law says, this kind of case may be hard to get a conviction on.</p>
<p>I believe that a person who is under attack who wants to save their life will no longer think as a rational person who has time to reflect on the situation. That is where people make their mistake. After being brutalized, we expect that law abiding citizen to think rationally and recognize that a person is fleeing, they aren’t running to retrieve a weapon and come back, to reflect on the laws, and not to shoot a person in their back. Ok, this is a bunch of BS!!! We know that homeowner would have never shot someone in the back if they were never attacked. The attacker should be held responsible for being shot in the back! Not a homeowner who is acting on fear, after escaping with his life.</p>
<p>Let’s attack an engineer in the same manner, then give him/her several physics problems to do and then criticize them for computational errors. That’s what we are asking here. I know what the laws say, but IMO they are unreasonable under the circumstances.</p>
<p>Moral: never give an interview after you’ve shot somebody to death. Talk to your lawyer first.</p>
<p>The guy is 80 and was beaten. He’ll probably never see the inside of a jail. But most likely he committed murder under the law.</p>
<p>At least this case doesn’t involve race.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone was thinking clearly in this situation. The burglars were most likely drug addicts desperate for their next fix. The homeowner, at 80, is probably suffering some level of dementia. And it gives me pause to realize how many people feel that burglary and assault warrants the death penalty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, a different state and the involvement of race as a factor in a similar home trespass/confrontation with a gun ended differently for a Black Long Island man who was confronted by a threatening group of racist White youths threatening and chasing his son right onto his property. </p>
<p>Even though one of the youths was allegedly lunging for his gun and reports confirmed the youth was shot at a range of less than 3 inches*, the Black property owner/victim and father of victim ended up being sentenced to a prison term and only a governor’s pardon freed him as seen here: </p>
<p><a href=“Man Set Free in Teen's Racially Charged Death - CBS News”>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-set-free-in-teens-racially-charged-death/</a></p>
<ul>
<li>Wasn’t shot in the back.</li>
</ul>
<p>New York is more restrictive than California (or Texas) on the use of deadly force in resistance to a crime.
<a href=“Article 35 NY Penal Law - Defense of Justification | NY Laws”>Article 35 NY Penal Law - Defense of Justification | NY Laws;
(Note the explicit duty to retreat in some cases in New York but not in California or Texas.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this goes for anything involving police in which you are held for questioning, even college students. I told my wife and kids that if anything occurs that involves police thinking they did something and are thinking on questioning them, call our lawyer first, then me. He is paid handsomely to be on standby for any reason. </p>
<p>“I don’t think anyone was thinking clearly in this situation. The burglars were most likely drug addicts desperate for their next fix. The homeowner, at 80, is probably suffering some level of dementia. And it gives me pause to realize how many people feel that burglary and assault warrants the death penalty”</p>
<p>Someone breaks into your house and beats you up, an elderly man, maybe for the fourth time?</p>
<p>It does warrant the death penalty. And if you think you can break into someone’s house, beat and rob them, and not be killed? Maybe you should be removed from the gene pool if you are that stupid.</p>
<p>"I believe that a person who is under attack who wants to save their life will no longer think as a rational person who has time to reflect on the situation. That is where people make their mistake. After being brutalized, we expect that law abiding citizen to think rationally and recognize that a person is fleeing, they aren’t running to retrieve a weapon and come back, to reflect on the laws, and not to shoot a person in their back. Ok, this is a bunch of BS!!! We know that homeowner would have never shot someone in the back if they were never attacked. The attacker should be held responsible for being shot in the back! Not a homeowner who is acting on fear, after escaping with his life.</p>
<p>Let’s attack an engineer in the same manner, then give him/her several physics problems to do and then criticize them for computational errors. That’s what we are asking here. I know what the laws say, but IMO they are unreasonable under the circumstances."</p>
<p>Perfectly written.</p>
<p>People think they can analyze exactly how everyone should react, in such a nice, calm, rational manner. Put violence, deadly fear and adrenalin in a situation, and anything can happen.</p>
<p>You break into someone’s house, rob and attack them, then prepare to die. It is very possible.</p>
<p>Makes me want to go out and buy a gun today. Anyone who breaks into my home can expect the same fate. I bet Dr. William Petit’s family wished they owned a gun in 2007.</p>
<p>@Goldenpooch </p>
<p>What a horrible case. It’s been exactly 7 years, 4 days. That family has never left me. The youngest, Michaela, was the the exact same age as my own DD. I think of her every year on her birthday. I believe she too would be a college freshman this fall. Absolutely tragic.</p>
<p>The elderly gentleman will never see jail time, nor should he. It is to bad tremendous governmental and legal resources will be spent in the examination and pursuit of this. I have absolutely no issue with the gentlemans morality. None of us know what we would have done under those same circumstances. To think we do is arrogant. Fleeing, not fleeing? Who cares, they just beat the hell out of him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seriously? In what state? I don’t know of any state where sentencing guidelines make the death penalty an option for burglary or assault. This is the problem with assessing individual cases in an emotional state. Have you heard the adage that hard cases make bad law?</p>
<p>I agree @GreatKid, we don’t know…it’s easy to play Monday-morning quarterback from the safety of our own homes. I also feel like one gives up their rights when one burglarizes a home & does harm to the occupants.</p>
<p>Dr. Petitt’s family was attacked by homicidal madmen; nihilists who had every intention of indiscriminately killing anyone who got in they way of their robbery. I don’t think an armed Petitt family would have deterred the killers. But for the old gentleman in California, his gun made a difference. The SOBs (including the female) who victimized him were convinced that he was an easy mark, evidenced by the repeated burglaries. He knew that they felt they could come back whenever they wanted to. I’m guessing that he tried to get the police to do something, but the cops likely told him that he should just move away. I’ve seen it happen. The old fellow had nowhere to turn. That’s how his mind may have imagined his frightening situation.</p>
<p>The ‘death penalty’ is state punishment. The state punishes criminals who were not caught in the act where there may be some doubt. The sentencing guidelines are written to accommodate that scenario, not one where there is a threat.</p>
<p>How does living peaceably in one’s home warrant a ‘beating’ penalty or the ‘forfeiture of assets’ penalty? </p>
<p>Once the home invasion begins victims enter a ‘fight or flight’ mental state that is part of all of our biology. The travesty here is that any state believes it has the right to prohibit or restrict an individual from defending their property or person with whatever force they deem in that moment to be appropriate. It is not like the guy hunted them down in their homes, they came to his home. If we have more people take action and be hailed as this guy should be, there would be fewer people entering homes to steal, maim, rape, etc.</p>