<p>
</p>
<p>California (where the incident occurred) does not specify a duty to retreat before using force to resist a crime.</p>
<p>The part of the incident which pulls it into a gray area (even in the states that are more lenient about deadly force while resisting a crime) is shooting the fleeing suspect outside the home in the back.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or more specifically, off of one’s own property. From the reports, it sounds like when he shot the burglar the second time, it took place off his property in the alleyway. </p>
<p>That along with the shooting in back after the first shot are parts where it enters the grey area. </p>
<p>One of the worst things in the Eastern LI case I cited other than the racial factor was also the fact it seems even if the White racist threatening mob had gone onto the property of the Black property owner and son, he could not have invoked self-defense until they broke into the actual house. Agree that aspect is dumb. </p>
<p>That and the fact the cops/DA never bothered to arrest and charge that racist mob for their actions that night…or the father of the shot racist teen when he publicly made a death threat against the property owner’s son after said owner was given a commutation/effective pardon and freed by the governor. </p>
<p>Regarding the pregnant plead, I guess this guy is old and can’t be fooled. Which pregnant woman would go rob other people?
I think the 80 man must be terrible shocked and very traumatic, that is why he talked so openly about shooting a pregnant woman. If he didn’t shoot them, there is no guarantee, there won’t be more thugs come back at night when he’s more vulnerable. Maybe 12 and not 2. You’ll never know. Hindsight is always 20/20.</p>
<p>Add anecdote here. Some drunken kids peed on the sidewalk next to our house and my husband called the police, they came out and said next to call right away, we don’t live in the kind of city that tolerate this sort of behavior. But the whole night, I was worrying about retribution. And my husband who is normally very calm got all excited, possibly stressful for him.</p>
<p>How many here would stop shooting once the assailant was over your property line if a loved one had just been brutally beaten, raped or murdered? In that moment they cross your property line does rationality set in immediately? Are you thinking clearly? I wouldn’t expect anyone would have that type of presence of mind.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how many have actually viewed the interview with Greer upon which almost all of the various news reports are based. If you have time, it’s worth watching. He seems to enjoy telling his story and is very proud of his kill, especially the message it sends to the partner of the dead woman. I have to wonder why he keeps $20,000 in his safe after repeated burglaries, but that’s certainly his right to do so.
<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>Is it possible that an 80 year old man that had been robbed four times and was beaten severely in the last robbery might have some sense of relief and vindication in killing one of his assailants? Would that be an unusual response? Given the circumstances involved I don’t find his response unusual. He was being victimized repeatedly, how could he not have been living in tremendous fear?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some reasons for self-defense laws to draw the line at what constitutes self-defense are:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If a criminal(s) is/are fleeing and is off your property, many who wrote those laws feel he/she/they no longer constitute an “imminent threat”.</p></li>
<li><p>They don’t want to encourage victims pursuing fleeing criminals once off property due to higher risks to victim him/herself as well as the possibility innocent bystanders on street or nearby homes may be struck by stray bullets. Especially considering in an adrenaline rush, most folks are more likely to miss and the risk to such bystanders is higher in more densely settled suburban and urban areas.</p></li>
<li><p>The lawmakers need to draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism somewhere. Else you get cases like that Texas firefighter who assumed he could invoke SYG self-defense because his next door neighbor was making too much noise at night, got fed up, walked over to neighbor’s property, and killed the neighbor. Turns out even Texas doesn’t consider that legitimate SYG/self-defense and said shooter ended up being sentenced to 40 years in prison for murder. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I know. I was just making a general statement with regard to those kinds of laws, which as far as I know, remain on the books in certain locations.</p>
<p>Interesting link with regard to which states have stand your ground laws, more limited castle doctrines, and duty to retreat:</p>
<p><a href=“http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html”>http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html</a></p>
<p>I specifically stated just over your property line in the immediate time frame that the event occurred. I asked how many here would stop shooting given the set of circumstances I described.
I am aware every situation has it’s own set of circumstances and there is no one size fits all. I am also aware of the need to be conscious of the safety of others. I just expect there would be consideration and latitude given to someone who was involved in this type of scenario.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And such consideration would have been more likely given by sympathetic cops/prosecutors had Greer not made the statements he did in that press interview. </p>
<p>With such statements, now the cops/prosecutors are legally bound to investigate further and possibly arrest/try him. He could have saved himself much trouble and facilitated any sympathetic cops/prosecutors’ efforts to help him had he not given that interview and said what he said which brings his legal claims of self-defense into question. </p>
<p>The interview is journalism at its “best”. The interviewer isn’t there to ask what happened, or to help inform the public. He’s there to attempt to get the old fellow to say something that will invite a prosecution for defending himself. Its as plain as day. I’d like to see an unedited tape of the entire interview to see if they’ve left anything out. I wonder if the journalist will bother to conduct a similar interview of the remaining crooks. </p>
<p>His lawyer will likely argue that his client had suffered head trauma and was not rational. It would only take 1 juror to believe him.</p>
<p>Also with the legal system we have, there are appeals after appeals and then he will be too old, or could be dead, who knows. if he is still alive, jail time will be like a nursing home to him. I don’t see the point of putting this guy in jail.</p>
<p>If I am defending myself in an attack, I doubt my mind would be able to think clearly enough to consider laws, my property line, etc. Chances are that I would keep shooting until I am out of ammo or the attacker can’t attack me.</p>
<p>I talked to my physician colleague who was convicted of assault and battery when he chased home invaders off of his property. He said he never realized he was off of his property until shortly before the cops came. All he was thinking about was saving his life.</p>
<p>He could plead PTSD. </p>
<p>^^^^I wouldn’t be at all surprised if his attorney hasn’t already decided on that strategy as part of his defense.</p>
<p>Too many here are defending this guy by saying they might do the same thing if they were under attack. I can say I would likely do the same if I were under attack. People have used phrases like “in my house” “defending myself in an attack” or “within my walls”.<br>
But so far, the circumstances in this case do not fit those defenses. He had been burglarized before. He suspected it was the same people. They were in his home, they had attacked him, but it appears he ran them down and shot at them after that was over. So he shot at them after the attack while they were running away and unarmed and off his property. I’m not saying he is or isn’t guilty of a crime- but some here don’t seem to grasp there is no evidence he was in imminent danger at the time he shot, particularly the second time. He wasn’t being attacked; the attack was over. For me, that makes it a grey area. That they might come back next week to burglarize again isn’t justification to shoot at that moment.
If the story out now holds true, it is very different than “If I’m attacked” or “within my walls”.</p>
<p>And by the way, I might have done the same as this guy, but that doesn’t mean I’d be right doing so. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Exactly. I made a similar point a page or so back. After being beaten up (likely in the head), terrified, the elderly man would not be rational. The DA is likely aware that any defense atty would successfully make that case, and while it would only take ONE juror, likely the whole kaboodle would believe him.</p>
<p>All he has to do is have the jury conjure up the image that this could have been their Nana or their PaPa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would not be surprised if the DA does not really want to prosecute, knows that getting a conviction would be difficult, and knows that a conviction would be a waste of prison space, but also does not want to encourage anything that might resemble vigilantism, and knows that shooting a fleeing suspect in the back outside the house likely falls outside of California’s justifiable homicide laws (and those of even the most lenient states for justifiable homicide).</p>
<p>So it would not be surprising to me if the DA took a long time deciding whether to prosecute, both to keep the shooter sweating over prosecution for a while and to let the incident be forgotten by the media and general public, then quietly not prosecute.</p>
<p>Of course, that is all my speculation.</p>
<p>^^
I agree with much of what you wrote, however, the thought of making some 80 year old VICTIM “sweat” sounds very cruel to me. </p>