<p>The DA probably does not want to give him a “free pass” for going beyond what California’s justifiable homicide laws (or those in even more lenient states) allow, nor set a precedent that encourages others to go beyond that threshold, even though the result in this case was not the kind of result that people worry about (shooting an innocent who was mistaken for a criminal or because a shot missed the intended target).</p>
<p>And we can’t be certain that a jury would acquit. As prosecutors and defense lawyers often say, most jurors carry their responsibility very dutifully and deliberately. They look at the facts of the case and the laws that are explained to them by the lawyers and the judge. Yes, emotion and personal bias can inter into one man or one woman’s verdict vote, but in the main most people try to be objective. The real problem with juries in the U.S. today is the “celebrity juror” phenomena where some folks try to cash in on their jury duty, or seek fame from it.</p>
<p>Never turn your back on anyone with a gun. It’s much harder for them to shoot you if they can see your eyes.
But never break into someones house, is a given.</p>
<p>Hard cases make bad law. That’s an old legal axiom that applies in this case.</p>
<p>This case is hard because the shooter is 80 years old and the burglars beat him up and injured him. As I said above, if the facts are as we’ve read them, he almost certainly committed the actions that constitute murder in every state. The bad law part is that it’s highly unlikely that he’ll be prosecuted or convicted of any crime, and the result is that some other people will think it’s OK to gun down somebody who’s running away from you.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the very best thing would be to find that he does have dementia, and for the prosecutor to say that this was murder, but that there appears to be a valid mental capacity defense.</p>
<p>If you watch the interview with Greer, he claims he sustained his shoulder injury in a fall. He says he was tackled when he entered his home, but does not mention any “savage beating”. He does not look like he was beaten, and he had no trouble dragging the woman’s body back to his property after he shot her. The thieves could have killed him, beaten him senseless or even tied him up-but they didn’t. They were con artists and made a habit of targeting the elderly. They deserved to be locked away for a long time, but I do not believe they deserved to be shot in the back. Here is an excellent evaluation of the legal implications of the case:</p>
<p><a href=“Self-Defense | Tom Greer | Andrea Miller | Gus Adams”>http://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2014/07/pro-tip-shooting-fleeing-women-in-the-back-is-not-self-defense/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interestingly, the author makes the point that when the woman was fleeing from the gunshots it would have been within her rights to use deadly force to protect herself from Greer. The incident should be good law school fodder for some time to come. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends on the jury pool and case concerned. If the senior burglary victim happens to get jurors who felt his shooting a fleeing burglar twice in the back after pleading with one of both shots occurring off his property and then feeling he gloated about it proudly to the press is excessive and exhibits a sign of dubious moral character, he’s in trouble. </p>
<p>The shooting the fleeing burglar twice in the back itself may be troubling for some otherwise staunch pro-self-defense folks raised in cultures where shooting/hitting someone when they’re already fleeing and giving up the fight/attack is considered a sign of dubious character or worse, cowardice on his part. The fact he also gave a press interview where he could be viewed as bragging about it and undermining possible claims he was acting in a “fight or flight” “heat of the moment” response. </p>
<p>^^^^In California, all 12 jurors must agree to a guilty verdict. I don’t think it will be that difficult for a good defense attorney to get one juror to dissent IF he can get his client to stop talking. If he can get even one dissenting juror, it’s a mistrial, at which point the prosecutors have to consider whether or not it is worth it to retry him. </p>
<p>Just looking at the sympathy the shooter has received on this thread makes me think a defense attorney would have to like his odds that he could convince at least one juror to be in his client’s corner.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t want to risk going to a jury with this case if I were the defense lawyer. Juries will often follow the lead of a single person on the jury. If the prosecutor wanted to go forward with this case, perhaps they could end up with a plea to some crime minor enough to keep the guy out of prison. He’s 80–it wouldn’t be a big deal for him to be on probation.</p>
<p>^^^^I agree that this case likely won’t go to trial. The DA will either decline to charge or they will agree to a favorable plea deal.</p>
<p>WRT Hunt’s comment, I can’t help but think of 12 Angry Men. </p>
<p>The one juror holdout can certainly happen, but it’s my opinion (based on some real info, but not a lot), that often one person on the jury will be clearly the most educated (and/or outspoken), and everybody else on the jury will simply defer to that person.</p>
<p>“The thieves could have killed him, beaten him senseless or even tied him up-but they didn’t. They were con artists and made a habit of targeting the elderly. They deserved to be locked away for a long time, but I do not believe they deserved to be shot in the back.”</p>
<p>Oh, see, I do think these scumbags deserve to be shot, whether in the back, front, whatever. I break from my usual liberal sensibilities to say I wish we had more death penalties for cases where there is no question as to who committed the crime. </p>
<p>Seems to me he would be safer in jail than on house arrest. </p>
<p>I think that a lot of analysis being done based on some very general statements of what happened - this is going to be one of those cases where a step-by-step reconstruction of events is going to be necessary to really understand how reasonable (or not) Greer’s actions were. Some readings would suggest that he essentially hunted them down and killed them, other readings suggest he was acting on the spur of the moment and in defense of himself and his home.</p>
<p>For example, he notes that he shot the woman because she was slower - does that mean he shot and missed the man, or that he declined the shot as a low-probability hit? How quickly was all this really happening - were his actions slow and deliberate, or his post-fight analysis slow and deliberate? Did he shoot from the garage, or while in the alley, and where was she wrt to the house?</p>
<p>Also, has anyone else noted that he shot at her with a 22LR pistol? It takes a fair amount of luck to kill someone with two shots from that weapon, I am curious as to whether or not he really expected or intended to kill her, and if so that it can be proven in court.</p>
<p>. I break from my usual liberal sensibilities to say I wish we had more death penalties for cases where there is no question as to who committed the crime.</p>
<p>The problem is, deciding that there is " no question", can be subjective.
Ask the West Memphis Three who spent almost two decades in prison, one on death row.</p>
<p><a href=“Damien Echols: how I survived death row | Prisons and probation | The Guardian”>http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/26/damien-echols-i-survived-death-row</a></p>
<p>@pizzagirl I have often thought that all serious cases need to have the option of a higher standard. Instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, it is something like beyond a shadow of a doubt. Use that standard for all capital punishment cases and you speed up the process. (limit appeal to 1 year as the standard was so high) and the deterrant effect of the punishment actually starts to make a big difference. The big plus is that you no longer have people serving on death row who might actually be innocent.</p>
<p>As for what they deserved…as the Baretta theme song so aptly stated…‘don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time’.</p>
<p>Sadly, the ‘state’ has done such a poor job of 1) protection 2) rehabilitation 3) incarceration that the best option for the shooter’s safety was to shoot. Not shooting someone in the back is like not hitting someone with glasses. A poor excuse for someone taking advantage. Or running off the property magically makes them safe? They were not so concerned with the ‘law’ when they repeatedly broke in and beat the man.</p>
<h1>153. Wow. I hadn’t heard that part before. Sounds like devine providence or perhaps karma if you prefer.</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m no expert here but I believe that multiple people can be charge if multiple people are deemed partially responsible. In the commission of a felony a death took place, so that’s automatically murder. If Geer’s actions are deemed beyond self-defense then he would also be charged with murder. If we wanted to be pedantic and waste time one could also place partial responsibility of the alleged murder on the woman herself, as a death was caused in her commissioning of a felony. </p>
<p>I don’t see the use in imprisoning this 80 year old man if it does ever come to that. It’s not as if he’s a threat to society, so why should society pay to lock him up? I don’t see the benefit to society in that. </p>
<p>Whether or not it was self defense, I personally feel the shooting was morally justified. Though that’s irrelevant in legal matters. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even a 22LR round can kill if it hits vital areas of the body. And there have been people who were killed with 22LR rounds not only deliberately, but also due to stray shots hitting innocent bystanders in public streets or even through windows or other parts of a dwelling. </p>
<p>Also, I doubt the law makes a fine distinction between caliber of weapons considering the lethality potential and the fact in many jurisdictions, pulling out and pointing a gun in unprovoked situations would constitute assault in itself. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Any time one aims a gun and pulls the trigger, there should be a presumption that the target could be killed. It’s not like he shot a warning shot into the sky (which could also end in a fatality, but at least he could argue no intent to injure).</p>
<p>
“Can” and even “have” are not definitive - vending machines can and have killed people, that doesn’t mean that I should consider one to be an effective weapon. My point is intent - was his intent to kill (in which case he made a poor choice of weapon) or to injure?</p>
<p>
Sure… but that holds true of hitting someone with your fist as well, and punching does not bring the presumption of intent to kill. I have a 22LR squirrel gun, and I have considered it as a defensive weapon primarily in a non-lethal role - it CAN kill, but is not likely to, and is not only likely to force any intruder to flee but then to also seek medical help (leading to their arrest). Not saying I would do so as my first choice, but if I grab that rifle, that is what I am thinking.</p>