Man Shoots Pregnant Woman Who Robbed His House

Parent Cafe
161

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m assuming that you mean that if the news reports are to be believed, and this guy shot a fleeing suspect, the guy is nevertheless justified, because the robber is a scumbag. The fleeing burglar was no longer a threat, but the guy was still justified.</p>

<p>What other scumbags are we allowed to kill? If someone runs into me when I’m riding my bike and they are driving drunk, can I shoot them? A driver who hits me because they were texting or phoning-- can I shoot them? What if they buzz me, but don’t hit me-- they are still just much a future danger to me as if they had hit me, so I can I shoot them? I think I need to get a gun, and tell my cycling friends to get guns. I’d be performing a service to humanity by eliminating scumbags.</p>

162

<p>

</p>

<p>In Greer’s own words, “I shot her twice, she best be dead”. I think his intent was to kill.</p>

163

<p>

Interesting… this guy is certainly not doing himself any favors, is he?</p>

<p>Here is another question: Is there a real, nonlethal option available to people that can serve for in-home self-defense? I ask first because I am trying to figure out what this guy’s alternatives would have been to a firearm and am not coming up with any that I would trust, second because I think in similar circumstances there is a decent chance (depending on the speed of events) that I would have kept firing at them as long as they were in sight.</p>

164

<p>

</p>

<p>One of the first things a father of a friend who was a Vietnam vet and a police officer explained about good firearms safety to me and his son when visiting a gun range is “Always treat a gun as if it’s loaded” and “Never point a gun at anyone/thing you don’t intend to kill/destroy.” </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And this trivializing of a firearm’s lethality by assuming low power of a given caliber would be something that police officer I mentioned above would be shaking his head at what he’d view as a cavalier blase attitude towards the potential lethality of even a “lowly” 22LR. </p>

165

<p>

Which is great as a safety guideline but ignores that it is tactically possible to shoot to wound.</p>

<p>

I’m not trivializing anything - If someone pointed one at me, I would accept that it was quite possible to die. That doesn’t change the fact that 22LR is one of the least lethal rounds available. All of the situations where the 22LR has been suggested for combat use, it has been for situations where precision aiming and/or point-blank ranges make a lethal strike more likely. Even then it is usually desired not for the lethality, but rather for the fact that the low velocity makes it easily suppressible.</p>

166

<p>

</p>

<p>For those truly fearful in their own homes the best defense is to tighten security. For a few hundred dollars you can put together an effective video monitoring system using drop cams and a laptop. Keeping windows and doors locked and putting a security monitoring sign out front also helps. One of the best deterrents is a yappy dog. The goal should be to make your residence as unattractive as possible to potential burglars.</p>

<p>Of course everyone’s biggest fear is that they will become the victim in a home invasion type attack, the kind that make headlines and plot lines for prime time TV. These types of attacks are rare, and usually involve someone known to the victim. For ample data see:
<a href=“Archived | Victimization During Household Burglary | Bureau of Justice Statistics”>http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/vdhbpr.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>One thing that’s puzzling about the Greer case is that the intruders were expending great effort to pry open the safe, leaving him alone while they worked on it. Why didn’t they force him to give them the key? Why didn’t he offer to give them the key if he was in fear of being harmed further by them? </p>

167

<p>

That is a given, but I am asking about once they are in.</p>

<p>

“Why” is always a difficult thing to answer in cases like these, and even the surviving burglar probably couldn’t answer.</p>

168

<p>

</p>

<p>A shotgun loaded with rock salt?</p>

<p>No personal experience, but one encounters it in fiction. :slight_smile: I have been told that the sound of someone racking a shotgun is more likely to make a burglar flee than anything else.</p>

169

<p>I expect bear repellent is fairly effective.
It works on bears.</p>

170

<p>I would rather have a taser than a gun. That said, tasers have also been known to kill people. </p>

<p>I would never want to kill another human being, but I would do anything to protect my daughters from harm. I wouldn’t hesitate a moment if I thought someone was going to be in a position to harm them. </p>

171

<p>You could also get beanbag rounds.</p>

172

<p>I have seen a bear hit with a beanbag round. It made him quite annoyed, and he growled loudly. I’m not sure that annoying someone who’d invaded your home would necessarily be helpful. (With the beanbag round, the DoW officer was trying to get the bear to associate people with unpleasant things.)</p>

173

<p>

There are a host of problems with this solution: you would need to make your own rock salt rounds, you would need to clean it pretty extensively after use, rock salt is all but useless for anything other than making a big noise, and… switching lethal and non-lethal rounds in a gun is asking for a mistake. You wake up because someone broke your window, how sure are you that you have rock salt and not buckshot?</p>

<p>

A few of the same problems, but a better option at least, provided you can manhandle a 12 gauge in tight quarters. I would suggest dedicating a shotgun solely for non-lethal use, if you go this route.</p>

<p>

It’s basically just pepper spray, and other than being more generally legal, I haven’t heard of any real improvement over standard pepper spray. I have been underwhelmed with pepper spray, and the big problems I have heard from cops is that (1) some guys, when sprayed, just start swinging blindly and that (2) to the extent that bad guys have weapons, they keep using them during this time. Pepper spray is great when you are in the open looking to escape (because it WILL slow them down!) and works just fine as part of an arsenal of options, but is otherwise a weak option.</p>

<p>

A taser is again a decent option, but have distinct limitations - civilian models are only good to 15 feet and typically only have two shots with slow reloads (if any!). That can be a big limitation in a fight.</p>

<p>There is the contact-type, but, well, you have to be close enough to touch, and for a lot of people that is a point where you are already screwed.</p>

<p>

Everything has been known to kill people. It is not possible to take an action against another person with zero chance of them dying.</p>

<p>It seems like the best non-firearm defense is in variety and practice - keep pepper/bear spray AND a taser of some type AND a baseball bat handy, and make sure you practice enough with them to be proficient. One thing I have read over and over again is that the more aggressive person in the fight has a HUGE edge, and that is usually going to be the criminal.</p>

174

<br>

<br>

<p>So, once a person is fleeing, then the act of felony is over? If so, then why is her accomplice being charged with her murder? </p>

175

<p>

The law treats actual combat using fencing rules - it’s stupid, but it is true. Look up “Right of Way” in fencing.</p>

<p>The idea is that an engagement ends when the aggressor attempts to withdraw or cease aggression. At that point, the victim is assumed to be safe, and the fight over (unless, of course, the aggressor reengages). If the victim attacks after this point, it is essentially the start of a new fight with the roles reversed.</p>

<p>Yes, this is in many ways ridiculous, and it applies only to the issue of self-defense. The accomplice was not involved in the woman’s death in any way in which self-defense would be an issue, so all that counts is that he initiated a crime and someone died.</p>

<p>Yes, this is still ridiculous.</p>

176

<p>

</p>

<p>In California, read Penal Code 197-199:
<a href=“http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199”>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Other states’ laws vary.</p>

177

<p>

</p>

<p>But didn’t Joe Biden tell everybody to fire warning shots in the air with their double barrel shotguns? If I shouldn’t listen to the vice president who should I listen to?</p>

178

<p>“A few of the same problems, but a better option at least, provided you can manhandle a 12 gauge in tight quarters. I would suggest dedicating a shotgun solely for non-lethal use, if you go this route.”</p>

<p>Oh great, we now all have to have an array of shotguns, some intended for lethal use and others intended for non-lethal use. </p>

179

<p>Me: “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>Cardinal Fang: “I’m assuming that you mean that if the news reports are to be believed, and this guy shot a fleeing suspect, the guy is nevertheless justified, because the robber is a scumbag. The fleeing burglar was no longer a threat, but the guy was still justified. What other scumbags are we allowed to kill? If someone runs into me when I’m riding my bike and they are driving drunk, can I shoot them? A driver who hits me because they were texting or phoning-- can I shoot them? What if they buzz me, but don’t hit me-- they are still just much a future danger to me as if they had hit me, so I can I shoot them?”</p>

<p>Me again: I didn’t say “what other scumbags are we allowed to kill” in the sense that it’s a good idea for us all <em>individually</em> to carry guns to protect ourselves from scumbags. American gun worship is shameful and embarrassing enough, I don’t think we need to encourage more people to carry guns, and <em>certainly</em> not outside their homes (when I read of people who want to open carry so they can cart their gun into Starbucks or Safeway just to prove what tough guys they are, I just want to turn in my citizenship card, it’s so embarrassing that they think they represent America). And frankly I could be just fine with repealing or amending the Second Amendment. I’m kind of more than a little tired of all the shootings that other civilized countries don’t have because they don’t have a redneck subculture that values hanging on to them thar guns like we do. </p>

<p>Having said that, yes, I do think scumbags who break into an 80 yo man’s house and rob and hurt him deserve to be shot, so I’m not shedding any tears that this happened – and if I were the judge, I’d give the 80 yo guy a nominal fine or slap on the wrist and that’s it. And if they hadn’t gotten shot by the 80 yo guy, I’d have no problem with the death penalty for them. Here’s a concept - don’t go breaking into other people’s homes and hurting them. </p>

<p>The scumbags who attacked the Pettit family in Connecticut? That’s a no-brainer. There is absolutely no question they are the crime-committers. Why are those sorry-excuses-for-human-beings still living and why are the good people of CT footing the bill for their 3 hots and a cot? I would shoot the gun or flip the switch or administer the injection myself, and not think twice, and be more concerned with whether I should order a latte or cappuccino afterwards. And I’m totally serious. I think you give up some rights where you perpetuate heinous crimes against people. </p>

180

<p>"“The scumbags who attacked the Pettit family in Connecticut? That’s a no-brainer. There is absolutely no question they are the crime-committers. Why are those sorry-excuses-for-human-beings still living and why are the good people of CT footing the bill for their 3 hots and a cot? I would shoot the gun or flip the switch or administer the injection myself, and not think twice, and be more concerned with whether I should order a latte or cappuccino afterwards. And I’m totally serious. I think you give up some rights where you perpetuate heinous crimes against people.”"
@pizzagirl</p>

<p>I agree…but I am meaner than you…lol…I would subject them to the same that they inflicted on that poor family. </p>