[QUOTE=Tsyolin;45501751]But that's entirely speculative[/QUOTE]
the guy literally said "she said not to kill her but i killed her anyway and i shot her twice to make sure i killed her"
regardless of him being abused for however long by these people, he still murdered someone in cold blood. it was a "heat of passion" murder, perhaps, but it's still murder. if someone dies because you punch them in the head when you're angry then that is manslaughter. if someone dies because you doubletap them it is murder, regardless of how passionate it was
[editline]26th July 2014[/editline]
and if the law says otherwise then the law is dumb as fuck
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;45501714]They could go after 2nd degree murder since he did go after them and killed a person.
He intended on shooting that person, that does not equate to manslaughter or negligent homicide.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, [B]nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"[/B]; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.[/QUOTE]
All depends on if being robbed and assaulted until you have a broken collarbone can put a person in a state of "reasonable heat of passion" where you could do things without thinking of the consequences...
[editline]25th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;45501809]the guy literally said "she said not to kill her but i killed her anyway and i shot her twice to make sure i killed her"
regardless of him being abused for however long by these people, he still murdered someone in cold blood. it was a "heat of passion" murder, perhaps, but it's still murder. if someone dies because you punch them in the head when you're angry then that is manslaughter. if someone dies because you doubletap them it is murder, regardless of how passionate it was
[editline]26th July 2014[/editline]
and if the law says otherwise then the law is dumb as fuck[/QUOTE]
It's the same situation as someone who finds their husband/wife cheating on them and stabs them both to death. Heat of passion, aka manslaughter.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45501844]All depends on if being robbed and assaulted until you have a broken collarbone can put a person in a state of "reasonable heat of passion" where you could do things without thinking of the consequences...
[editline]25th July 2014[/editline]
It's the same situation as someone who finds their husband/wife cheating on them and stabs them both to death. Heat of passion, aka manslaughter.[/QUOTE]That's not the case here. Had he been on the ground with a broken collar bone and shot it would be clear cut self defense. Instead it was him going after the two and purposely shooting to kill someone, to which he admitted to doing himself.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;45489303]Yeah but the thing is, it's not a person, its an unconscious fetus.
The way I see it, it doesn't matter what she wanted because she was killed. That should be the real tragedy here.
If it was an actual baby that's a different story, kind of like how you can't get charged for murder for punching a pregnant woman really hard in the stomach if you kill the fetus, because if you can that also means abortion is murder.[/QUOTE]
Seriously? A woman who consents to terminating a pregnancy is different from getting punched/shot in the stomach.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;45501878]That's not the case here. Had he been on the ground with a broken collar bone and shot it would be clear cut self defense. Instead it was him going after the two and purposely shooting to kill someone, to which he admitted to doing himself.[/QUOTE]
You're missing the entire point. This has nothing to do with self defense.
LEGALLY, His situation is:
1) 1st Degree Murder
2) 2nd Degree Murder
3) Voluntary Manslaughter
Which one can you prove in court BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT? This is important. I'll remind you of the Zimmerman case where it was POSSIBLE that it wasn't 2nd degree murder, which is why he had to be not guilty of it.....
man just glancing around
this thread is real shit, I'd really rather it were locked and people were banned for being fatally stupid, because it's a really crap representation of facepunch and you people are disgusting.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45501937]You're missing the entire point. This has nothing to do with self defense.
LEGALLY, His situation is:
1) 1st Degree Murder
2) 2nd Degree Murder
3) Voluntary Manslaughter
Which one can you prove in court BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT? This is important. I'll remind you of the Zimmerman case where it was POSSIBLE that it wasn't 2nd degree murder, which is why he had to be not guilty of it.....[/QUOTE]
It would be either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. Of course without actually being there and not having any information beyond what the media says I can't make an accurate assumption. However, knowing that he had gotten the pistol after he has been knocked down, went after the suspects, and shot the woman who pleaded to him not to kill her (which he admitted to all of that), I find it hard to not press second degree.
Zimmerman's case was different, since the only eye witness was Zimmerman himself. The only testamoney as to how it happened was himself. Had he said he shot the kid for mouthing off to him the case would have gone differently, but because there was only his eye witness testamoney and evidence that suggested he was indeed on the ground and getting pummeled the court could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that it was 2nd degree.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;45501991]It would be either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. Of course without actually being there and not having any information beyond what the media says I can't make an accurate assumption. However, knowing that he had gotten the pistol after he has been knocked down, went after the suspects, and shot the woman who pleaded to him not to kill her (which he admitted to all of that), I find it hard to not press second degree.
Zimmerman's case was different, since the only eye witness was Zimmerman himself. The only testamoney as to how it happened was himself. Had he said he shot the kid for mouthing off to him the case would have gone differently, but because there was only his eye witness testamoney and evidence that suggested he was indeed on the ground and getting pummeled the court could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that it was 2nd degree.[/QUOTE]
But do you think it's possible that the old man was in a fit of rage due to them breaking in to steal things and because of their violent assault? Is it possible?
Unless there is more evidence, that answer is yes. It is possible that he was in a fit of rage and it would fall under heat of passion, which is voluntary manslaughter. Since there is this possibility, he has to be legally innocent of 2nd degree murder because there is a shadow of a doubt. Voluntary manslaughter, however, is a definite based on available evidence. If you can't prove it, you can't charge it.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;45501991]It would be either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. Of course without actually being there and not having any information beyond what the media says I can't make an accurate assumption. However, knowing that he had gotten the pistol after he has been knocked down, went after the suspects, and shot the woman who pleaded to him not to kill her (which he admitted to all of that), I find it hard to not press second degree.
Zimmerman's case was different, since the only eye witness was Zimmerman himself. The only testamoney as to how it happened was himself. Had he said he shot the kid for mouthing off to him the case would have gone differently, but because there was only his eye witness testamoney and evidence that suggested he was indeed on the ground and getting pummeled the court could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that it was 2nd degree.[/QUOTE]
The DA would be hardpressed to prosecute him under charges that he can't prove. That would risk the homeowner getting off scot-free if he can't be proven guilty, better to be able to lock him away for manslaughter since it's easier to prove than to risk letting him off the hook.
[QUOTE=Tsyolin;45501262][URL="http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/25/justice/california-slain-burglar-pregnant/"]CNN put out an updated story on this. [/URL]
Looks like the decision on whether to charge the homeowner has still yet to be made. The press conference held by the police really does throw a lot of new information out there that to me makes the reasoning more understandable. He should be charged regardless, on what charges is debatable but he should still be charged. This might actually be late info, I only read the first few pages so I don't really know.
*The woman wasn't actually pregnant as confirmed by the LA County Coroner's Office.
*This was actually the 4th time that this guys house had been robbed.
*The owner believed they were responsible for the prior robberies as well and was afraid that they may come back again in the future.
*The owner was fairly viciously assaulted by the couple, suffering a broken collarbone, some cuts and some bruises.
While none of this justifies his actions it does sort of humanize them. He isn't crazy, he just wanted vengeance against the couple since he thought they were responsible for past robberies (can't really be proven). That and he just wanted the robberies to stop. Obviously in the heat of the moment he went to far and shot the girl out of anger, he deserves to be charged for that but I think calling him crazy is a bit of an exaggeration once you hear more facts surrounding the whole story.[/QUOTE]
So in short, the wrong people met the wrong kind of person. He still should be charged nonetheless.
This dudes fucking psychotic holy shit
If it was the excuse of "I didn't know if she was lying!" It would be a lot muddier but this dudes reasoning just makes him sound like a lunatic.
Edit: Wow I am awful, I somehow didn't notice there were more pages in this thread. Reading the updated thing makes him sound less crazy and more justified but still.
This thread makes me sick.
Regardless of the status of her pregnancy or any of that shit, she ran away and no longer presented a reasonable threat to this man, she was possibly no longer on his property, which means that the Castle doctrine no longer applies and because she offered no threat, partly because she surrendered, Stand your ground laws don't apply.
This was murder/voluntary manslaughter, straight up.
She didn't deserve to die and he didn't deserve to get robbed/ assaulted, but Jesus Christ how hard is it to understand that this man should be punished?
You guys scare me sometimes. Jesus fuck.
Here's the situation, if lives aren't at risk, you don't kill anyone! Plain and simple!
The woman was well in the wrong for what she did, but yea... so was he. Even though in that situation I may pull a gun on her myself, I'm not gonna shoot anyone whose running away or pleading for their life, or even unarmed for that matter. Normally, the sight of a gun is enough to scare off an intruder, just straight up shooting someone who is fleeing or begging for their life isn't self defense. Now I haven't read much on this so I have no idea if I am close to the story or not, but figured I could add in my two cents.
So I guess the accomplice had been caught and is being charged with murder for committing a felony that resulted in the death of someone. Only source I've found so far was conservative bs sites, once a legit source arises I'll post a link.
Hey, HEY!
The law CLEARLY states you can only kill them while they are IN YOUR HOUSE.
The guy should have shot them after they assaulted him, then everything would be cool, but the dumbass ran after them like some cowboy wanting bloody revenge.
[quote]She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!' And I shot her anyway," he told NBC.
"She was dead. I shot her twice, she best be dead. He had run off and left her. I shot her so that's going to leave a message on his mind for the rest of his life."[/quote]
Assuming he doesn't want to go to prison, why even say this stuff at all? Seems like he could have just said "she lunged for my gun" or something and would have had a somewhat less flimsy justification for it.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;45503916]Assuming he doesn't want to go to prison, why even say this stuff at all? Seems like he could have just said "she lunged for my gun" or something and would have had a somewhat less flimsy justification for it.[/QUOTE]
He probably thought that he wouldn't get in trouble because he was beaten and robbed and therefore justified in his actions, in which case he's gonna get a pretty rude awakening.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;45489272]Yeah but she didn't deserve to get gunned down. She was unarmed and fleeing the scene. Let the proper authorities deal with it.[/QUOTE]
Well when you're going to burgle somebody's house you sort of need to consider the possibility that you're going to piss the owner off and he may his own ways of making sure it doesn't happen again. I'm not saying shooting her was legally right but I think what he did was up to him and I don't have the right say he acted wrong. It was his house, after all.
I don't see why you're defending the culprits. You have no say in the matter. You may do as you wish when your home gets broken into, your belongings get stolen and what's left is broken along with your sense of security.
[editline]26th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=redBadger;45489296]Being pregnant is irrelevant. She was unarmed and the shooter had no right to kill her. Rather, take his belongings back and give her a warning.[/QUOTE]
yeah ok you can go just pls give me my stuff back and pls don't come back again bye
gee she only begged for her life
what is wrong with you people?
pregnant or not, what does it matter? if you're life is being threatened then you should shoot, I'm 100% for the idea of people doing that. But as soon as the trespasser has been disabled and can't fight killing them kind of is murderous. If your sense of justice is killing someone you are a shitty human being and are far worse than they are.
you are pretty backwards if you think its OK to kill someone over that
[QUOTE=JurajIsNotPirat;45504137]Well when you're going to burgle somebody's house you sort of need to consider the possibility that you're going to piss the owner off and he may his own ways of making sure it doesn't happen again. I'm not saying shooting her was legally right but I think what he did was up to him and I don't have the right say he acted wrong. It was his house, after all.
I don't see why you're defending the culprits. You have no say in the matter. You may do as you wish when your home gets broken into, your belongings get stolen and what's left is broken along with your sense of security.
[editline]26th July 2014[/editline]
yeah ok you can go just pls give me my stuff back and pls don't come back again bye[/QUOTE]
so killing someone who obviously has been disarmed and is begging for their life is ok to you? just because they were stupid and desperate and robbed your house?
the second you decide to rob someone you kind of enter the video game equivelant of running the risk of fucking dying you god damn idiot, no matter if you say I'M SORRY I DIDN'T MEAN IT you still run the risk of meeting someone who is willing to shoot you regardless. this of course doesn't justify the actions of him or her but it's really fucking stupid to attempt to steal from someone and then not expect him to retaliate.
[QUOTE=J!NX;45504167]just because they were stupid and desperate and robbed your house?[/QUOTE]
you're saying it like they only spit on his front door or something
I think breaking into somebody's home is a quite a large offense.
[QUOTE=JurajIsNotPirat;45504220]you're saying it like they only spit on his front door or something
I think breaking into somebody's home is a quite a large offense.[/QUOTE]
Yeah its called jail time
not murdering them after they beg for their life
they can be punished properly, rather than ending their life
this is another human being we're talking about over property that can be replaced. (A life can't)
and hey you're the one justifying killing someone (who was begging for their life) over some shitty property
its a large offense but it can be punished... by them being put in jail.
[editline]26th July 2014[/editline]
actually let me try and remind you this again
[QUOTE]"She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!' And I shot her anyway," he told NBC.
"She was dead. I shot her twice, she best be dead. He had run off and left her. I shot her so that's going to leave a message on his mind for the rest of his life."
The couple were not believed to have been armed.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]California homeowners are allowed to defend themselves if they are in "imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death", police said.
Investigators must determine whether Mr Greer went beyond self-defence in pursuing the suspects and firing on them outside his home.[/QUOTE]
it sounds like he wasn't actually in that much of harms way once he pulled that gun out, and he clearly shot to kill even after hearing that. Robbed multiple times or not he wasn't in any danger at that point.
I really don't want to sound like an asshole but this is a case where I really feel like I need to be as blunt as vocally possible with people.
[QUOTE=bastian-07;45504176]the second you decide to rob someone you kind of enter the video game equivelant of running the risk of fucking dying you god damn idiot, no matter if you say I'M SORRY I DIDN'T MEAN IT you still run the risk of meeting someone who is willing to shoot you regardless. this of course doesn't justify the actions of him or her but it's really fucking stupid to attempt to steal from someone and then not expect him to retaliate.[/QUOTE]
Of course.
people who get shot and die robbing a house, it's pretty much, whatever, their mistake
though, it really isn't OK once they are clearly not a threat IMHO, at all, even after they shoved you down, but, I don't know if enough people understand that
[QUOTE=J!NX;45504224]actually let me try and remind you this again[/QUOTE]
Let me remind you that the couple has robbed him twice in the past. The justice system obviously wasn't doing a good enough job.
[QUOTE=JurajIsNotPirat;45504261]Let me remind you that the couple has robbed him twice in the past. The justice system obviously wasn't doing a good enough job.[/QUOTE]
So killing them was the answer?
it also never specifically says it was them, just that they've done it in the area and that he's been robbed previously
of course I don't think he should be arrested or anything over it but it's way out there to shoot like that
It seems that the defense would have quite a good story to tell, between the history of the homeowner being robbed, the past criminal records of the victim, and them assaulting the homeowner. Additionally, the fact that the victim lied about being pregnant (which yes, I understand, when you're trying to avoid being killed you might say a lot) doesn't paint a good picture. All of which could easily be spun as poor old man repeatedly harassed and attacked by career criminals was brought to the breaking point and made a poor decision in the heat of the moment.
Not to mention, even the strongest point against the homeowner, that the victim was fleeing, could potentially be argued away if the homeowner said he felt that they would come back again being that he believed they had robbed his home twice before, and who knows what type of revenge they might want for him shooting at them (he shot at them once when they were inside the home still). After all, they had already beaten him up, no so far of a stretch to go from that to killing him, even accidentally.
Of course, we don't have all of the information, but judging by the mixed response in this thread, and being that it only takes one person on the jury who thinks the homeowner was justified in what he did (provided my understanding of the legal system is correct), I think it would easily be possible for the homeowner to not be found guilty of whatever he is charged with.
[QUOTE=J!NX;45504263]So killing them was the answer?
it also never specifically says it was them, just that they've done it in the area and that he's been robbed previously[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fatally-shot-woman-pregnant-20140725-story.html[/url]
[url]http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Unarmed-pregnant-burglar-shot-dead-by-California-homeowner-268564072.html[/url]
[QUOTE=JurajIsNotPirat;45504285][url]http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fatally-shot-woman-pregnant-20140725-story.html[/url]
[url]http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Unarmed-pregnant-burglar-shot-dead-by-California-homeowner-268564072.html[/url][/QUOTE]
But, again, pregnant or not, she was still begging for her life and clearly not a threat
Some peoples perception of justice are warped and flawed.
She was un-armed. You don't shoot un-armed women. Period.
At first, I couldn't believe the article. A man shooting a unarmed burglar? A-and she wasn't armed, she was no threat.
"To send a message"
Fuck that guy for shooting the poor girl and fuck that other burglar for legging it. Two dickheads that should be hanged for reasons being that of stupidity.
And the world is better off.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.