Man shoots and kills intruder. Police determine she was not pregnant.
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
I agree with you 100%. Our education system fails so many people. Income inequality is a huge issue in this country that is not being addressed. It is getting worse. It has ripple effects across every function of civilization. The education system in the United States has gone to the dogs. Even people who were able to make it to college, an accomplishment in itself, barely grasp Algebra. Capitalism needs huge reforms. This is a topic for another thread though.
freethoughtbubble
Member
I want to start off by saying that I'm in California, so our formulation of the provocation doctrine is a little different than what you quoted. (See Harvey's post a page or so back.) It's late for me, so I can't really do anything extensive, but check this out -- it's from a California Supreme Court case, People v. Moye (citations removed because I'm a nice guy):
The bolded clearly states the following:
1. Defendant must have killed while under the actual influence of a strong passion
2. Such passion must have been induced by the provocation
3. One's reason must be so obscured or disturbed "as to cause" the ordinarily reasonable person to act rashly (and remember, the act we're talking about here is a killing)
So, yes, I do think you have it wrong, at least here in California. (But to be honest I'm not entirely sure it doesn't work this way in New Jersey, too…
And with that, I have to turn in. I've enjoyed this discussion though, even if the underlying facts are horrible all around. Night gaf.
dolabla
Member
+1 to everything you said. She should have thought about what the possible outcome might be when they planned to rob this old man. The robbery went bad and now they want sympathy.
But the citations are helpful for copy/paste source-checking.
Regarding your numbered points that it clearly states:
1. This isn't different than what I said.
2. This isn't different than what I said.
3. This is an objective standard, as per your quote. "Would have caused the ordinarily reasonable person..." In other words, this is an objective measure of the degree of the impassionment, not whether it did in fact cause the defendant to do the killing.
Again, I could be wrong, but I have yet to see case law that says the impassioned state must be shown to be a subjective but-for cause.
The subjective standards are 1. what the situation was as D perceived it, 2. whether D was actually impassioned, and 3. whether D had actually cooled off.
The objective standards are 1. whether the provocation was "adequate", and 2. whether the reasonable person would have, in D's subjective situation, been so impassioned as to have caused the reasonable person to have acted rashly and without reason, etc.
What is NOT in what you quoted is 1. whether D's impassioned state was a but-for cause of D's irrational action.
ReignofSparrows
Member
I really want to thank you, freethoughtbubble. I don't have easy access to California law, and I didn't know how to respond to that aspect. Also, I want to say that it's been a fun conversation, so thanks to you as well, PogiJones.
With all that said, I don't see the need to resort to case law when the statute at issue explicitly states the actor must have "acted rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured your reasoning or judgment." The KHarvey poster might have been erroneously (ignoring the case law, at least) saying 'due to,' which obviously legal nerds (said endearingly, of course) can pounce on, but his core contention was that the shooter in this case might not meet those statutory requirements, which are obviously contained in the codified subjective portion of this particular law.
As I implied when I first jumped in, the 'due to' discussion just muddied - and still muddies - the issue because the discussion pertained to establishment of the state of mind described in the statute. So, it's ultimately drawing the line between 12 and a dozen; there is no delineation. As the statute says, the shooter's actions either do or do not satisfy the relevant descriptors.
Fair enough. But like I was showing with my throwing-the-wife's-belongings-out-the-window analogy, I don't think a lack of remorse afterward is as large of a rebuttal to having the required impassioned state as KHarvey was suggesting. I said earlier that his interview removes a small arrow from the defense's quiver, the arrow being remorse as positive evidence supporting the presumed state of mind. But I think his lack of remorse is not a very big dent in him having an impassioned state after being robbed three times and just having had his collar bone broken. Even though the defense can't tell a jury, "See, he's remorseful, so that shows he was impassioned at the time," it's still very easy for a jury to conclude he was impassioned at the time.
ReignofSparrows
Member
Agreed on that point. In fact, I would like to see a case where a defendant walks into court and stipulates that he was acting rationally and absent any emotional duress. It's not going to happen in this case, so that entire line of thinking doesn't really move the ball one direction or the other.
Edit: To clarify - "that line of thinking" was in reference to the 'but the defense apparently thinks the shooting was reasonable' stuff that was being posted when I jumped in. That's not going to be what is said in court, and the apparent lack of remorse in the interview isn't a silver bullet, as you've pointed out.
uncleniccius
Member
It doesn't matter how old he was, them being in his house and stealing stuff is wrong and they should be in jail.
Him shooting them is even more ridiculous though, that's not self defence, that's his attempt at justice - and not a fair one.
Yeah, agreed. Gotta hit the sack. I <3 LegalGAF. These arguments are too much fun.
Let me help you:
Human life > Property.
If your life isn't in danger, you don't kill someone running away, if all they did is steal some shit, as bad as that is.
More over, this man sounds like a psychopath with zero empathy, so it makes it harder to further justify his actions.
Foghorn Leghorn
Unconfirmed Member
So a man that's lived 80 years with no problem until these 2 rob from him repeatedly and then assualt him is a psychopath? Crazy world we live in.
Sorry, but this was a deliberate and systematic attack on the old man. They continued to attack him because they knew they could get away with it. The fact that he turned the table on them and pulled a gun doesn't detract from the fact that these scumbags commuted multiple thefts and assault on the old man.
Also I like how people continually pass judgement on the old man by calling him a psychopath. How about the robbers who continuously robbed him? Are they no psychopaths? Do they not lack empathy for the old man?
Amazing.
I'm not on either side here but imagine having been robbed twice before, knowing they'll be back and the police won't do much so you're scared every single day. That's basically being terrorised so I could see this as self defence.
Actually someone corrected me above, they robbed him three times, this was their fourth attempt.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Yep. That's murder.
I don't think i passed judgment on the two robbers, i didn't call them good people.
I'm still not ok with killing someone who is running away and poses no threat.
And i'm still weirded out by the way he responded in that interview, after he fucking killed a pregnant woman, pleading for her life but i'm not making a serious psychiatric evaluation on the guy, if that's what you're wondering.
Maybe he was fronting detachment, just to rationalize what he just did though, i'll give him that.
Again, i'm not saying they weren't two pieces of shit, but property still doesn't equal a human life in my book.
I do wonder how the fuck is it possible that these two morons were able to keep stealing from the guy, without any authority being able to do anything about it, though.
With the facts more fully known...
It's a difficult case. It's not a case about killing people over stuff... it's a case about killing people over repeated violations to personal security.
It's the intersection of multiple wrongs. What can be done to reduce the harm in this situation?
Obviously the robbers were very much in the wrong - should be sent to jail - although one can no longer be, because she was slain in the act.
Murder over property is also wrong - the sanctity of human life trumps the principle of personal property.
But when you've been targeted for robbery 3 times and assaulted once... and the system hasn't acted on your behalf - it is a reasonable response for anyone to take action into their own hands to protect themselves from further harm.
While the old man had indeed premediated the murder of the robbers, it was a plan made in exceptional duress.
I don't know all the specifics - but if he had indeed sort legal avenues from deflecting harm and had been failed, then you can no more fault his premeditated defense than an on the spot defense.
Except that defense is about stopping harm and incapacitation, not flat our revenge. Having said that - even recognizing that, it's not a case where the old man hunted them down to seek revenge. He did indeed react only after been violated again.
And it'd be difficult for him to plan defense in a way that involved the system had the system failed him - the only recourse in such a defense is permanent incapcitation - or death by another name.
On the other hand... there's something exceptionally dubious about laying out a trap and lying in ambush to kill. In such a case, one cannot claim defense at all - because instead of taking defensive measures to prevent harm, one is actively setting a trap to actively harm.
From a wider perspective... consistent application of the law in favour of the old man would result in the adoption of something similar to the castle doctrine - where in you're essentially allowed to murder any uninvited person on your property. But that is a path that ends in more harm than good.
Some degree of penalty needs to be levied - to ensure that the consideration and actions that result in the loss of life is not trivialized...
But not so severe that we create another victim in the old man doing what is at least partially reasonable given his circumstances.
The real failure has been a failure of the system unable to instill a sufficient level of trust in its citizens to actually do the duty with which they've been entrusted, causing them to reasonably (at least partially) resort to premeditated murder to defend themselves.
If the old man could be shown to reasonably trust the system that was supposed to defend him - then we could show that he was unreasonable about his modality of defense.
It's a difficult case. It's not a case about killing people over stuff... it's a case about killing people over repeated violations to personal security.
It's the intersection of multiple wrongs. What can be done to reduce the harm in this situation?
Obviously the robbers were very much in the wrong - should be sent to jail - although one can no longer be, because she was slain in the act.
Murder over property is also wrong - the sanctity of human life trumps the principle of personal property.
But when you've been targeted for robbery 3 times and assaulted once... and the system hasn't acted on your behalf - it is a reasonable response for anyone to take action into their own hands to protect themselves from further harm.
While the old man had indeed premediated the murder of the robbers, it was a plan made in exceptional duress.
I don't know all the specifics - but if he had indeed sort legal avenues from deflecting harm and had been failed, then you can no more fault his premeditated defense than an on the spot defense.
Except that defense is about stopping harm and incapacitation, not flat our revenge. Having said that - even recognizing that, it's not a case where the old man hunted them down to seek revenge. He did indeed react only after been violated again.
And it'd be difficult for him to plan defense in a way that involved the system had the system failed him - the only recourse in such a defense is permanent incapcitation - or death by another name.
On the other hand... there's something exceptionally dubious about laying out a trap and lying in ambush to kill. In such a case, one cannot claim defense at all - because instead of taking defensive measures to prevent harm, one is actively setting a trap to actively harm.
From a wider perspective... consistent application of the law in favour of the old man would result in the adoption of something similar to the castle doctrine - where in you're essentially allowed to murder any uninvited person on your property. But that is a path that ends in more harm than good.
Some degree of penalty needs to be levied - to ensure that the consideration and actions that result in the loss of life is not trivialized...
But not so severe that we create another victim in the old man doing what is at least partially reasonable given his circumstances.
The real failure has been a failure of the system unable to instill a sufficient level of trust in its citizens to actually do the duty with which they've been entrusted, causing them to reasonably (at least partially) resort to premeditated murder to defend themselves.
If the old man could be shown to reasonably trust the system that was supposed to defend him - then we could show that he was unreasonable about his modality of defense.
I guess this is the major point in this situation, where i have been unfair to him, since it looks like he was left alone to deal with this problem; but i am disturbed by the thought that what this man did (or felt forced to do) is seen as a viable solution to the problem.
BouncyFrag
Member
Yup.I think it would be reasonable to assume that the old man believed that unless he did something, they would continue to attack and steal from him. I'm not saying this shooting was a good thing, but looking from his point of view, I can't blame him.
Avid Reading Horse
Member
People really overvalue human life. I wanna give this old timer a fist bump. 2hk from an 80 year old guy who just got his collar bone smashed? That's god damned inspiring.
It would be a shame if five-o actually arrested him over this. Dude's suffered enough, let him kick back and feel like the boss that he is. No need to add to his stress.
It would be a shame if five-o actually arrested him over this. Dude's suffered enough, let him kick back and feel like the boss that he is. No need to add to his stress.
It really shouldn't be... and yet, if you're out the wild west, there's no law enforcement... and you've been targeted for robbery and been assaulted. You fear for your life. And you want to stop it. If you want to stop someone in a lawless environment - what can you do but kill? Well... you might try to maim, but it's not unreasonable to expect retaliation - which is why killing isn't an unreasonable option.
But... it's a really sad state of affairs for killing to be seen as a reasonable option.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Man I am so fucking glad I don't live in a country with a gun culture. Peoples homes get robbed here just like they do in the states or anywhere else but Apart from one case ten years ago I don't think I've EVER heard of someone getting shot because they robbed someone. In that one case the man was sent to fucking jail and rightfully so. Criminals and gangs use guns here too but the general population does'nt. I literally don't know a single person who has a gun. What the fuck is Americas obsession with them? Property is not worth more than life. We don't have self defense laws to the same extent and thank fuck for that. That old man is a fucking lunatic cold hearted cunt.
Mauricio_Magus
Banned
I've been reading this thread and I have a difficult time saying anything, but I think this is a really important point.
I do agree that Life > Property as a lot have stated, and he did shoot the girl while she was running away... and yet, I can't feel bad for what he did at all, I think that if I had been robbed THREE TIMES, have been injured, the police haven't caught these guys, and they might come back AGAIN? Yeah I can perfectly see why he shot and doesn't give a shit.
In the end, it's a sad situation and I don't think anyone is in the right, it's horrible because someone's dead and that person is never coming back.
Joel Was Right
Member
Pakoe
Member
Actually you don't have a clue how he lived his life or how he views his fellow human beings, you only have these actions and his statements to go by.
Foghorn Leghorn
Unconfirmed Member
So he's a psychopath that's been terrorized during three other break ins and had done nothing until the fourth when he was assaulted? Dude sounds real dangerous. But we'll soon see if he's had any other arrests or not.
Well, they attacked the guy and broke his bones, and I doubt he wasn't pleading for them to stop. All kinds of shitty people have probably begged for their life, but that doesn't make them innocent.
IsntChrisL
Member
He shouldn't have shot her after catching her but when you decide to fucking rob someone you're deciding to take that gamble. Unfortunately she managed to get her child killed in the process too.
Doesn't seem like either party thought things through. Too bad for the unborn child, shame the mother was that stupid to put it at risk. Old man can't claim self defense here, no reason to shoot.
Edit: whoa what they attacked him and broke his bones? Wow. Plus had been there twice before. I mean he still shouldn't have shot her but I have no sympathy.
Edit: whoa what they attacked him and broke his bones? Wow. Plus had been there twice before. I mean he still shouldn't have shot her but I have no sympathy.
GeordieMark
Member
Whilst I don't agree with shooting anyone in the back, I can feel a bit of sympathy for the old guy. Being burgled is a pretty horrible thing to go through, but at his age, he probably felt particularly vulnerable and scared. People don't always react calmly when they are in that position. Maybe if he'd been a younger guy, might have chased them down on foot and given them a good kicking, or taken a bat to them both, but he is old and knows he can't physically compete with these people.
I have no time for anyone who goes around breaking into others property and stealing, no matter how 'let down by the system' they may be. Plenty of people are living in extremely desperate situations and but sill have the pride not to resort to stealing from others. That's just scummy.
The girl being pregnant is irrelevant to this. Even if she wasn't, shooting her in the back is not cool. But why should the old guy believe her? People say anything to save their ass when a gun gets pointed at them, and she doesn't seem like the kind of person you'd want to trust at the best of times.
I have no time for anyone who goes around breaking into others property and stealing, no matter how 'let down by the system' they may be. Plenty of people are living in extremely desperate situations and but sill have the pride not to resort to stealing from others. That's just scummy.
The girl being pregnant is irrelevant to this. Even if she wasn't, shooting her in the back is not cool. But why should the old guy believe her? People say anything to save their ass when a gun gets pointed at them, and she doesn't seem like the kind of person you'd want to trust at the best of times.
youngplaya21
Member
Man, this thread is just sad all around... Hell I swore I even read some people being cool with their daughters being raped and them not stopping the rapist. I wonder what everyone's tone would be like if instead of an old man it was a father protecting his family
Owlowiscious
Member
staying up until 2am reading this thread, i feel the need to post in it. but on second thought I'll just edit my post out instead.
I never said they were innocent. They were most definitely guilty, but murder is murder. Regardless if you want to call this murder, manslaughter, or anything else, shooting a pregnant woman in the back is just wrong IMO.
Chinese Cartoons
Banned
Just to think what a great mother she would have been.
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
He's getting off scott free. No jury is going to convict this man if everything he says in the interview proves to be true, especially considering his advanced age, repeated burglaries, and his injuries (did anyone notice the cuts on his head?)
RandyBobandy
Banned
Maybe if she hadn't decided to rob someone's house she'd still be alive.
It's murder though, clear as day, but it was completely avoidable sadly
It's murder though, clear as day, but it was completely avoidable sadly
Yea and it looks like he can barely walk around and it was a chaotic night. No one is going to side against the old man if it comes to court.
So if I get this right:
1) This is the 3rd time they've broken into the guy's home
2) They tackled him and broke his collar bone
3) He tells the guy, "go and help yourself to the garage so you can find a tool to open the safe with (cause I aint giving you the key)"
4) Somehow, he sneaks about and gets his gun
5) Girl yells she's pregnant while running away
6) He shoots at both of them, but gets her twice
Dude said he was a good Christian -- Christians don't go around shooting people. Using the gun as a deterrent is great, and I can understand that he was pissed, but you don't shoot people in the back while they run..
Though it could've been worse. It could have been like the guy that set things up and killed those kids trying to rob his house
1) This is the 3rd time they've broken into the guy's home
2) They tackled him and broke his collar bone
3) He tells the guy, "go and help yourself to the garage so you can find a tool to open the safe with (cause I aint giving you the key)"
4) Somehow, he sneaks about and gets his gun
5) Girl yells she's pregnant while running away
6) He shoots at both of them, but gets her twice
Dude said he was a good Christian -- Christians don't go around shooting people. Using the gun as a deterrent is great, and I can understand that he was pissed, but you don't shoot people in the back while they run..
Though it could've been worse. It could have been like the guy that set things up and killed those kids trying to rob his house
Protecting your family and protecting your property aren't the same thing.
Wow, strawman much? None of them are saying death is an appropriate response. What they're saying is that they can't summon up any sympathy for a pregnant woman who would endanger her life and the life of her baby by robbing this 80 year old man THREE TIMES.
So if they stood there ground instead o running then shooting them would've been ok?
Protecting his family from a running away pregnant girl.
That's the plotline to the next Nic Cage movie I think.
- Status