Support NeoGAF

[wildfire]

So property is worth more than life now?

It's always been that way since the inception of our Country. We were founded on protecting our liberty and property.

As for this guy he's cold blooded and should be charged for murder. I'm surprised that he was able to make such a shot considering the difficulties he must've had with his age related issues and a broken collarbone caused by the initial struggle when he found them in his house.

 

[entremet]

As a parent to be, you've got be either foolish or totally irresponsible or both to commit behavior that could get you killed knowingly and repeatedly.

Given that it's hard for me to feel sympathy for the victim. You break in people's homes in a country where owning firearms is perfectly legal and using them in self defense is perfectly legal, you've have to have some balls of steel to repeatedly break in to someone's home in this country.

That said, the man is despicable for shooting her in the back and he should definitely get the brunt of the law for that.

But it's hard for me to feel sorry for someone who repeatedly put her and her unborn child in danger and breaking the law doing so.

There are many social programs available for pregnant mothers, so even the poverty defense doesn't fly here.

 

[King Cobra]

If he isn't punished for what he did this will be another clear example as to how fucked up our justice system is.

How? For allowing an elderly man to stand his ground. Who breaks into a elderly man's house? I say good on them if they don't get this man in trouble, if you think having your home broken into is bad enough imagine being 80 years old and going through this. This is a good way to show criminals that the law is not in their favor.

 

[Diablos]

How? For allowing an elderly man to stand his ground. Who breaks into a elderly man's house? I say good on them if they don't get this man in trouble, if you think having your home broken into is bad enough imagine being 80 years old and going through this.

Are you unable to think critically? What a laughable defense. He had regained control of the situation when the woman was trying to run from him begging for her life, presumably on the ground before he made the final shot -- but that isn't entirely clear. Either way, she was at that point terrified and running away (or attempting to); HE WAS IN CONTROL at that point. She was begging for him to back off. He successfully defended himself. His subsequent actions were out of line and not consistent with self-defense. He could have fired a warning shot into the air and backed away into his home while the cops took care of her -- you do realize they were nearby, right?

I don't care if he is 80, based on his account of what transpired he is clearly in a good enough mental state to understand the implications of what he did. He should spend the rest of his life in prison.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

How? For allowing an elderly man to stand his ground. Who breaks into a elderly man's house? I say good on them if they don't get this man in trouble, if you think having your home broken into is bad enough imagine being 80 years old and going through this. This is a good way to show criminals that the law is not in their favor.

You're defending a man who shot a pregnant woman while she was fleeing and begging for the life of her unborn child.

He had ZERO reason to fire at that point as the situation was already under his control.

Shooting someone in the back is not "standing your ground."

 

[Diablos]

Shooting someone in the back is not "standing your ground."

No kidding.

People from Florida and other states that champion this perverse nonsense scare me. They defy common sense and erode our already impaired justice system even further. So glad I don't live in that hellhole.

 

[wildfire]

So if they stood there ground instead o running then shooting them would've been ok?

Yes because they would still pose a threat. Standing your ground is an assertive act. Anyone could try negotiating/talking things out while standing their ground but the victim they previously attacked isn't under any obligation to trust them.

 

[King Cobra]

You're defending a man who shot a pregnant woman while she was fleeing and begging for the life of her unborn child.

He had ZERO reason to fire at that point as the situation was already under his control.

Shooting someone in the back is not "standing your ground."

There is still no proof that she was pregnant, and what if he let them go. What is stopping them from coming back but more prepared?

Are you unable to think critically? What a laughable defense. He had regained control of the situation when the woman was trying to run from him begging for her life, presumably on the ground before he made the final shot -- but that isn't entirely clear. Either way, she was at that point terrified and running away (or attempting to); HE WAS IN CONTROL at that point. She was begging for him to back off. He successfully defended himself. His subsequent actions were out of line and not consistent with self-defense. He could have fired a warning shot into the air and backed away into his home while the cops took care of her -- you do realize they were nearby, right?

I don't care if he is 80, based on his account of what transpired he is clearly in a good enough mental state to understand the implications of what he did. He should spend the rest of his life in prison.

Yes I realize that after I read the article, unfortunately he didn't have an article to read that explain the entire situation after it had already happened. We can pretend to be righteous and claim to be able to act with no fault after having known all the details of this case but what he saw was 2 younger people breaking into his home and robbing him of his peace.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

How? For allowing an elderly man to stand his ground. Who breaks into a elderly man's house? I say good on them if they don't get this man in trouble, if you think having your home broken into is bad enough imagine being 80 years old and going through this. This is a good way to show criminals that the law is not in their favor.

Well yeah, use of deadly force for the protection of property isn't recognized in any state. You can karate chop, tackle, stun gun, and lasso a running thief, but not shoot him.

 

[Malleymal]

crazy how the dude just outran his pregnant girlfriend like "not my problem"

 

[captmorgan]

No kidding.

People from Florida and other states that champion this perverse nonsense scare me. They defy common sense and erode our already impaired justice system even further.

Ya so many of them are breaking into houses and shooting the owner while sreaming I`m standing my ground....oh wait.

I do agree the justice system is fucked because it failed the old man, how many times do the same people have to break into your house and assault you before you actually do something? I`m pretty sure after the third time I would be hiding at the top of the stairs behind sandbags with a shotgun pointed at the door.

 

[Diablos]

crazy how the dude just outran his pregnant girlfriend like "not my problem"

b-b-b-but stand ur ground god bless america herp mcderp

 

[Woody Invincible]

Did you hear him insulting her begging for her life? He then goes on to say he basically did it with no regrets and to punish her boyfriend/husband, as though he were above the law. He knew what he did. He has no regrets, plainly stated. His state of mind in that video is clear. He should be in jail.

I don't care if he is or isn't regretful. There is one less person on the street that I have to worry about breaking into my residence. He didn't go out looking for a fight. He responded to an action against himself. It's not like he had booby traps set up.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

Ya so many of them are breaking into houses and shooting the owner while sreaming I`m standing my ground....oh wait.

I do agree the justice system is fucked because it failed the old man, how many times do the same people have to break into your house and assault you before you actually do something? I`m pretty sure after the third time I would be hiding at the top of the stairs behind sandbags with a shotgun pointed at the door.

The old man could have done any number of things; shooting them in the back is not one of them. Make non-deadly traps to disable them? Sure. Kill them if they are directly threatening you? Sure. But shooting them in the back? No.

 

[Zarovitch]

There is a lot of crazy people and stealing is a dangerous hobby.

 

[King Cobra]

Well yeah, use of deadly force for the protection of property isn't recognized in any state. You can karate chop, tackle, stun gun, and lasso a running thief, but not shoot him.

You are very ignorant of the laws if you really believe that, In my state it is perfectly legal to fire a kill shot if you feel like you are threaten in your own home.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia

 

[poppabk]

You're defending a man who shot a pregnant woman while she was fleeing and begging for the life of her unborn child.

He had ZERO reason to fire at that point as the situation was already under his control.

Shooting someone in the back is not "standing your ground."

If it's true that he had been robbed twice by them already then he may have been fearing for his life all the time and saw this as the only chance to protect himself. I still think he is guilty, but it is possible to try and have a little empathy for someone who has been victimized.

 

[Diablos]

You are very ignorant of the laws if you really believe that, In my state it is perfectly legal to fire a kill shot if you feel like you are threaten in your own home.

They were outside of his home and running away. The cops were on to them as well.
What part of this don't you understand?

 

[TheChocolateWar]

You are very ignorant of the laws if you really believe that, In my state it is perfectly legal to fire a kill shot if you feel like you are threaten in your own home.

Reread my post. You may use deadly force to protect yourself from imminent bodily harm or threat of force against your person, but NO STATE will ever allow you to use deadly force to merely protect your personal property. Common law does not allow the use of deadly force in the protection of personal property, and no state, not even Texas allows you to shoot a man for taking your truck or wallet. If there is a felony or misdemeanor committed in your presence, you may only use non deadly force.

 

[RedStep]

The old man could have done any number of things; shooting them in the back is not one of them. Make non-deadly traps to disable them? Sure. Kill them if they are directly threatening you? Sure. But shooting them in the back? No.

You've been watching too many movies if you think "non-deadly traps to disable them" is a real thing.

 

[lednerg]

I don't know the particulars of the laws surrounding this situation, but seriously, fuck that guy.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

You are very ignorant of the laws if you really believe that, In my state it is perfectly legal to fire a kill shot if you feel like you are threaten in your own home.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia

I don't want to take this thread down the legal rabbit hole again, but please don't call people ignorant of the law when you, yourself, are ignorant of the law.

 

[Diablos]

Reread my post. You may use deadly force to protect yourself from imminent bodily harm or threat of force against your person, but NO STATE will ever allow you to use deadly force to merely protect your personal property. Common law does not allow the use of deadly force in the protection of personal property, and no state, not even Texas allows you to shoot a man for taking your truck or wallet. If there is a felony or misdemeanor committed in your presence, you may only use non deadly force.

Not to mention, the fact that they fucked up his collarbone AND stole money would have been enough to land them in jail for a long ass time, and the old man would have been getting a nice sum of money to help pay for treating that injury. All without killing anyone. Imagine that!

 

[TheChocolateWar]

You've been watching too many movies if you think "non-deadly traps to disable them" is a real thing.

It isn't that hard to rig a low voltage battery to a mat and hang a bucket of water above the door with an alarm bell that will go off if the door opens. The initial stun would throw them off balance, giving you enough time to wake up and drop kick them in the face....if you are foolish enough to do so.

 

[BronsonLee]

It isn't that hard to rig a low voltage battery to a mat and hang a bucket of water above the door with an alarm bell that will go off if the door opens. The initial stun would throw them off balance, giving you enough time to wake up and drop kick them in the face....if you are foolish enough to do so.

The fuck? This isn't Home Alone
And I'm pretty sure such part 2 of the plan would be hard to do for an 80 year old man

 

[Experien]

If you watch the video...

The two had tried (succeeded?) the rob the guy before, this was the third time. They were "tearing apart" his safe cause they could no longer find the key and they physically assaulted the man (breaking his collar bone).

They don't even know if the woman is pregnant so it wasn't like she was 8 months pregnant. she was able to climb through his window which doesn't seem like an easy task judging by where it looks like he lives. An autopsy will be done to figure that out. Maybe she lied about being pregnant so he wouldn't shoot? Doesn't make killing a pregnant woman right though.

I'm sorry but if you try to rob a place multiple times and you've been caught doing it, my sympathy fades away.

 

[King Cobra]

Reread my post. You may use deadly force to protect yourself from imminent bodily harm or threat of force against your person, but NO STATE will ever allow you to use deadly force to merely protect your personal property. Common law does not allow the use of deadly force in the protection of personal property, and no state, not even Texas allows you to shoot a man for taking your truck or wallet. If there is a felony or misdemeanor committed in your presence, you may only use non deadly force.

If someone is breaking into your home that is enough grounds for you to use deadly force, I suggest you read up on Castle Doctrine.

It isn't that hard to rig a low voltage battery to a mat and hang a bucket of water above the door with an alarm bell that will go off if the door opens. The initial stun would throw them off balance, giving you enough time to wake up and drop kick them in the face....if you are foolish enough to do so.

I see what's going on here.

 

[Nephtis]

It isn't that hard to rig a low voltage battery to a mat and hang a bucket of water above the door with an alarm bell that will go off if the door opens. The initial stun would throw them off balance, giving you enough time to wake up and drop kick them in the face....if you are foolish enough to do so.

then watch as the perps file a lawsuit against the owner and likely lose.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

If someone is breaking into your home that is enough grounds for you to use deadly force, I suggest you read up on Castle Doctrine.

Whoosh.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

If it's true that he had been robbed twice by them already then he may have been fearing for his life all the time and saw this as the only chance to protect himself. I still think he is guilty, but it is possible to try and have a little empathy for someone who has been victimized.

I do, and I would not fault him at all for firing to incapacitate so the nearby police could take it from there. It was not his fault they decided to victimize him.

But shooting to kill when she is already fleeing and begging for her child's life is a red flag.

It's not about blame and empathy, it's about a proper response to the situation. When an unarmed person invades your home and does not threaten physical harm, shooting to kill is not an acceptable response.

I don't fault him for fearing for his life. I would even give him the benefit of the doubt within reason, maybe he didn't hear her saying that she was pregnant. Maybe he didn't intend to kill and only scare her away or disable her. But he says right there in the article that he heard her saying that she was having a baby, and he says that he shot her twice in the back and killed her.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

If someone is breaking into your home that is enough grounds for you to use deadly force, I suggest you read up on Castle Doctrine.

*Sighs*

Yes, if someone breaks into your home and you reasonably fear for your personal safety, like I just said, you can use deadly force. If that reasonable fear of immediate threat of harm has been dispelled, say by the person running away from you with their back turned, then your privelege to use deadly force disappears, because you are no longer in threat of immediate serious bodily injury or deadly force. I realize the intricacies... (HAH criminal law is the easiest subject ON the bar exam)....can be a little difficult.

 

[Frog-fu]

Disgusting, vile creature in the skin of a human.

 

[lednerg]

If you watch the video...

The two had tried (succeeded?) the rob the guy before, this was the third time. They were "tearing apart" his safe cause they could no longer find the key and they physically assaulted the man (breaking his collar bone).

They don't even know if the woman is pregnant so it wasn't like she was 8 months pregnant. she was able to climb through his window which doesn't seem like an easy task judging by where it looks like he lives. An autopsy will be done to figure that out. Maybe she lied about being pregnant so he wouldn't shoot? Doesn't make killing a pregnant woman right though.

I'm sorry but if you try to rob a place multiple times and you've been caught doing it, my sympathy fades away.

Changes the story a bit, but not enough to be all Judge Dredd about it.

 

[Experien]

I do, and I would not fault him at all for firing to incapacitate so the nearby police could take it from there. It was not his fault they decided to victimize him.

But shooting to kill when she is already fleeing and begging for her child's life is a red flag.

It's not about blame and empathy, it's about a proper response to the situation. When an unarmed person invades your home and does not threaten physical harm, shooting to kill is not an acceptable response.

I don't fault him for fearing for his life. I would even give him the benefit of the doubt within reason, maybe he didn't hear her saying that she was pregnant. Maybe he didn't intend to kill and only scare her away or disable her. But he says right there in the article that he heard her saying that she was having a baby, and he says that he shot her twice in the back and killed her.

They broke his shoulder and they physically jumped him...

 

[Diablos]

It isn't that hard to rig a low voltage battery to a mat and hang a bucket of water above the door with an alarm bell that will go off if the door opens. The initial stun would throw them off balance, giving you enough time to wake up and drop kick them in the face....if you are foolish enough to do so.

Are you insane or just trolling

Spoiler

I'm thinking the latter

?

They broke his shoulder and they physically jumped him...

And the charges brought against them would have been more than appropriate. They'd be in jail, he'd be getting money and treatment for his injury.

 

[King Cobra]

If you watch the video...

The two had tried (succeeded?) the rob the guy before, this was the third time. They were "tearing apart" his safe cause they could no longer find the key and they physically assaulted the man (breaking his collar bone).
.

I hope everyone is reading this, this is the third time they broke into his home. Anyone who feels sympathy for people like this have to be kidding themselves

 

[Rockandrollclown]

Can't really say I think this is murder. The fact that they've been there 3 times and assaulted him, I don't think its an unreasonable fear that they would come back a fourth. Still shouldn't shoot people in the back, but I can understand how after the third time and a broken collarbone one might think this was the only way this shit was going to stop. Manslaughter at worst imo.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

They broke his shoulder and they physically jumped him...

Yes and that's a clear reason why this is not like the other situation where the guy had already disarmed the two invaders and then proceeded to kill them in cold blood, having already been prepared for their arrival.

But at the point when he fired on them, they were fleeing and not posing any further threat to him. And that's where he fucked up.

I would definitely not put him in the same boat as some of these other situations. Like the old guy in Georgia a year or two ago, who shot a kid in the head for trying to make a turn on a road by pulling into his driveway and backing out. Here there was a physical threat, it was defused, and he made a poor decision after that.

 

[AbsolutBro]

I do, and I would not fault him at all for firing to incapacitate so the nearby police could take it from there. It was not his fault they decided to victimize him.

But shooting to kill when she is already fleeing and begging for her child's life is a red flag.

It's not about blame, it's about a proper response to the situation. When an unarmed person invades your home and does not threaten physical harm, shooting to kill is not an acceptable response.

I would even give him the benefit of the doubt within reason, maybe he didn't hear her saying that she was pregnant. Maybe he didn't intend to kill and only scare her away or disable her. But he says right there in the article that he heard her saying that she was having a baby, and he says that he shot her twice in the back and killed her.

"Firing to incapacitate" is not a thing. If you are shooting someone, you are shooting to kill because that is the most likely outcome.

"Does not threaten physical harm"? They assaulted him in his home when he came home and found them robbing him for the FOURTH time. Not third. They broke his collar bone, even though he offered them anything they wanted out of his garage.

 

[Diablos]

Can't really say I think this is murder. The fact that they've been there 3 times and assaulted him, I don't think its an unreasonable fear that they would come back a fourth. Still shouldn't shoot people in the back, but I can understand how after the third time and a broken collarbone one might think this was the only way this shit was going to stop. Manslaughter at worst imo.

He successfully defended himself before shooting her.

It's murder.

 

[Zarovitch]

If you watch the video...

The two had tried (succeeded?) the rob the guy before, this was the third time. They were "tearing apart" his safe cause they could no longer find the key and they physically assaulted the man (breaking his collar bone).

They don't even know if the woman is pregnant so it wasn't like she was 8 months pregnant. she was able to climb through his window which doesn't seem like an easy task judging by where it looks like he lives. An autopsy will be done to figure that out. Maybe she lied about being pregnant so he wouldn't shoot? Doesn't make killing a pregnant woman right though.

I'm sorry but if you try to rob a place multiple times and you've been caught doing it, my sympathy fades away.

I've been rob three time in a years and i've develop some hate again the one who done that (maybe not the same). Now i'm ok, but in these time i don't know what i could have done if i seen someone in my house. Probably just call the cops, but who know.

 

[Experien]

Yes and that's a clear reason why this is not like the other situation where the guy had already disarmed the two invaders and then proceeded to kill them in cold blood, having already been prepared for their arrival.

But at the point when he fired on them, they were fleeing and not posing any further threat to him. And that's where he fucked up.

They pose further threat cause it was their third time showing up. Why wouldn't he believe they'd come back a 4th time?

 

[Rockandrollclown]

He successfully defended himself before shooting her.

It's murder.

In a one off I'd agree. This was the third time they have done this. Its completely reasonable to fear they'd be back again.

 

[Diablos]

They pose further threat cause it was their third time showing up. Why wouldn't he believe they'd come back a 4th time?

In a one off I'd agree. This was the third time they have done this. Its completely reasonable to fear they'd be back again.

Did you miss the part about the cops being nearby? They already nabbed the accomplice. It isn't like they would have needed to work some TV crime drama voodoo magic to get the pregnant girl too. Shit, he could have waited for the cops to arrive while she was begging. For the billionth time he was in complete control at that point.

 

[King Cobra]

Did you miss the part about the cops being nearby? They already nabbed the accomplice. It isn't like they would have needed to work some TV crime drama voodoo magic to get the pregnant girl too. Shit, he could have waited for the cops to arrive while she was begging. For the billionth time he was in complete control at that point.

hindsight is 20/20 I'm sure we can all claim to have been able to act with calm composure after being robbed and assulted for the 3rd time.

 

[The Technomancer]

hindsight is 20/20

...is the kind of thing that, properly presented, gets me off the hook for a mistake at work. Our standards for taking a human life should be a bit higher

 

[ICKE]

As Ive said, it was not the right thing to do and some form of punshment should take place but i will say this : If i was visiting someone in my immediate family who was over 80 and i just find this person lying there with broken bones, knowing that the ones that did it have done this several times before....brother, you are going down if I have any weaponry at that point. I would not shoot if they started running but that is a luxury many are not going to grant when emotions are running wild. Society might see it as murder and I understand why people would support a lengthy prison sentence but I personally would not lose any sleep should it go the other way.

 

[manfestival]

It's hard for me to feel bad for the lady (pregnant or not). With that said, based on the article and the evidences presented at this time. The guy is guilty of manslaughter if anything. Maybe it could even go to murder, considering the circumstances and all. He's 80 so he probably doesn't even care.

 

[Ingueferroque]

The unfortunate pregnant intruder is the one that chose to willingly put her child in harms' way. Sad it turned out like this for all involved.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Please, Mammoth Jones. He even mocks her begging for her life. It seems fairly clear that he pulled her out from underneath a vehicle either before or after killing her. All of this confirms the presence of his weapon was enough to scare them off and that is when he should have backed the fuck off.

I understand this was not their first attempt of robbing him, I understand that they did hurt him, and they had bad intentions. They deserved to be jailed for robbery and assault. But the cops were on their asses and he had no right to continue to pursue them and take the law into his own hands by killing someone. Way too extreme, even after listening to his account/confession of the events that transpired. He is way out of line and needs to be arrested.

"Good Christian" my ass. He knows he's a man with not much time left on this earth and he wanted to make an outrageous statement.

Please, Diablos. The mocking is irrelevant. Not sure how clear the pulling her from under a vehicle before or after is. But like I said he's definitely wrong for shooting a fleeing violent burglar.

But I just wonder if the overall circumstances will be taken into consideration. She wouldn't have been shot if she wasn't out breaking into homes and attacking the occupants. Hard for me to feel bad for her. But the law is fairly clear that you can't do that shit. People want to own guns, cool. We should do a better job making SURE they know the home defense laws in their area and not just give them a website with the statute in legalese. Is there a website that'll tell you the exact self defense laws in your area the amount of force legal to use in any given situation with real life examples in plain English. We should definitely have that somewhere.