It isn't confirmed yet if she was actually pregnant or not.
Man shoots and kills intruder. Police determine she was not pregnant.
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
It isn't confirmed yet if she was actually pregnant or not.
Maybe my english isn't the best, but I watched the interview with the guy and as I understod him explaining that the robbers roughed him up pretty good(you can clearly see some cuts and bruises on his face and arms plus the shoulder thing) then let him watch while they tried to go through his stuff, only after he grabbed his gun they took off and he shot the woman in the back. Now the fact that this is the third time they were robbing him might point to imperfect self-defense. He can always claim he tried to shot both of them because he believed these criminals would come back a fourth time to hurt him even more.
At least in Texas you can kill someone for taking your property without your life being in danger. You can even kill someone for taking someone else's property:
http://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/when-you-can-kill-in-texas/
Texas law also justifies killing to protect others’ property. In 2007, a man told 14 times by a 911 operator to remain inside during a robbery gunned down two thieves fleeing from his neighbor’s house. (“There’s no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?” the operator said on the call. The shooter’s response: “The law has been changed….Here it goes, buddy! You hear the shotgun clickin’ and I’m goin’!”He was acquitted the next year.
Grieves
Member
I'm impressed that he managed to hit someone running away from him twice.
Got no sympathy for the girl. If this was a one-off then it could be considered extreme, but as this was the third time and the authorities had not been able to prevent it from happening again then there is no reason not to think this pair would be back again.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I really can't blame the guy for making sure he never gets robbed by this pair of scum again.
Got no sympathy for the girl. If this was a one-off then it could be considered extreme, but as this was the third time and the authorities had not been able to prevent it from happening again then there is no reason not to think this pair would be back again.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I really can't blame the guy for making sure he never gets robbed by this pair of scum again.
Just heard the dumbest conversation on some talk radio. Lady calls in arguing in favor of the mans actions, radio announcer then goes on saying if she had had a knife to his throat, he pulls a gun, then she says dont shoot and he does, same result dead baby. Says he can understand the mans actions because the baby would have died had the situation been different.
Speak for yourself bro.
sometimes i game
Member
This is where I get confused. Is one supposed to simply trust the invaders, that they'll never be back a 4th time?
"We'll just see how the 4th invasion goes, maybe I'll get really hurt that time. The war is not over, but I'm happy to let you win this battle, criminals"
I don't understand, someone please explain why this makes sense aside from "They were running away, having had another successful break in"
Might be due to historical reasons? In the past if someone stole your horse and tried to flee it was a matter of survival, safeguarding perhaps the most important tool in your household?
ReignofSparrows
Member
I don't get what's dumb about it. Think of it this way - if she was lowering him into a shark tank, he pulls out his gun and says 'I'm gonna shoot unless you run away!' and she responds with 'I'm not going to run away ever, and I am definitely not pregnant!' then we still end up with the same result. Thus, I understand the guy's actions.
TwEE-N-Toast
Banned
That was cold and crazy, what he did. On the other hand I can't image the type of person who beats up an 80 year old man.
All those people saying lock the old guy up. Have you ever had anyone break into your house and steal your personal belongings? Or better still have you ever had anyone break in still your stuff and beat you?....Think about that. How would you react? I am pretty sure you would not remain calm and collective.
Being in the receiving end of a robbery. I can honestly say I have no sympathy for anyone one breaks into peoples homes to steal.
Being in the receiving end of a robbery. I can honestly say I have no sympathy for anyone one breaks into peoples homes to steal.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Its difficult to expect a proper response from someone is living in constant fear. We may not condone a woman killing an abusive spouse in cold blood, but we understand that just because the abusers actions do not merit that action at that time, the killers psychological state makes that action reasonable to them.
I've only read this thread and have not seen any article/stories on this incident, but from what I've read in the thread the police had already captured the male accomplice and would almost certainly have captured the woman shortly.
The old man deserves to be punished. But my sympathy for the burglars is just about nil.
Host said he was ok with shooting the girl running away because there still would have been a dead baby if he had shot her in his home. And just now he likened what happened to doing a rolling stop at a stop sign. Illegal, but should be forgotten.
Seems pretty dismissive to me.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
It would seem there's a reasonable argument that as an elderly man, he was in fear of his life.
Also, to anyone arguing that his property wasn't important: property theft at 80 years old could be very, very, very damaging. Do we even know what they were stealing?
ReignofSparrows
Member
The host sounds like a dolt, hah. But there are a lot of people in this thread playing the 'yeah, but...' hypothetical game. If you can't argue your position on the facts as we know them, then you should probably reevaluate the position.
I'm torn on this. I don't think property is more valuable then life. But I feel like the idea of having property and not having it taken from you is an important thing in our society, and that is worth dying for.
But I suppose that is where reality comes in. Most burglaries won't take a person into bankruptcy. It's terrible that someone thinks they can come into your home and take something from you that you worked so hard for. So to me this is about a much bigger concept.
I guess it depends on the situation though. My issue is that the intruder decided to break into your house first. They are the aggressor. I do think it's unfair to then expect the victim to make assumptions (such as their own safety for the consideration of the aggressor). Basically I have no issue with someone shooting an intruder in their home. But when you hear about cases where the burglar is running and doesn't want confrontation, then that is where I think you shouldn't shoot them as it's no longer defense.
I'm torn because these situations are so complex that I think it's hard for someone to be able to judge or access the threat of their intruder. I think it's easy for us to sit back and say that a homeowner should be able to acess that or try to confront someone before taking a shot. But the problem again is we are assuming it's a perfect situation where the homeowner is alerted ahead of time that someone is breaking and entering and has their gun already on the person.
It doesn't often work out that way. Anyways long story short, I don't think you should ever kill someone if you can avoid it. Personally, if the aggressor is fleeing or you determine there is no physical threat, then I do think you have a moral obligation to not kill them despite the fact that they are in your home taking your property.
Of course some will argue you have the right to defend your property. And even if the aggressor isn't a physical threat, their refusal to give beck your stuff is justification for shooting them.
But I suppose that is where reality comes in. Most burglaries won't take a person into bankruptcy. It's terrible that someone thinks they can come into your home and take something from you that you worked so hard for. So to me this is about a much bigger concept.
I guess it depends on the situation though. My issue is that the intruder decided to break into your house first. They are the aggressor. I do think it's unfair to then expect the victim to make assumptions (such as their own safety for the consideration of the aggressor). Basically I have no issue with someone shooting an intruder in their home. But when you hear about cases where the burglar is running and doesn't want confrontation, then that is where I think you shouldn't shoot them as it's no longer defense.
I'm torn because these situations are so complex that I think it's hard for someone to be able to judge or access the threat of their intruder. I think it's easy for us to sit back and say that a homeowner should be able to acess that or try to confront someone before taking a shot. But the problem again is we are assuming it's a perfect situation where the homeowner is alerted ahead of time that someone is breaking and entering and has their gun already on the person.
It doesn't often work out that way. Anyways long story short, I don't think you should ever kill someone if you can avoid it. Personally, if the aggressor is fleeing or you determine there is no physical threat, then I do think you have a moral obligation to not kill them despite the fact that they are in your home taking your property.
Of course some will argue you have the right to defend your property. And even if the aggressor isn't a physical threat, their refusal to give beck your stuff is justification for shooting them.
Wouldn't be so sure of that, the guy was probably easy to find because they knew the woman's identity. They wouldn't have that information if they both got away.
BronsonLee
Member
Eh, they likely would've had a full description of the two burglars from the 80 year old man, and if their response time was quick enough to the area, I don't think they would've been able to get away.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
I'm in agreement, not saying I don't understand why it happened and that a fear for one's life was a factor.
I'm lucky enough to have not been in this situation where my safety is threatened by an intruder to my home. I totally understand that my judgment of the situation is not the same as his. I don't necessarily blame him as a human being because I wasn't in his shoes, I didn't get attacked by these people and I wasn't living in fear of their return. And definitely not defending the intruders because what they did was completely illegal and inhumane as well.
I was simply arguing against Cobra's notion that this could be considered a Stand Your Ground case. At least with the Martin incident they were allegedly in a physical struggle at the time of the shooting. But this was not the case here - the physical threat was over, the suspect was fleeing and the police were in the process of apprehending or had already apprehended the male accomplice.
If he shot them while they were attacking him, then I wouldn't bat an eyelid at defending the guy. He'd be defending himself against an imminent threat to his safety. But I do not consider what happened "standing your ground" and I would hope such a defense would not fly in the court of law.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Just when I thought we already saw the worst, you come along and post.
Wow, just wow.
Honestly the old man comes across as rather senile in the interview. His loss of mental faculties due to age, and the history of victimization and assault, means he may be able to get some sort leniency in the system. Interesting case to be sure. I wonder what the DA will pursue, maybe some sort of manslaughter charge due to the circumstances.
MrPressStart
Member
I can say that I would be in jail because I would have shot his and her ass. Let me catch somebody destroying my home. Fuck self defense. Rage takes over at that point. If she is pregnant her ass should have not been there in the first place.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I'm still concerned about what they were looting that they kept returning. It must have been at least somewhat profitable for them to keep coming back. I'm really interested if by any chance they were stealing meds.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
In his interview he stated he kept very large amounts of money in his safe.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Oops. Thanks. Couldn't watch the video on my phone. That to me adds some legitimacy to shooting them then. At 80 years old, money is tight and important.
I'm sorry. Come again? I'm supposed to feel empathy for someone who BEAT and ROBBED an old man? Who took their pregnant body into harms way? Possibly doing it three times?
Yeah, the old man probably shouldn't have shot her. But my empathy for those who prey on the weak is low.
JustinJ004
Banned
All are in the wrong obviously but watching that interview and seeing absolutely no remorse for shooting an unarmed and pregnant woman who was begging for her life is completely fucked up and I hope he pays by never feeling freedom again.
Anyone who can picture that playing out and not feel any sorrow or empathy for the murder victim is fucked up as well as far as I'm concerned.
Anyone who can picture that playing out and not feel any sorrow or empathy for the murder victim is fucked up as well as far as I'm concerned.
They aren't burglars, they are committed assault and aggravated robbery. They have showed a willingness to harm and terrorize others, so it isn't beyond imagination if they got away they would kill him next time.
Yet did she show compassion or remorse when she assaulted a terrorized an 80 year old man repeatedly. Don't expect to get what you don't give to other.
The fact that you don't seem to comprehend how horrendous her crime was, shows me how f-up you are. When someone repeated assaults, terrorizes, and threatens your life, you do things like this man did.
I have absolutely none. Based on what I've seen here, I'm personally thrilled that she's not around to raise children, whether she was actually pregnant or not.
BronsonLee
Member
Are you really going to try and bag on me for saying burglars and not home invaders?
You've got to be kidding me. I'm well aware what they did.
I'd also like to point out the possibly small deterrent of realizing the person you've been robbing has a gun, that's usually a good way to get people to stop burglarizing your home.
Either way, this is all a wash. Either they charge him with something or they don't. If they charge him he's probably going to pass away in jail, it doesn't matter what at this point.
cpp_is_king
Member
Only one i feel even remotely sorry for is the baby. Not an ounce of sorrow for the person who knowingly and willingly risked their baby's life. Engaging in acts like this is an implicit declaration that you're prepared for the consequences.
Ol No Bones
Banned
Um if a man can be held for charges of murdering a baby in the womb than it is not consistent to say that a mother can. Either its a person or not. Its a fair point to show the inconsistency.
I don't understand why some seem to package up suggestions that this man broke the law and committed a crime with feeling sympathy for or defending either person that broke into the house. A crime or crimes was/were committed when the house was broken into and the man was assaulted. Another crime was committed when the old man shot a woman in the back as she fled.
No it's not, and I explained why. Go and read the whole discussion from however many pages ago that was.
No it's not, and I explained why. Go and read the whole discussion from however many pages ago that was.
BronsonLee
Member
This is my main problem with this thread. There are two separate incidents here, not one long one. The break is when they attempted to run away. Now we're in a whole different ballgame.
Basically, everyone involved in this situation sucks
And without a trial first. So basically if someone thinks you're robbing them it's okay for them to shoot you.
Because they are very different things, one is a crime of property, and the other is a crime against a person.
cpp_is_king
Member
Let me make it more explicit. Yes what he did is probably a crime. I wish it weren't, and i wish more perpetrators of home invasions were killed in the act.
BronsonLee
Member
None of this matters anyway. It all depends on if the DA wants to throw hands or not. This situation is loaded.
She wasn't killed in the act and that's precisely the problem. Thankfully his actions will never be considered legal in any first world legal system.
MrPressStart
Member
The only person I feel sorry for is the unborn child.
This is the 3rd time??? So he should just let them go so they could come back for number 4. I feel we have the right to protect our stuff. The whole shooting in the back (I know its the law) is bullshit.
Also... the dude that ran away... is a punk. He left what I am assuming is his pregnant girlfriend to take the fire.
This is the 3rd time??? So he should just let them go so they could come back for number 4. I feel we have the right to protect our stuff. The whole shooting in the back (I know its the law) is bullshit.
Also... the dude that ran away... is a punk. He left what I am assuming is his pregnant girlfriend to take the fire.
Except in Texas (Post #853), you can kill someone to prevent them from fleeing with your property or someone else's.
MrPressStart
Member
That is the part I have a problem with. What exactly is the act? One might argue that the whole situation could be percieved as the act. You cant control rage and anger.
Has it been established that in FACT, these two have robbed him before? This could've been their first time, which would make this even worse. Breaking into someone's house, getting in a skirmish with them and then fleeing does not entitle the home owner to chase and then gun down someone in the streets.
Think of the precedent this would set. Someone knocks you down, steals your wallet or phone, and flees. Then you run to your car, grab your gun, chase them down and kill them. Does the law say it's ok to kill someone that assaults you (outside the home)? Does the law say it's ok to kill someone who steals anything from you (outside the home)? No and no. Murder/Manslaughter charges better be incoming.
MrPressStart
Member
Dude was 80 years old. He more than likely could not defend himself against the pregnant woman... let alone the man. So he is supposed to take an ass whooping/ beating and let them steal from him and not do anything? I know laws are laws.. .but give me a break.
One could argue that beating an 80 year old man and stealing from him is just cause for him to bust a cap in her ass.
- Status