Support NeoGAF

[orthodoxy1095]

He asked about legality. It is not legal to shoot someone as they flee after raping a loved one, and it should not be.

Actually it completely is in a way. It would be a crime of passion, with a temporary insanity defense, and I guarantee that in most cases it would stand with a fairly minor prison sentence. In the case of an old senile man, the case would be even less.

 

[KHarvey16]

So people who support a woman's supposed right to choose actually do support it knowing that it may actually be a human life. Whether it is a child or not is irrelevant?

See I was always under the impression that the justification was based on the belief that the child in the womb is not a human life therefore it was her right to do with her own body. It seems to me it doesn't matter though with how you present it.

You used to different terms in describing whatever is going on in the womb.
In the case of of the man you referred to him killing a child in the womb.

In the case of abortion you called it terminating a pregnancy.

You don't understand the inconsistency of saying it is not ok for a man to kill that child and then in the same breath saying its ok to kill as long as its the mom. If it was a child when the man shot, it was a child when the mom hired a doctor to kill it. That is the inconsistency. As a supporter of abortion you should have no remorse for a child dying in the womb under any circumstances.

Its the same as saying that its not ok for a man to shoot a toddler but its ok if a mom chooses to drown it.

My suggestion at the beginning of this was to understand the underlying justification for making abortion legal. Roe v Wade spends a lot of time weighing the "potentiality of life" against the wishes and well being of the mother. That potentiality is not a black and white issue of "the fetus is a human life." You should read it.

 

[360pages]

I feel nothing for the robbers, they should have known better, and at this point they can charge the old man if they want he is 88 and probably would treat his time as a vacation considering how old he is. He might make it past 90 if he's lucky.

I'm going to be blunt, my stuff is worth more than any robbers life, I won't chase them down the street, but if someone is begging inside my house that held a gun to me at one point and the situation somehow got reversed, I'm going to pull the trigger. Seen way to many cases where someone chose mercy and ended up hurt or killed because they didn't take out the intruder when they have the chance.

The old man should have just made sure it was on his property if he was going to shot them, avoided all of this.

 

[KHarvey16]

Actually it completely is in a way. It would be a crime of passion, with a temporary insanity defense, and I guarantee that in most cases it would stand with a fairly minor prison sentence. In the case of an old senile man, the case would be even less.

Did you really just disagree with my statement that it would be illegal by claiming it would only be a little jail time?

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Did you really just disagree with my statement that it would be illegal by claiming it would only be a little jail time?

Yes, because it is not strictly treated as a normal crime is. I understand that it's "illegal," that's why I said, "in a way it is [not illegal]." Crimes of passions are treated so, so differently than normal killings. In some states, we're talking about a person getting maybe as little as a year for killing someone.

 

[poppabk]

So people who support a woman's supposed right to choose actually do support it knowing that it may actually be a human life. Whether it is a child or not is irrelevant?

See I was always under the impression that the justification was based on the belief that the child in the womb is not a human life therefore it was her right to do with her own body. It seems to me it doesn't matter though with how you present it.

You used to different terms in describing whatever is going on in the womb.
In the case of of the man you referred to him killing a child in the womb.

In the case of abortion you called it terminating a pregnancy.

You don't understand the inconsistency of saying it is not ok for a man to kill that child and then in the same breath saying its ok to kill as long as its the mom. If it was a child when the man shot, it was a child when the mom hired a doctor to kill it. That is the inconsistency. As a supporter of abortion you should have no remorse for a child dying in the womb under any circumstances.

Its the same as saying that its not ok for a man to shoot a toddler but its ok if a mom chooses to drown it.

There is no inconsistency. If you are against abortion are you hypocritical if you are also pro death penalty, war, killing in self defense. If you are against chopping someone's arm off, are you against a doctor amputating an arm. If you are OK with that then is it OK if you give a doctor permission to kill you. What about if they give you a legal, but dangerous dose of drug? What about if they remove the wrong arm in an amputation are they guilty of the same crime as someone who attacks you and cuts off your arm with an axe. Who is to say that accepting abortion even means you don't consider it killing a fetus but accept that as not being a crime.
There are no black and white answers.

 

[KHarvey16]

Yes, because it is not strictly treated as a normal crime is. I understand that it's "illegal," that's why I said, "in a way it is [not illegal]." Crimes of passions are treated so, so differently than normal killings. In some states, we're talking about a person getting maybe as little as a year for killing someone.

...which means it's illegal. "Crime of passion" is a mitigating defense. Your point is unnecessary, not least of which because shooting someone as they flee after raping a loved one is not automatically a crime of passion.

 

[BobLoblaw]

Was he killed? Really? If you're dead it's too late to defend yourself. I don't want to live in the world where I have to be on death's door or someone has a knife at my throat before I can retaliate. The thieves escalate the situation when they decide to break in. Their action warrants a response from the homeowner. Don't want to get shot? Don't break in.

So he was injured during a scuffle. He wasn't severely beaten, stabbed, shot, or anything else. Hell, he's 80. Do you not think if they wanted to, they could've overpowered and seriously hurt/killed him? They were trying to get away. That's a fact. Thankfully, people like you don't make laws. People fleeing from crimes can't just be gunned down. If you see someone steal your bike and then run into them a week later, does that mean you get to shoot them? Fuck no. Shooting people in the back after they've made an attempt to flee is still manslaughter/murder, regardless of how messed up your sense of the law is.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

My suggestion at the beginning of this was to understand the underlying justification for making abortion legal. Roe v Wade spends a lot of time weighing the "potentiality of life" against the wishes and well being of the mother. That potentiality is not a black and white issue of "the fetus is a human life." You should read it.

From a moral-legal perspective, and this is not codified in any way, it is a balancing act between the right of bodily autonomy and the right of life. The right of life does not necessarily override the right of autonomy. We balance these in society. It is a battle of rights. This is a common element in almost any discussion of civil rights. If you want a really good paper that explains the balancing act between the right of autonomy and the right of life, I suggest the following:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

It is an old philosophy paper in defense of abortion.

 

[Swarna]

One could also argue that you could be considered morally reprehensible. Was he killed? Was he raped? Did someone pull a weapon on him? No. Someone knocked him down in a scuffle in his home and fled. He callously chased one of them down and shot them in the back after they pled for their life. If you think that's ok, then you have a pretty messed up sense of right and wrong.

Who are you as an able-bodied male (probably) to assume how this dude was feeling? The burglars singled him out time and time again. They knew the insides of his house and he probably felt helpless, unsafe, and angry about these strangers making themselves comfortable in the one place he's supposed to feel safe. They picked on him specifically because he was a weak old man. They ONLY ran when he whipped out a gun and otherwise didn't give a fuck about him up until that point. This shares a lot of similarities with rape (though not as severe) and I don't blame him for his actions one bit. Legally he may be prone to punishment but morally this matter is highly subjective. If a woman shot at her rapists as they fled and begged for their lives I wouldn't blame her one bit, either.

Killing the woman was not the "right" thing to do but he is not morally reprehensible for it, atleast IMO.

 

[commish]

This guy should be tried for murder. Plain and simple. He wasn't in danger, they had no weapons, they were fleeing his property, and he gunned one of them down. Can't believe anyone would defend this man's actions.

 

[rokkerkory]

This guy should be tried for murder. Plain and simple. He wasn't in danger, they had no weapons, they were fleeing his property, and he gunned one of them down. Can't believe anyone would defend this man's actions.

Yeah an 80 yr old man really is proper state of mind and shape to 'gun down' robbers. Terrible!!

 

[TheChocolateWar]

Yeah an 80 yr old man really is proper state of mind and shape to 'gun down' robbers. Terrible!!

Judging by his statements in the video with reporters, I do not think he qualifies for any of the tests for insanity.

 

[Kuroyume]

Just because you're 80 doesn't mean you turn into a half-wit.

 

[sometimes i game]

This guy should be tried for murder. Plain and simple. He wasn't in danger, they had no weapons, they were fleeing his property, and he gunned one of them down. Can't believe anyone would defend this man's actions.

Think the thought is they had robbed and hurt him multiple times prior and he had enough living in fear.

 

[commish]

Think the thought is they had robbed and hurt him multiple times prior and he had enough living in fear.

That's really not enough to justify murder.

 

[Camp Lo]

I know I will get shit for it, but fuck it. I'm not pro gun, right wing, or any of that shit at all (quite the opposite) but if you're gonna be dumb enough to rob or invade someone's house, expect that person to defend it at all costs. How was this dude (an elderly guy at that) supposed to know these people weren't going to hurt him, kill him or come back at another time to do either? He wasn't going to risk it. I don't blame him. No sympathy for attempting to break in and rob someone. Fuck 'em

Of course it's easy for someone behind a screen to judge, talk shit and say he didn't think clearly in the situation. I don't know, I can imagine it's hard to have a clear, objective, diplomatic frame of mind if someone breaks into your goddamn home, trying to steal your shit and, God forbid,might hurt you too. Yeah, lemme see how calm any of you or myself would be in that same situation.

I couldn't shit on you for this stance. They tried to rob the guy. It's a fucked up situation all around.

 

[Zarovitch]

That's really not enough to justify murder.

No but it's possible you lost your mind.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

That's really not enough to justify murder.

Actually.....no wait that works. Ever heard of the battered wife syndrome defense? I guess it could work for old men who have no recourse. The defense goes something like this; the person has been subject to the stimuli so often that they live in constant fear of the stimuli, and are always afraid of it. Therefore, even when the person is not actively engaging in the triggering event, they can get away with the defense........


Ok this could be a fun court case. I am all on board now.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

So many posts about sympathy. Like that's the real issue here. Who gives a shit about your sympathy.

 

[MutFox]

That's terrible.

Though for any intruder, they gotta know that there might be a consequence when breaking into another person's home.
Just never know who might be living there.

Could be jail time, could be someone itching to defend themselves.
(His defence wasn't warranted, but intruders have to expect the unexpected.)

 

[Ol No Bones]

There is no inconsistency. If you are against abortion are you hypocritical if you are also pro death penalty, war, killing in self defense. If you are against chopping someone's arm off, are you against a doctor amputating an arm. If you are OK with that then is it OK if you give a doctor permission to kill you. What about if they give you a legal, but dangerous dose of drug? What about if they remove the wrong arm in an amputation are they guilty of the same crime as someone who attacks you and cuts off your arm with an axe. Who is to say that accepting abortion even means you don't consider it killing a fetus but accept that as not being a crime.
There are no black and white answers.

Someone attacking you and a medical procedure are categorically different sure. I understand that. Now if a doctor drugged you, put you on a table and took your arm because he intended nothing more than to do you harm that is no different than the guy with the axe. The reason you use that silly analogy is because of how inconsistent this thinking it. I'm saying that if the fetus is in fact life that the recipient of the assault is the child. The facade of a medical procedure doesn't effect the act, meaning if a man beats a pregnant woman in the stomach with no other intention than to kill the child is that in any way different in principle to a woman having it burned alive and sucked out of her? Well you could say that in one case the woman elected to have it done and the other it was against her will, but you miss the point. If that is in fact life than there is a third party in this. If that is a life it would not matter whether it was a doctor or a man with a bat the victim is the same. If the baby is life it doesn't matter whether it was in the operating room with the ok of the mother or in an act of assault. The life was indiscriminately killed.

The reason I brought up the inconsistency is because people point out she was pregnant as if that made her being killed worse. I was ignorantly under the impression that abortion supporters justified abortion by thinking the baby was not an actual human life in the womb or at least up to some point in the womb. It seems I was wrong and it is not a concern whether or not that it is life. I was pointing out the inconsistency of being upset that a baby died in the womb while being ok with the same result as long as the mother approved.

I don't think medical malpractice has any relevance honestly.

 

[Chinpoko_Master]

I don't think what this guy did was right, but at the same time I have hard time feeling sorry for the woman. If you're going to rob someone, you've already lost most of my sympathy. If she really was pregnant, it's pretty irresponsible of her to put her baby in that situation as well. If anything, I feel sorry for the baby.

 

[studyguy]

So he was injured during a scuffle. He wasn't severely beaten, stabbed, shot, or anything else.

Scuffle is an awfully nice way to put having a broken collar bone after a third robbery. If the police weren't helping the old man after the second attempt, then there's no ensuring that they would have stopped a potential 4th attack if the culprits got away scott free. I'm iffy on the issue as well, but I can't really blame him either if he felt like he had no recourse but to take matters into his own hands. They proved bold enough to put their hands on him and rob him multiple times, not a far leap in logic to assume they might just outright kill him next time.

It's a sad case all around.

 

[ricardokenshin]

The way it happens usually in my (shitty) country is that if a criminal knows you have a gun, they will come back another time to kill you and steal the gun. Not the case in the US, but it's hard to feel sympathy for the burglars. Worse yet is bringing a pregnant woman to a dangerous situation.

 

[afternoon delight]

This thread brings to mind the Chapelle Show skit where they put Dave on the stand defending Michael Jackson. The bit ends with the lawyer asking Dave if he would let his children spend the night with Jackson- Fuck no!

I wonder what mental leaps those of you calling for the old man's head would make if robbers assaulted you in your own home after the third or fourth time.

Plenty of poor people like myself get by without B&E, let alone victimizing the elderly.

 

[bengraven]

These home invader killings have given me a theory.

I think these people (mostly white men) killing people on their property get off on it. They know it's "legal" (in the popular thought) and it's their one chance to hunt the game that's illegal to hunt otherwise (man). So to them this is the one time they can hunt a human and it's legal, so they go for it.

 

[Muffdraul]

Breaking into someone's home to steal from them might as well be a form of attempted suicide. Or Russian roulette.

 

[Alcoholikaust]

That's terrible.

Though for any intruder, they gotta know that there might be a consequence when breaking into another person's home.
Just never know who might be living there.

Could be jail time, could be someone itching to defend themselves.
(His defence wasn't warranted, but intruders have to expect the unexpected.)

this-

 

[BobLoblaw]

Scuffle is an awfully nice way to put having a broken collar bone after a third robbery. If the police weren't helping the old man after the second attempt, then there's no ensuring that they would have stopped a potential 4th attack if the culprits got away scott free. I'm iffy on the issue as well, but I can't really blame him either if he felt like he had no recourse but to take matters into his own hands. They proved bold enough to put their hands on him and rob him multiple times, not a far leap in logic to assume they might just outright kill him next time.

It's a sad case all around.

He's 80. His bones are probably brittle as shit, so a broken collar bone doesn't necesarily mean as much as your think. Yes, it's a serious injury, but not even close to life threatening. And why can't people read?

Greer told detectives that he was the victim of two reported and one unreported prior burglaries to his home, where cash and other personal property was taken. Greer also said he believed Miller and Adams were responsible for the earlier robberies and might return in the future.

There is absolutely NO proof that they robbed him before. It's all just speculation. This guy shot at people while in his home, they grabbed a few things and ran out the house. He ran out the house after them shooting multiple time and eventually hitting the woman. He then casually ignored her plea and shot her in the back while she laid on the ground.

People who can't see anything wrong with this are more likely than not terrible people.

 

[Flo_Evans]

These home invader killings have given me a theory.

I think these people (mostly white men) killing people on their property get off on it. They know it's "legal" (in the popular thought) and it's their one chance to hunt the game that's illegal to hunt otherwise (man). So to them this is the one time they can hunt a human and it's legal, so they go for it.

Its way easier to "accidentally" shoot someone on a hunting trip if that is what you are into. Or become a cop, or join the army.

Personally I think this line of thinking is rather insulting to the victims of crime and assault. I'm sure this guy would of been perfectly happy to not have his home burglarized.

I think he is guilty of murder though, cause he pursued his attackers and shot them fleeing.

edit: oh jeez he shot her in the back after she was already on the ground? GUILTY >_<

 

[poppabk]

There is absolutely NO proof that they robbed him before. It's all just speculation. This guy shot at people while in his home, they grabbed a few things and ran out the house. He ran out the house after them shooting multiple time and eventually hitting the woman. He then casually ignored her plea and shot her in the back while she laid on the ground.

People who can't see anything wrong with this are more likely than not terrible people.

Is the bolded what happened? If so and he executed the woman then he should definitely go to jail.

 

[Skyzard]

Jail his ass. Can't have all the angry old timers thinking now is their chance to get some human killing action.

 

[OriginalNameGuy]

So he was injured during a scuffle. He wasn't severely beaten, stabbed, shot, or anything else. Hell, he's 80. Do you not think if they wanted to, they could've overpowered and seriously hurt/killed him? They were trying to get away. That's a fact. Thankfully, people like you don't make laws. People fleeing from crimes can't just be gunned down. If you see someone steal your bike and then run into them a week later, does that mean you get to shoot them? Fuck no. Shooting people in the back after they've made an attempt to flee is still manslaughter/murder, regardless of how messed up your sense of the law is.

I think having your collarbone broken falls under the seriously injured category. They only tried to get away because he defended himself this time around. Criminals who prey on the elderly view them as soft/easy targets. Reminder that this was their 3rd time breaking into his home. They traumatized him and he snapped. He wasn't going to let them come back for a 4th or 5th time. The law may call it murder(in his state), but I don't blame him for what happened.

 

[BobLoblaw]

I think having your collarbone broken falls under the seriously injured category. They only tried to get away because he defended himself this time around. Criminals who prey on the elderly view them as soft/easy targets. Reminder that this was their 3rd time breaking into his home. They traumatized him and he snapped. He wasn't going to let them come back for a 4th or 5th time. The law may call it murder(in his state), but I don't blame him for what happened.

There is no proof of this. It's just speculation. Did you even read my post?

 

[poppabk]

Someone attacking you and a medical procedure are categorically different sure. I understand that. Now if a doctor drugged you, put you on a table and took your arm because he intended nothing more than to do you harm that is no different than the guy with the axe. The reason you use that silly analogy is because of how inconsistent this thinking it. I'm saying that if the fetus is in fact life that the recipient of the assault is the child. The facade of a medical procedure doesn't effect the act, meaning if a man beats a pregnant woman in the stomach with no other intention than to kill the child is that in any way different in principle to a woman having it burned alive and sucked out of her? Well you could say that in one case the woman elected to have it done and the other it was against her will, but you miss the point. If that is in fact life than there is a third party in this. If that is a life it would not matter whether it was a doctor or a man with a bat the victim is the same. If the baby is life it doesn't matter whether it was in the operating room with the ok of the mother or in an act of assault. The life was indiscriminately killed.

The reason I brought up the inconsistency is because people point out she was pregnant as if that made her being killed worse. I was ignorantly under the impression that abortion supporters justified abortion by thinking the baby was not an actual human life in the womb or at least up to some point in the womb. It seems I was wrong and it is not a concern whether or not that it is life. I was pointing out the inconsistency of being upset that a baby died in the womb while being ok with the same result as long as the mother approved.

I don't think medical malpractice has any relevance honestly.

You are still thinking in absolutes. Life / not life. It's a fetus, is it alive - yes, is it a human being - no, it's a fetus and that means whatever it means to you. Most people consider it sad when it is killed, no matter what side of the abortion debate they are on. Some consider this acceptable if the mother chooses to have it killed, because it is part of her body and they don't think she can be forced to keep it part of her body against her will.
Would you be OK if they removed the fetus whole and the fetus was allowed to live out its 2 seconds of life as it saw fit?

 

[Wazzy]

What a disgusting piece of shit.

You're a sociopath if you can't even stop yourself from killing someone fleeing.

 

[Swarna]

There is absolutely NO proof that they robbed him before. It's all just speculation. This guy shot at people while in his home, they grabbed a few things and ran out the house. He ran out the house after them shooting multiple time and eventually hitting the woman. He then casually ignored her plea and shot her in the back while she laid on the ground.

People who can't see anything wrong with this are more likely than not terrible people.

Citation needed. Based on all current coverage all we know is that he allegedly walked in on them burglarizing, they both beat him up and body slammed him into the ground, the woman stayed on him while the husband tended to the safe, she stopped paying attention to him and he slipped away and got a gun, they saw the gun and ran outside, and he shot the slower target twice in the back as she was running and pleading for her life.

 

[Mechanized]

I can sympathize to a point, but he turned into a stone cold killer. She was on the ground, already shot fleeing for her life and he killed her. His life passed the point where it was in danger. He was essentially getting revenge on someone stealing bullshit physical things by murdering them. I can see him wanting to arm himself and deter further break-ins. Warning shots, etc... But he took it too far.

 

[Toxi]

So many posts about sympathy. Like that's the real issue here. Who gives a shit about your sympathy.

Seriously. I see a thread full of defending murder because "I'm not sympathetic to robbers/I'm sympathetic to the guy who was afraid and angry".

That's all well and good, but can we stop defending murder?

 

[Skyzard]

Citation needed. Based on all current coverage all we know is that he allegedly walked in on them burglarizing, they both beat him up and body slammed him into the ground, the woman stayed on him while the husband tended to the safe, she stopped paying attention to him and he slipped away and got a gun, they saw the gun and ran outside, and he shot the slower target twice in the back as she was running and pleading for her life.

Bit different since they attacked him. Jail his ass just a little. I can imagine he would be pissed.

 

[RedStep]

These home invader killings have given me a theory.

I think these people (mostly white men) killing people on their property get off on it. They know it's "legal" (in the popular thought) and it's their one chance to hunt the game that's illegal to hunt otherwise (man). So to them this is the one time they can hunt a human and it's legal, so they go for it.

If you think this 80-year-old man was hunting the most dangerous game with some young piece of shit robbers, not sure what to tell you. Except that your theory is crazy.

There is absolutely NO proof that they robbed him before. It's all just speculation. This guy shot at people while in his home, they grabbed a few things and ran out the house. He ran out the house after them shooting multiple time and eventually hitting the woman. He then casually ignored her plea and shot her in the back while she laid on the ground.

You're speculating in exactly the opposite direction to support your agenda. Making this out to be the calm execution of a downed pregnant woman isn't supported by the facts currently available, at all.

 

[crazepharmacist]

I can sympathize to a point, but he turned into a stone cold killer. She was on the ground, already shot fleeing for her life and he killed her. His life passed the point where it was in danger. He was essentially getting revenge on someone stealing bullshit physical things by murdering them. I can see him wanting to arm himself and deter further break-ins. Warning shots, etc... But he took it too far.

This reminds me of a similar case where a pharmacist owner shot two teen robbers. One, I think was hit but fled while the other was alive but incapacitated on the ground in the store. He casually strides up to the dude and loads a bullet into him, killing him. Think he's serving life in prison now.

It will be interesting to see if charges or pressed or not against this guy. With that said, I do sympathize with him to a degree as well. He was living in fear of his life after numerous burglaries by potentially the same robbers.

 

[Wazzy]

If you think this 80-year-old man was hunting the most dangerous game with some young piece of shit robbers, not sure what to tell you. Except that your theory is crazy.



You're speculating in exactly the opposite direction to support your agenda. Making this out to be the calm execution of a downed pregnant woman isn't supported by the facts currently available, at all.

What facts?

She's on the floor already shot and begging for her life and he decided to put a bullet in her to finish her off.

There's nothing to defend for him. He crossed the line at that point.

Seriously. I see a thread full of defending murder because "I'm not sympathetic to robbers/I'm sympathetic to the guy who was afraid and angry".

That's all well and good, but can we stop defending murder?

It really is scary how many people here are defending murder.

The guys life was in no way threatened when he killed her. He's a sociopath.

 

[JustProgress]

What a disgusting piece of shit.

You're a sociopath if you can't even stop yourself from killing someone fleeing.

What disgusting pieces of shit.

You're a sociopath if you can't even stop robbing someone multiple times since he is elderly.

 

[Saint Gregory]

I'm reading some pretty sickening things in this thread. Anyone who believes that a materiel possession is worth more than a human life needs to get a new moral compass.

There's no object that can't be replaced or lived without. You can't replace a life once you're taken it.

 

[Ol No Bones]

You are still thinking in absolutes. Life / not life. It's a fetus, is it alive - yes, is it a human being - no, it's a fetus and that means whatever it means to you. Most people consider it sad when it is killed, no matter what side of the abortion debate they are on. Some consider this acceptable if the mother chooses to have it killed, because it is part of her body and they don't think she can be forced to keep it part of her body against her will.
Would you be OK if they removed the fetus whole and the fetus was allowed to live out its 2 seconds of life as it saw fit?

The big question exists. What makes a human being a human being? What even makes human life intrinsically valuable? Is being a human being the ability to be to survive apart from a mother or guardian because born babies and toddlers are doomed to die apart from a mother and by extension her body.

You may assume that isn't life (the life that is preserved just because it is life). I dont think its that easy.

Its like being in the woods and seeing something rustling in the bushes and saying that you dont think its your hunting partner but it might be. You raise your gun and shoot anyway and I'm saying for goodness sakes dont shoot.

I still think its inconsistent to mourn the death of a baby in a womb in one case and hold up a womans "right" to do the same.

 

[GYODX]

That was the third time they robbed him and they fucking assaulted the guy.

No sympathy whatsoever.

If you don't want to put your and your baby's life in danger don't go around breaking into people's homes repeatedly. It really is that simple!

 

[Wazzy]

What disgusting pieces of shit.

You're a sociopath if you can't even stop robbing someone multiple times since he is elderly.

lol where in my post did I say the robbers were good people?

Let's cut the bullshit act out that the old man was defending his life when he killed her. If he had shot them while he was being attacked as a means of defence, this would be a different story.

He shot a women begging for her life after she was already shot.

But hey keep defending a sociopath.

 

[MutFox]

I won't defend the action, cause what that guy did is disgusting.
Though for any intruder, they have to expect that there could be a consequence if they break into a persons home.

In this case it was the worst case scenario.
Just never know if the person wants to test out that gun that hasn't been used.