Saint Gregory
Member
Why hadn't the police been involved long before this happened then? I haven't really read up on this case beyond what was in the OP. It seems like there's more going on than we know.
Man shoots and kills intruder. Police determine she was not pregnant.
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
Why hadn't the police been involved long before this happened then? I haven't really read up on this case beyond what was in the OP. It seems like there's more going on than we know.
TheChocolateWar
Member
Definitely a Robbery, not necessarily a burglary or a B and E. We don't have sufficient facts to say whether it was a burglary.
Not sure, I don't have all the facts. I know a lot of old people who are too stubborn to talk to the police, don't trust the police, or fear for their safety and retaliation for contacting the police.
Judging from the countless inane comments in this thread, there will be quite a few responses to this saying that this situation is the same thing. (hint: it's not)
You're probably pointing out how ironic it is that I used that word because that's what the guy likely did as he shot the woman.
Yep, no one should ever kill in that situation. I never argued that. But if you're in a jumbled mental state and you're doing things you normally wouldn't have done things don't always happen as they should happen. Guy got robbed multiple times, punched, body slammed, and probably was in a state of adrenaline. Murder is not justified but he wouldn't be a sociopath in my opinion if that was the case. If he was completely sane and calm (which I doubt) I'd agree with you.
I'm not saying killing someone is ok. But after being steal three time in a years, i've experience stress i didn't know i could feel (sorry for my english, i hope you understand), and if i've catch a burglar in my house in these time, i wonder how i would have react.
Omegasquash
Member
Robbing is bad, but so is shooting someone in the back. I'd venture that the latter is worse than the former, and I don't think I'm off base in doing so. Ugly situation all around.
TheChocolateWar
Member
It totally could be. A reasonable attorney could make a good faith argument to expand the underlying legal purpose of the battered wife syndrome to the facts as we have them at this time; a series of robberies of the man over the course of a period of time, some times resulting in battery.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
When does self-defence become murder? Is there a specific time or circumstance? Is it the time when the victim is no longer being threatened? Is it the time when the crime has "finished"? Or is it a scenario where the victim is the one threatening the suspect?
Consider the examples:
1. A person gets raped. Afterwards, suspect leaves. Victim reaches into nearby drawer, pulls out gun, follows and kills suspect. Self-defence or murder?
2. A person is robbed by someone with a knife. Victim pulls a gun. Suspect backs away and drops knife. Victim shoots suspect. Self-defence or murder?
As an addendum to #2, when does it cross from self-defence into murder? When the suspect backs away from knife range? When the suspect drops his knife, limiting the threat to the victim's life? Maybe the victim doesn't shoot right away and the suspect runs. Is a running person a threat?
And this is just a physical description. There's no consideration of the victim's mental state.
(Note that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your opinion. It's just that calling it "murder" or someone a "sociopath" is going to be very murky should this go to trial.)
Muffdraul
Member
Ah, I see. Welp, no point in him hiring a lawyer then. After all it's not as if there's any need for any arguing about anything here. Not like laws are interpreted by various people with differing opinions. Irrefutable. Case dismissed.
nicoga3000
Saint Nic
That I do. And I've done my research on the laws here in Indiana, and we have a self-defense "clause", so if it ever came to it...
I don't see anyone saying this was a simple and easy B&E.
What everyone is arguing against is the fact people are defending the old man murdering someone fleeing and begging for their life and that's pretty much it.
The robbers are scum for stealing. They should be facing jail time. But that does not mean(not saying you said any of this btw) he can revenge kill people no longer a threat in the moment.
Jumbled mental state or not, there is no excuse to do what he did. You pursue and continue to murder someone begging for their life, then you're no longer in the right of defending yourself.
I stopped sympathizing the moment he went out to revenge kill. He had every right to defend himself when he was being threatened but after that he broke the law and should be punished.
OldAsUrSock
Banned
You have this 80 some odd old man seeing two people stealing his money. I don't see how anyone is surprised they were shot at. Some of y'all are like, "Don't mind me. Take it all. Hopefully the police will find you and give me my money back."
There really isn't much more to this. Yes, she was pregnant, but that means there was enough reason for her to not endanger the child and herself. Though it is kind of dismaying on how the man said, "Yeah I shot her twice she best be dead."
There really isn't much more to this. Yes, she was pregnant, but that means there was enough reason for her to not endanger the child and herself. Though it is kind of dismaying on how the man said, "Yeah I shot her twice she best be dead."
Saint Gregory
Member
I really don't understand what was going on here, it just sounds like a terrible story all around. I can't support shooting someone in the back though while they are fleeing even if he was afraid they would return. There's got to be a better option than that.
The first thing I thought of when reading the OP was the other old man a few months ago that basically set a trap in his home to lure in robbers so he could kill them. That guy was way sicker though.
You're really not very good at this understanding the criminal justice system thing. He admits to killing the woman, and the scenario he himself describes is that of an illegal homicide. Why would that imply we don't need a trial? Your reasoning throughout your time here in this thread has been bizarre.
Muffdraul
Member
Fleeing thieves might say anything as they attempt to get away from their victim who is pursuing them with the intent to inflict deadly force... which many believe they are entitled to do, disagree though you may. S'all I'm sayin'.
EDIT: Sorry, I admit I'm at least partially just fucking with you at this point. It's not as if this debate is going to actually get us anywhere.
cpp_is_king
Member
Im pretty sure both sides think the other side is insane. Thinking someone is insane doesn't make you objectively right, it just means you have an opinion.
TheChocolateWar
Member
*Nods* I agree. I dislike the battered wife syndrome too, or at least the reasoning behind it, and I personally would not like making the argument. But if this guy stands any chance at all before a court, thats the argument to make.
Never heard of the trap case though. But traps are generally not allowed. (Deadly traps)
Here are quite a few, I got bored after a few pages...
sometimes it doesnt even get to a judge, when it doesnt even get passed the grand jury.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5283784
To be honest the DA has to weigh charging this man, even in California a Jury is going to have a hard time convicting an 80 year old man who had been robbed 3 times and assaulted in one of those instances.
To all you "its just things" people how do you know what they are there for? You dont know if they will get spooked if they hear someone and run away, or they will turn and attack you or your family because they realize someone is home. In my case, if someone breaks into my house when I'm not there, hopefully my dogs pretty vicious bark encourages them to move on. If they break in when I'm home, hopefully my dogs pretty viscous bark encourages them to move on, if they decide not to move on, you bet your ass I will defend myself, my wife and my soon to be new born baby. Again, its not about "things" its about my families and my safety, I have no idea what they are there for. If its me or them? I'm choosing me every time. I will call the cops, and I will threaten them and tell them i'm armed. If i've been robbed three times by the same people, i'm not sure what I would do.
What are you talking about? What the thieves said is completely irrelevant.
The pregnancy is not the main concern of why it was wrong to kill her. That was someone begging for their life. Anyone will do that, not just robbers.
Not only that but he should not have pursued them. You call the police.
Those were posted in response to others suggesting he had a moral right to shoot given they had robbed him.
The old man should not have kill her, he commit a crime for sure.
They only thing i give him, is it's possible he see red after beeing brutalise and steal many time and lost is mind for some time. It still a murder, but not ice cold like an old case here where burglar kill two old people for their money.
They only thing i give him, is it's possible he see red after beeing brutalise and steal many time and lost is mind for some time. It still a murder, but not ice cold like an old case here where burglar kill two old people for their money.
How is that treating it like a simple B&E?
It's people saying lives are more important than things being stolen. This man took matters into his own hands and revenge killed robbers.
Muffdraul
Member
Hmm, wonder if the prosecution will think it's irrelevant.
I don't understand what you're saying. What they said has no bearing on whether or not the killing was justified. It will factor in if a second murder charge is brought against him because she was in fact pregnant but on the question of justification it's not considered.
veryslowhand
Banned
Isn't there a maximum age to go to jail?
BronsonLee
Member
What? Why would there be?
If there was, old people would just straight up fucking ice everyone who looks at them sideways, steal billions of dollars, etc
Dunedain_Ranger
Member
So was the other thief the husband ?
Muffdraul
Member
You must be one very naive fellow if you don't think the prosecution is going to hammer on the woman telling the old man she's pregnant every chance they get, no matter how irrelevant you think it is.
Though to your credit, it's true that not many in this topic seem to be up in arms over it.
Saint Gregory
Member
I didn't realize how long it had been. It's pretty disturbing stuff so don't read it right before bed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_David_Smith_killings
Thankfully he's doing life in prison now.
veryslowhand
Banned
What the prosecution will be hammering is the fact he pursued and murdered a fleeing robber.
You're the one that tried to say they could be lying which no one is going to take seriously as an argument. They begged for their lives.
TheChocolateWar
Member
That sounds like Italy to me. Here the standard is just competency. If they understand what they did and are not infirm (insane) then they can go to jail.
Yes, but they did much more than take shit and run. They held him down while ransacking the house and trying to pry open the safe. They only ran because he managed to get his gun.
I agree he should not have shot them once they fled, but it is not as simple as someone simply stealing. Deadly force is pretty much always justified when you are held hostage, he could easily argue they were going to arm themselves.
I suppose he lost his mind in this moment. If he regret nothing it's different.
In the two case, he's a murderer, but less dangerous if he lose is mind.
Muffdraul
Member
Do you want to make some kind of bet over whether or not the prosecution will wield "she begged for her own life and life of her unborn child" like their own little atom bomb in the courtroom?
TheChocolateWar
Member
Any attorney worth his salt has about seven kinds of evidential objections to a statement like that; hearsay, prejudical effect overrides probative value, not relevant, etc.
I understand that. But that in no way excuses pursuing and murdering them. My full sympathies would be with him if he shot while they were attacking him.
No he could not easily argue that because at that point he should have called the police once they fled.
Muffdraul
Member
Too bad a lot of attorneys aren't even worth their own shit let alone their salt.
TheChocolateWar
Member
If I were the magistrate I would immediately suspend the trial sua sponte (by the power of my mighty gavel!) and have an order to show cause why I shouldn't slap that attorney back to first year law school. And then order a new trial.
Muffdraul
Member
hydragonwarrior
Member
It's like these ppl only learn how to shoot to kill, rather than shoot to incapacitate.
I know, i know - no one is pro enough to shoot only to take out a leg, but it's like you're taught to not even try to spare someone's life. In this case, there was no gun to his head nor was it a standoff - it was a person's backside. I'm sure he could've gone for a leg.
I know, i know - no one is pro enough to shoot only to take out a leg, but it's like you're taught to not even try to spare someone's life. In this case, there was no gun to his head nor was it a standoff - it was a person's backside. I'm sure he could've gone for a leg.
The only time you should be willing to shoot a gun is when you're willing to kill. You never shoot to incapacitate.
Wow...
- Status