Support NeoGAF

[off duty ninja]

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.

Sure in the movies people incapacitate people with skill shots all the time. I have never taken a basic handgun course but during basic training in the Army you are taught to shoot center mass to have the best chance of hitting your target.

The other point to this is that when wielding a firearm I believe it is considered a deadly weapon. There is no such thing as only trying to injure someone. Once you open fire on somebody, no matter where you are aiming it is considered deadly force because a gunshot wound anywhere could be life threatening.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

The only time you should be willing to shoot a gun is when you're willing to kill. You never shoot to incapacitate.

Seriously? Even if they're running away?

Or what if they were in the car - would you shoot the tire or try to shoot one through the guy's head through the window?

If it's a confrontation and both parties are armed, then it's unavoidable. But otherwise I don't agree with this kind of rule.

 

[KHarvey16]

Seriously? Even if they're running away?

Or what if they were in the car - would you shoot the tire or try to shoot one through the guy's head through the window?

If it's a confrontation and both parties are armed, then it's unavoidable. But otherwise I don't agree with this kind of rule.

Shooting a gun is deadly force no matter what part of the body you aim for. If you aren't justified in using deadly force you aren't justified in firing a gun.

 

[Maxim726X]

Shooter is a maniac. He's more of a danger to society than the robbers were.

Because he shot someone that has robbed him multiple times, and then physically attacked him to get inside of the house this time?

Whew. Okay.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Shooting a gun is deadly force no matter what part of the body you aim for. If you aren't justified in using deadly force you aren't justified in firing a gun.

I just can't agree with this - be it a martial art which teaches you deadly moves or even if you have a knife in your hand, if someone is running away after a robbery, are you allowed to just chase them down and strangle them to death or slit their throat?

That's kind of a scary precedent.

 

[KHarvey16]

I just can't agree with this - be it a martial art which teaches you deadly moves or even if you have a knife in your hand, if someone is running away after a robbery, are you allowed to just chase them down and strangle them to death or slit their throat?

That's kind of a scary precedent.

No, of course you aren't allowed to do that. You can't use deadly force if they aren't a threat to kill you or cause grievous bodily injury.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Horrible.

This situation should pose an interesting philosophical dilemma for conservatives. What is more sacred: second ammendment rights to bear arms and defend your property or the life of an unborn child who was not at all complicit in their mother's crime.

 

[Freakinchair]

Suspect != someone you catch in your home.

I agree that he *shouldn't* have shot them, but it's not exactly like he had no reason to.

If TWO people gang up on you, break your collarbone, and one "guards" you/restrains you as the other is doing whatever, then yeah, I get why you'd get a gun and shoot them. That's basic defense. In the back? Heat of the moment. A fit of (understandable) anger.

Guns are meant to kill. If we as a country don't want people killing each other with guns, we shouldn't make them legal. Simple.

I agree with this. If the police didn't do anything about the robbers before - and they're bold enough to keep going back - who's to say they won't come back and just kill him? They're violent criminals preying on the weak who don't deserve any sympathy.

 

[GungHo]

I just can't agree with this - be it a martial art which teaches you deadly moves or even if you have a knife in your hand, if someone is running away after a robbery, are you allowed to just chase them down and strangle them to death or slit their throat?

That's kind of a scary precedent.

Using the knife is also presumed deadly force. There is no "registering your hands as weapons" or some shit, but excessive force with your hands like strangling someone is usually ruled deadly force. The precedent has been made. Many years ago. You're kind of late on this. Your agreement doesn't really matter, honestly.

 

[Brakke]

I agree with this. If the police didn't do anything about the robbers before - and they're bold enough to keep going back - who's to say they won't come back and just kill him? They're violent criminals preying on the weak who don't deserve any sympathy.

Are we precogs now, I hadn't heard.

 

[Wazzy]

Suspect != someone you catch in your home.

I agree that he *shouldn't* have shot them, but it's not exactly like he had no reason to.

If TWO people gang up on you, break your collarbone, and one "guards" you/restrains you as the other is doing whatever, then yeah, I get why you'd get a gun and shoot them. That's basic defense. In the back? Heat of the moment. A fit of (understandable) anger.

Guns are meant to kill. If we as a country don't want people killing each other with guns, we shouldn't make them legal. Simple.

That's not the point.

If he had shot while they were a threat to him then yes, it would be understandable.

But the moment you pursue and murder someone begging for their life, you're committing a crime.

 

[Lesath]

Suspect != someone you catch in your home.

I agree that he *shouldn't* have shot them, but it's not exactly like he had no reason to.

If TWO people gang up on you, break your collarbone, and one "guards" you/restrains you as the other is doing whatever, then yeah, I get why you'd get a gun and shoot them. That's basic defense. In the back? Heat of the moment. A fit of (understandable) anger.

Guns are meant to kill. If we as a country don't want people killing each other with guns, we shouldn't make them legal. Simple.

What if the man, instead of having a gun, had an axe? And, ignoring the physical limitations of old men for a moment, with that axe, he chased the woman down and cleaved into her back as she was fleeing? Would he be justified, or even understandable, then? The intent is the same, the result is the same.

EDIT: Sorry, GungHo, missed your post.

 

[CoyoteSpitfire]

When you rob somebody's house, you're putting her life on the line. That woman knew the risk and she did it anyway. She won't do it again and the child won't be raised by thieves.

That being said, the guy has ice in his veins. Shooting a fleeing pregnant woman in the back is not considered self defense and he should be punished accordingly.

 

[BobLoblaw]

Suspect != someone you catch in your home.

I agree that he *shouldn't* have shot them, but it's not exactly like he had no reason to.

If TWO people gang up on you, break your collarbone, and one "guards" you/restrains you as the other is doing whatever, then yeah, I get why you'd get a gun and shoot them. That's basic defense. In the back? Heat of the moment. A fit of (understandable) anger.

Guns are meant to kill. If we as a country don't want people killing each other with guns, we shouldn't make them legal. Simple.

Well, "suspect" because right now, we only have his words to gone by. Two people wrestling with you and restraining you (not trying to strangle/murder you) does call for someone to defend themselves, even with a gun. The problem here is that they both fled down an alley and the old man gave chase and started shooting and just so happened to hit the woman. He then admits to coldly shooting her while she begged for her life.

If all of this happened in his home, then ok, they shouldn't be there. But when someone's running away, laws don't allow for revenge killings. So if he saw them walking down the street the next day, would it then be ok to shoot them? That's my problem with this and the precedent it would set.

 

[Opiate]

While I'm not sure I'm prepared to take "sides" here, I would say this: the situation is clearly pretty complicated and I don't feel we should hate those who happen to be on the other "side."

If you told me an old man shot a pregnant woman in the back, I'd say lock him up.

If you added that he shot her after she robbed his house, I'd say that's trickier but still clearly illegal.

If you then added that he shot her after she robbed his house for a third time, I'd pause for a second then say it's still illegal and he should have called the cops instead.

If you then told me he shot her after she tied him up, broke his collar bone, and then robbed his house for a third time, I'd stop and say I'm not sure there is a clear answer to what should be done, as a casual observer of the situation.

I'd leave it to the courts, because that's not something I feel confident judging from my armchair far away. Really the only people I feel are being unreasonable here are those who feel the situation is simple: clearly he's a horrible old man and this is unquestionably illegal, or clearly he's a boss and anyone who tries to rob me will be shot.

 

[Wazzy]

While I'm not sure I'm prepared to take "sides" here, I would say this: the situation is clearly pretty complicated and I don't feel we should hate those who happen to be on the other "side."

If you told me an old man shot a pregnant woman in the back, I'd say lock him up.

If you added that he shot her after she robbed his house, I'd say that's trickier but still clearly illegal.

If you then added that he shot her after she robbed his house for a third time, I'd pause for a second then say it's still illegal and he should have called the cops instead.

If you then told me he shot her after she tied him up, broke his collar bone, and then robbed his house for a third time, I'd stop and say I'm not sure there is a clear answer to what should be done, as a casual observer of the situation.

I'd leave it to the courts, because that's not something I feel confident judging from my armchair far away. Really the only people I feel are being unreasonable here are those who feel the situation is simple: clearly he's a horrible old man and this is unquestionably illegal, or clearly he's a boss and anyone who tries to rob me will be shot.

First, you have to prove that the three robberies were by the same people for that to have any merit.

Second, it is still illegal to pursue and murder someone. That is clear.

 

[GaimeGuy]

First, you have to prove that the three robberies were by the same people for that to have any merit.

Second, it is still illegal to pursue and murder someone. That is clear.

Third, the lack of remorse over his actions clearly demonstrates a depraved mind.

Most people are traumatized, saddened, SOMETHING over killing someone else, no matter how justified they were in their actions.

 

[Opiate]

First, you have to prove that the three robberies were by the same people for that to have any merit.

Sure, everything in this story has to be proven. I'm not sure why you single out that specific piece.

Second, it is still illegal to pursue and murder someone. That is clear.

It apparently isn't clear, because the man in question has not been charged (and from the looks of it, will not be). This doesn't mean I like the guy or think I would have done the same in his shoes (I don't even own a gun), but I certainly think there are enough mitigating factors here to make me pause. And, apparently, to make prosecutors pause.

 

[KHarvey16]

Sure, everything in this story has to be "proved." I'm not sure why you single out that specific piece.



It apparently isn't clear, because the man in question has not been charged (And from the looks of it, will not be). This doesn't mean I like the guy or think I would have done the same in his shoes (I don't even own a gun), but I certainly think there are enough mitigating factors here to make me pause. And, apparently, to make prosecutors pause.

The case has not been turned over to the DA yet.

All of the potential defenses really end up just mitigating charges, not justifying or excusing the homicide. Considering even the most generous interpretations, murder becomes manslaughter either by a heat of the moment type defense or imperfect self defense.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Sure, everything in this story has to be proven. I'm not sure why you single out that specific piece.



It apparently isn't clear, because the man in question has not been charged (and from the looks of it, will not be). This doesn't mean I like the guy or think I would have done the same in his shoes (I don't even own a gun), but I certainly think there are enough mitigating factors here to make me pause. And, apparently, to make prosecutors pause.

He killed someone by shooting them in the back because they were too slow to get away from him in time. Those are his own words!

He killed someone by shooting them in the back because they were too slow to get away from him in time. Those are his own words!

He killed someone by shooting them in the back because they were too slow to get away from him in time. Those are his own words!

He killed someone by shooting them in the back because they were too slow to get away from him in time. Those are his own words!

He killed someone by shooting them in the back because they were too slow to get away from him in time. Those are his own words!

He killed someone by shooting them in the back because they were too slow to get away from him in time. Those are his own words!

 

[Wazzy]

Third, the lack of remorse over his actions clearly demonstrates a depraved mind.

Most people are traumatized, saddened, SOMETHING over killing someone else, no matter how justified they were in their actions.

Absolutely.

Sure, everything in this story has to be "proved." I'm not sure why you single out that specific piece.

There is nothing to be proved on the other side. The man admitted to pursuing the two robbers, hearing the women begging for her life and then shooting her.

It apparently isn't clear, because the man in question has not been charged (And from the looks of it, will not be). This doesn't mean I like the guy or think I would have done the same in his shoes (I don't even own a gun), but I certainly think there are enough mitigating factors here to make me pause. And, apparently, to make prosecutors pause.

There's always going to be cases where people get away with this kind of stuff. At the same time, charges and arrest are still being considered.

I don't see how there can be any argument supporting it as legal to pursue and murder fleeing suspects through vigilant justice.

 

[goldenpp72]

Third, the lack of remorse over his actions clearly demonstrates a depraved mind.

Most people are traumatized, saddened, SOMETHING over killing someone else, no matter how justified they were in their actions.

I don't think I would be, if I fired a gun and accidentally hit an innocent I think i'd be traumatized, but in this case the pride of ridding the world of what I would equate to nothing more than a much more dangerous form of pest would probably overwrite any kind of guilt with some sense of pride. It's a public service, apparently I am a psychotic person for not beating myself up over the death of a scum bag that will do nothing but drain on society and possibly result in the injury/death of innocent people.

Even in a situation of war it makes sense to feel stress over killing, a lot of those soldiers are just guys trying to protect their country, family, etc, but in this instance it's clear these people are scumbags willing to die for stolen goods, not having remorse for one of them being gone is not a bad thing in my mind.

In a perfect situation for the old man, I guess it would have been great if the cops he likely called for prior robberies could have stopped this from happening, or somehow detained them, but if someone was in my house for the third time and this time assaulted me, i'd want everything to be done to make sure this can't happen again, as it's clear the other options weren't working or practical at that point. Wanting to live in peace is not a crime, and these people felt this dude didn't deserve that not once, but three times. I hope the other one is found and prosecuted to the fullest extent, but hold no sadness over the death of a woman who would hold down an injured 80 year old man while he observes his home being violated a third time. Not all life is equal, when a person reaches a point of basically rejecting the most basic of a peaceful societies laws, they should be ready to be treated as such.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

While I'm not sure I'm prepared to take "sides" here, I would say this: the situation is clearly pretty complicated and I don't feel we should hate those who happen to be on the other "side."

If you told me an old man shot a pregnant woman in the back, I'd say lock him up.

If you added that he shot her after she robbed his house, I'd say that's trickier but still clearly illegal.

If you then added that he shot her after she robbed his house for a third time, I'd pause for a second then say it's still illegal and he should have called the cops instead.

If you then told me he shot her after she tied him up, broke his collar bone, and then robbed his house for a third time, I'd stop and say I'm not sure there is a clear answer to what should be done, as a casual observer of the situation.

I'd leave it to the courts, because that's not something I feel confident judging from my armchair far away. Really the only people I feel are being unreasonable here are those who feel the situation is simple: clearly he's a horrible old man and this is unquestionably illegal, or clearly he's a boss and anyone who tries to rob me will be shot.

This is exactly how I take this thread. Somehow the two sides have become so entrenched in digging heels in their chosen sides that there is an apparent persistent and almost enraged bullheadedness in the ensuing discussion. The only clear thing about this case, so far, is that everything is not as simple as it may have been at first.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I wonder what your standard religious right, pro gun, anti abortion type thinks about this.

 

[Lone_Prodigy]

He killed someone by shooting them in the back because they were too slow to get away from him in time. Those are his own words!

Not sure why you quoted this line a bunch of times but people say many things in the heat of the moment. Is this evidence? Yes. It is admissible in a court of law? Unsure.

Also it seems that no one read my post on the last page about when self-defence ceases to exist. I guess that will be answered in any trial.

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

Sure, everything in this story has to be proven. I'm not sure why you single out that specific piece.



It apparently isn't clear, because the man in question has not been charged (and from the looks of it, will not be). This doesn't mean I like the guy or think I would have done the same in his shoes (I don't even own a gun), but I certainly think there are enough mitigating factors here to make me pause. And, apparently, to make prosecutors pause.

In any country where the DA was not elected, this guy would be charged with murder.

 

[RedStep]

I don't see how there can be any argument supporting it as legal to pursue and murder fleeing suspects through vigilant justice.

No, the argument is that we don't know enough to make definitive statements. ie:

- He said they robbed him three times ("well that might not be true")
- He said she didn't run fast enough and he shot her in cold blood ("well that's definitely true")

The guy is either confused or he's not, things did or didn't happen. Maybe the bullets entered through the front, maybe they hit during the scuffle in the house. We don't even know if the girl was actually pregnant, which is a really easy thing to determine. There will be a lot more information available later, assuming certain pieces are absolute because it fits your agenda is premature at the least.

I wonder what your standard religious right, pro gun, anti abortion type thinks about this.

I wonder what your standard hippie/atheist/pro-choice/whatever type thinks about it. Probably whatever their opinion on it is.

 

[SapientWolf]

Sure, everything in this story has to be proven. I'm not sure why you single out that specific piece.



It apparently isn't clear, because the man in question has not been charged (and from the looks of it, will not be). This doesn't mean I like the guy or think I would have done the same in his shoes (I don't even own a gun), but I certainly think there are enough mitigating factors here to make me pause. And, apparently, to make prosecutors pause.

It's clearly illegal, but police discretion allows for them to not charge him. To his credit, the legal system clearly failed this man. No one should be terrorized and live in constant fear in their own home. If the robberies kept continuing this could only end one way. He also clearly gives zero fucks, and a lengthy prison sentence would be symbolic at best.

On the other hand, vigilante justice is a bad look for America. How long will it be before the official police response to a robbery is simply, "Buy yourself a gun." ?

 

[Wazzy]

No, the argument is that we don't know enough to make definitive statements. ie:

- He said they robbed him three times ("well that might not be true")
- He said she didn't run fast enough and he shot her in cold blood ("well that's definitely true")

The guy is either confused or he's not, things did or didn't happen. Maybe the bullets entered through the front, maybe they hit during the scuffle in the house. There will be a lot more information available later, assuming certain pieces are absolute because it fits your agenda is premature at the least.

He shot her in an alley outside of the house.

We know exactly enough. He had no remorse when she was begging for her life and that is enough to show he is a sociopath. He still continues to have no remorse.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

It's clearly illegal, but police discretion allows for them to not charge him. To his credit, the legal system clearly failed this man. No one should be terrorized and live in constant fear in their own home. If the robberies kept continuing this could only end one way. He also clearly gives zero fucks, and a lengthy prison sentence would be symbolic at best.

On the other hand, vigilante justice is a bad look for America. How long will it be before the official police response to a robbery is simply, "Buy yourself a gun." ?

He only does not care because they kept coming. The man broke into his home three times with two of those three times being with this woman as claimed by the old guy.

 

[Cat Party]

I could have missed something but I don't think there's any evidence thus far that the same people had robbed him before. That's just the old man's belief.

Regardless, pursuing them and shooting them is not self defense, regardless of what they did to him. If the DA does not prosecute, it will be because they don't think a jury will convict. Not because it was justified.

 

[KissVibes]

She shouldn't have broken into the house. Tragic ending but that's the gamble and the house won.

He shouldn't of shot her as she was fleeing, as it was clearly revenge and not self-defense. Put him to death immediately.

Ummm... are we totally ignoring the fact that this was their third time robbing the elderly man's home and had broken his collarbone one of other times?

Glad this idiot got shot and didn't get a chance to bring another scumbag criminal into this world.

That may not have happened. Are you exactly like your parents?

 

[TatteredHat]

Why the hell are you robbing a house when you're pregnant? Extreme stupidity.

 

[Wazzy]

She shouldn't have broken into the house. Tragic ending but that's the gamble and the house won.

He shouldn't of shot her as she was fleeing, as it was clearly revenge and not self-defense. Put him to death immediately.


That may not have happened. Are you exactly like your parents?

What? No.

He should serve jail time for what he did. Not get the disgusting death penalty.

 

[dark_chris]

My only words to this are - she shoulda known better than to rob someone, you never know if someone is crazy enough to do what he did to her.

Also, he shoulda known better than to pursue someone.

 

[robochimp]

Why the hell are you robbing a house when you're pregnant? Extreme stupidity.

9 months is a long time.

After watching the interview, I doubt the old guy is charged with a crime. I don't think that they could get a jury to convict him.

The male accomplice should be charged with the woman's death.

 

[cpp_is_king]

What? No.

He should serve jail time for what he did. Not get the disgusting death penalty.

Save the death penalty for the real criminal. Her accomplice.

 

[Wazzy]

Save the death penalty for the real criminal. Her accomplice.

Wow you have serious bloodlust.

 

[wildfire]

Save the death penalty for the real criminal. Her accomplice.

You and everyone else in this thread who has expressed this are actually crazy unlike the old guy who can debatably be rationalized for his actions and lack of remorse.

 

[KissVibes]

What? No.

He should serve jail time for what he did. Not get the disgusting death penalty.

Why? Why should we show him mercy when he wouldn't show it himself?

Murders, rapists, pedophiles(that act on their twisted desires), those who commit awful acts against others, why should they be shown mercy? There are over seven billion people on earth, so many of them live in absolute poverty, and we dedicate resources and money to the worst societies have to offer and support a for profit prison system. I used to think that we should show these people mercy. That as a society we need to be the bigger person but I just can't anymore. I can't show sympathy for people like this anymore. Put them to death, cremate the body, and use the ashes as compost or something productive.

 

[Suikoguy]

Why? Why should we show him mercy when he wouldn't show it himself?

Murders, rapists, pedophiles(that act on their twisted desires), those who commit awful acts against others, why should they be shown mercy? There are over seven billion people on earth, so many of them live in absolute poverty, and we dedicate resources and money to the worst societies have to offer and support a for profit prison system. I used to think that we should show these people mercy. That as a society we need to be the bigger person but I just can't anymore. I can't show sympathy for people like this anymore. Put them to death, cremate the body, and use the ashes as compost or something productive.

Seriously? Are you 12?

Let me guess, as long as most of them are guilty it's OK if we kill a few innocents too right?

 

[cpp_is_king]

Wow you have serious bloodlust.

I wouldn't call it bloodlust, so much as lack of respect for the lives of people who themselves don't respect the lives of others. Death penalty for anyone convicted of a violent crime is fine with me.

I do think that recent botched executions have demonstrated a need for more humane execution methods. To that end, I would probably go back to either a firing squad or death by hanging. In the case of a firing squad, death will be instantaneous, and in the case of a hanging, either death or unconsciousness will be instantaneous with a long enough drop.

 

[Wazzy]

Then tell me, how do we know which convicted cases are 100% accurate?

You do realize someone innocent can die from the death penalty and it HAS happened, right?

Why? Why should we show him mercy when he wouldn't show it himself?

Murders, rapists, pedophiles(that act on their twisted desires), those who commit awful acts against others, why should they be shown mercy? There are over seven billion people on earth, so many of them live in absolute poverty, and we dedicate resources and money to the worst societies have to offer and support a for profit prison system. I used to think that we should show these people mercy. That as a society we need to be the bigger person but I just can't anymore. I can't show sympathy for people like this anymore. Put them to death, cremate the body, and use the ashes as compost or something productive.

The death penalty is a disgusting and barbaric system. There is so many chances of an innocent person being convicted and killed and for that the system is flawed.

We have jail. They can spend the rest of their life in there.

 

[KissVibes]

Seriously? Are you 12?

Let me guess, as long as most of them are guilty it's OK if we kill a few innocents too right?

Why don't you have an actual conversation with me instead of a shitty snipe targeting what you may believe is a lack of maturity on my part and then suggesting I may want innocent people to die, as I do not.

 

[Schweinehund]

Not condoning what he did, but stealing stuff from an 80 year old that is (presumably) shelling out cash for meds is insane, I don't have much sympathy for the victims here.

 

[MutFox]

We have jail. They can spend the rest of their life in there.

Exactly.
Though I think it comes with the type of upbringing.

Come from a part of the world that doesn't have the Death Penalty.
Country used to have it, but our culture was able to change.

 

[Wazzy]

Didn't realize they stole from him twice. Not condoning what he did, but stealing stuff from an 80 year old that is (presumably) shelling out cash for meds is insane, I don't have much sympathy for the victims here.

There is no proof it was the same people. That was just the old mans assumption.

It's not a matter of having sympathy for the robbers but more a man revenge killed a person begging for their life. He didn't even hesitate and still continues to show no remorse. That is not normal.

 

[Suikoguy]

Why don't you have an actual conversation with me instead of a shitty snipe targeting what you may believe is a lack of maturity on my part and then suggesting I may want innocent people to die, as I do not.

But that's what you are advocating!

You can't execute people, and avoid executing innocents, with our current justice system.

Advocating to start increasing executions, including for lesser crimes, means killing more innocent people.

 

[alfredofroylan]

She wasn't pregnant
http://abc7.com/news/burglar-shot-by-homeowner-was-not-pregnant/220624/

 

[-PXG-]

Let's see how level headed any one of you in this thread would be if someone broke into your home three fucking times, stole your shit and broke your collar bone. If you didn't even think, for one second, to defend yourself, your property or better yet, anyone else in it, then you have the most naive, bullshit pussy assed view of things imaginable. Some of you are so goddamn sheltered. I'm privileged as hell, but I at least have enough sense, perspective and some semblance of empathy to understand that it would be pretty damn hard to be cool and calm in a crazy ass situation like this. Y'all are out of your fucking minds.