Support NeoGAF

[soepje]

So they robbed the dude multiple times, harassing and attacking him all the while? And he's reported this to the authorities and no one helped him those times he reported?

That's kinda atrocious. He wanted his harassment to stop, and no one was helping him. Is he wrong for taking matters into his own hands? No. Is he wrong for killing the lady? Well no, she robbed him 'multiple times'. She got what she deserved.

Pretty much. Still believe he shouldn't have killed her, but if this is the case i can definitely understand he snapped at some point.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

If there is persistent harassment that establishes a pattern that a reasonable person can believe it will continue, then that he shot her in the back does not preclude the claim of self defense. Because she's coming back again then he is in fact shooting her for self dense of a future attack.

I can't even imagine how scary it is to be 80 years old and have a couple of scumbags repeatedly break in and just take all the valuables, and then have to endure physical attacks and a broken collarbone just to watch them get away so they can break into the house another day.

I never said it absolved the criminals of responsibility. I was saying that in direct response to someone who said 'the robbers lives were worthless anyhow'. That don't agree with. If we rehabilitated criminals instead of punishing them (like in some European countries) I think we'd have less crime overall.



Yes, again, I wasn't absolving the robbers of responsibility. My statement was in direct reply to someone saying the woman's life was worth nothing.

It's shame because someone has to lose her life and the scumbag who got shot and killed could have lived a productive life and contributed to society instead of terrorizing and injuring an old man, that said she had it coming.

 

[Last Hearth]

I never said it absolved the criminals of responsibility. I was saying that in direct response to someone who said 'the robbers lives were worthless anyhow'. That don't agree with. If we rehabilitated criminals instead of punishing them (like in some European countries) I think we'd have less crime overall.



Yes, again, I wasn't absolving the robbers of responsibility. My statement was in direct reply to someone saying the woman's life was worth nothing.

Was her life worth something. Yes. But she was the one who decided to act though it was worth nothing, not the shooter. In fact spending one's life repeatedly abusing an 80 year old gives one's life negative value.

 

[shinobi602]

I'm all for having a self-defense weapon for the home but damn, if someone's fleeing and not posing a real immediate threat to your life, you don't fucking shoot them.

 

[Two Words]

I'm all for having a self-defense weapon for the home but damn, if someone's fleeing and not posing a real immediate threat to your life, you don't fucking shoot them.

What if they are carrying away your valuables as they run, it's the third time they've done this, and they broke your collar bone?

 

[Xenon]

Ah, an MThanded OP with relevant facts missing that don't play toward his point of view. SHOCKING! At 80 years old a physical assault is possibly lethal. They broke the man's collar bone. But once they realized he had a gun and the tables were turned they decided to run away. I'm sure he was operating on adrenalin at that point and fearing for his life. He shouldn't have shot her but I wouldn't prosecute him for it, not for murder. If he hadn't had a gun we might have been reading about a dead 80 year old man.

 

[PeskyToaster]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914002360

Some of it is due to circumstance, but that tends to be more along the lines of black-market economic activity. Many people either like doing it or just don't care about its' effects on others.

This is very interesting. A lot of things I would think were related to crime aren't really at all.

 

[SapientWolf]

I never said it absolved the criminals of responsibility. I was saying that in direct response to someone who said 'the robbers lives were worthless anyhow'. That don't agree with. If we rehabilitated criminals instead of punishing them (like in some European countries) I think we'd have less crime overall.



Yes, again, I wasn't absolving the robbers of responsibility. My statement was in direct reply to someone saying the woman's life was worth nothing.

That kind of statement isn't even worth a reply. The only sane way to view this is as a tragedy.

 

[shinobi602]

What if they are carrying away your valuables as they run, it's the third time they've done this, and they broke your collar bone?

I'm just going by what's in the OP but obviously that makes things more complicated...police haven't found these individuals yet?

 

[Daffy Duck]

Well that thread title update is an eye opener.

 

[Two Words]

I'm just going by what's in the OP but obviously that makes things more complicated...police haven't found these individuals yet?

But that's what happened. They were running off with his valuables. They had robbed him three times now. And they assaulted him and broke his collarbone.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

I'm all for having a self-defense weapon for the home but damn, if someone's fleeing and not posing a real immediate threat to your life, you don't fucking shoot them.

Maybe he thought they would come back and try to attack him again, because it wasn't the first time these people have burglarized his house, the criminals punched him and slammed him to the ground and broke his collarbone, and Miller who is now dead kept punching him, these are simply nasty predators.

 

[Finaika]

Why did she lie for being pregnant?

 

[Piggus]

On one hand, the intruders are absolute trash and should know that there's a good chance of being killed when breaking into people's homes (especially multiple times).

On the other hand, part of responsible gun ownership (including owning guns for self-defense) is knowing when you should pull the trigger... Shooting someone in the back as they're running away from you is NOT ok when the only thing at risk is your stuff. You only kill someone if your life or lives of others is in danger in that moment. But people's emotions run wild in situations like that so it's difficult to really blame the guy.

Why did she lie for being pregnant?

Why do you think?

 

[out0v0rder]

"Don't start no shit, wont be no shit"
- Jon, Lil

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Why did she lie for being pregnant?

Maybe she thought he would believe her and let her get away, too bad for her he ended her anyway.

 

[captmorgan]

I believe it comes down to this simple fact, If they arrest and charge this man and his case goes before a jury and I was on the jury. I would vote to acquit the old man of all charges.

 

[Onion_Relish]

If there is persistent harassment that establishes a pattern that a reasonable person can believe it will continue, then that he shot her in the back does not preclude the claim of self defense. Because she's coming back again then he is in fact shooting her for self dense of a future attack.

This is actually one of the prominent defenses that has been occuring in Spousal Abuse cases (mostly women) and has been accepted as a valid form of defense. There is a famous Canadian case where a woman shot her husband in self defense, even after he gave her the gun and walked away she shot him in the back of the head. After expert testimony was given into her mental state she walked. Pretty easy to transpose that rationale to someone in an almost exactly analagous situation.