Posted on 07/25/2014 5:32:20 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Long Beach homeowner Tom Greer, 80, told a TV station he began firing after his collarbone was broken during an assault by the woman and a man that Greer discovered in his home.
...
Greer said he fired at the burglars inside and outside his home, even though the female burglar told him not to shoot because she was pregnant.
...
An autopsy has confirmed Miller wasn’t pregnant, Los Angeles County coroner’s spokesman Ed Winter said Friday.
...
Under California law, homeowners have a right to protect themselves with deadly force inside their homes and in the immediate vicinity — such as a patio — if they feel they are in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death, said Lawrence Rosenthal, a former federal prosecutor and who teaches law at Chapman University.
But this case enters a gray area because Greer, by his own account, chased the burglars and fired at them outside his home as they were fleeing, Rosenthal said.
...
Prosecutors will have to decide if the evidence shows the immediate threat had subsided by the time Greer fired again, or if he still could reasonably fear for his life.
“As a technical matter, this would be a homicide, possibly second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter, but that doesn’t mean that you should charge everything that’s technically an offense,” Rosenthal said.
(Excerpt) Read more at losangeles.cbslocal.com ...
Absolutely, true, Counselor. Bad shoot for sure!
But he's not a cop and didn't volunteer for duty. If I were on the jury, the only possible outcomes would be Not Guilty or Hung Jury!
I guess that makes the law evil....
I’m not wishing for anything.
God will judge him, me...and you.
>> That is not in the realm of the self-defense rights I fight for.
Except an intrusion can alter the homeowner’s state of mind.
Be careful about how you apply compassion.
>> Why do so many people go out of their way to defend the actions of criminals?
Prolly a factor of mercy and not crime.
No, you invite him to come over for a drink, at midnite.
Then you shoot him.
She had already taken the step of fleeing the scene, and in many states that is not a justifiable shooting. But this went further, she was hit while fleeing and on the ground. At that point he should have backed away a few steps, held her at gunpoint and waited for the cops to arrive.
>> I am applying the law as I understand it.
Understood.
While the second shot is seemingly unfortunate, I don’t fault the homeowner for taking it. The intruders were responsible for the volatile environment. And the expectation the homeowner should have exercised disciplined restraint despite the robbery is not realistic.
It's a lack shared by most states. The best thing they could add to California self-defense law is an immunity provision, but most states don't have one. Apart from that California self-defense laws are quite good. Ohio is actually the worst.
No, my scenario illustrates a point. To use deadly force in self-defense there must be an imminent deadly threat.
"Why do so many people go out of their way to defend the actions of criminals?"
Ignoring the fact that the homeowner may end up convicted of something and that's what you would be doing, I'm not defending the thieves. We are discussing the legal elements of the shooting.
See, that's what I'm getting at. People are assuming because it's "California" you must not be able to defend yourself. It's incorrect.
Chasing them is one thing. You could do that anywhere, although there could be complications from it if it got into shooting. Shooting a disabled thief lying on the ground is something else.
“Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”
What good does it do you to defend your life and property if the thief ends up ruining the former and taking all of the latter with a monster civil judgement?
“Lying disabled on the ground” is assuming facts not in evidence. The thief may have been kneeling, sitting or crouching. Read my prior post - too much is still unknown.
Shooting someone while they're running away then shooting them again when they're down is not defending yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.