Posted on 07/24/2014 10:08:32 AM PDT by marktwain
(LONG BEACH, CA.) -- They came to the wrong house to do a B & E (break and enter) that night and they most certainly frightened and roughed up the wrong 80-year old man.
For one of the invader-robbers that night, a woman, it was indeed a fatal error in the victim selection process.
Tom Greer, an 80-year-old retiree arrived at his home in Long Beach Tuesday night to find a man and a woman in the middle of a late night break in, ransacking the place.
Greer told L.A.'s KNBC-TV as soon as he got inside both robbers tackled him, "Both of them jumped up on top of me," after they threw him to the ground he said.
The next day he had to be treated at a hospital for a severe shoulder and collarbone injury.
But during the attack on Greer the robbers didn't know that somehow he had gotten a hold of his .22 caliber revolver.
A .22 is a terribly puny, underpowered cartridge for self-defense, most firearms instructors would say, but in a pinch it's better than throwing a rock.
Greer told the station, "I come back and they see me with a gun, and they run," he said.
The man got away, but as they were both running in an alley behind the house. Greer fired his weapon at them and the woman fell after being hit by a bullet.
Greer said the woman pleaded, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!' And I shot her anyway," he said.
Greer said after he fired the shots, "She was dead. I shot her twice, she best be dead ... (The man) had run off and left her."
(Excerpt) Read more at skyvalleychronicle.com ...
Wow these bad shooting stories are sure getting a lot of press....wonder how many really happen or are altered to fit/
They were running away. At that point, self-defense becomes questionable. After he initially shot the woman and walked up to her, unless she had a weapon, self-defense goes out the door to shoot her twice more. Self-defense implies a need to defend, which was no longer the case.
“I come back and they see me with a gun, and they run,”
If this means he was out of danger, then retrieved a weapon and gave pursuit, that would be hard to characterize as heat of the moment.
I’m no lawyer, but ISTM this will come down to admissibility of evidence. The surviving burglar probably will not appear to testify, so it will be about ballistics and whatever statement he may have given to police. Also about police procedure: was he Mirandized?
All people are created equal, but they don’t end up that way.
I say, if you are going to send this guy away, make it somewhere really nice with plenty of leisure activity and health care. Maybe Guantanamo.
“out of danger”?
weren’t they still in his house at that point?
‘weren’t they still in his house at that point?’
No; they were outside in an alley:
“The man got away, but as they were both running in an alley behind the house. Greer fired his weapon at them and the woman fell after being hit by a bullet.”
Well, I just watched the video, and yes you’re right — they were in his home when he “came back”. But they immediately fled, and he readily admits he shot her in the back. More amazing yet: he admits on TV that he keeps $22,000 in a safe at home — which is going to be interesting to all kinds of people. I wonder if it’s “evidence” now.
I took an intensive handgun course, and it was drilled into us over and over, “Say nothing until you have a lawyer.”
The things you mentioned will serve as mitigating factors. But they will only serve to affect the length of his sentence, not his ultimate guilt.
CC
Also very interesting: he claims to have moved her body after she was dead. But is there evidence or do we have to take his word for it? It will have to be established exactly where she was when he fired.
Robert Kennedy was killed by a .22 short.
Agreed that the burglars were low-lives and absolutely in the wrong. No question about that. And perhaps the shock of the situation and the adrenaline running through the old man's body made him think less rationally than he should have and that should be taken into account.
HOWEVER, since this IS a pro-life site, where abortion is considered murder of an innocent child (which is what it is), let's play "what if" for a moment (assuming this woman was being truthful her pregnancy). If this woman committed a burglary with a baby in her arms (which has occurred many times), ran away, fell, got cornered by the man and said: "Don't shoot, I'm holding a baby," and he shot her anyway, I assume we there would be less sympathy for the older man.
In any event the woman was a criminal to break into a man's home and rob him. But does that lessen the fact that he knowingly killed a pregnant woman, which we pro-lifers agree are two humans temporarily sharing one body? If it went down as reported, the woman was a thief, but the old man is a murderer.
Yes.
Have you seen this (”Don’t Talk to Police”)? Worthwhile if you haven’t when you have the time - good stuff (a former professor of mine also...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Only if the jury votes to convict.
Yes, the man was wrong in his actions, to most people’s opinion. He was born in 1934, and grew up in a nation that is different from today’s. Different social mores, different laws, and different attitudes. Did he serve in the Korean War? Was he an infantry man? I have no idea either, but that is possible. We do not know. He may well have continued to believe his life was in danger. He was eliminating his perceived threat. I would like to be on that jury.
BTW, you have a wonderful home page. The results were well worth the efforts. Thank you
Guilt or innocence is decided by the jury. He will serve a sentence only if they all vote to convict.
If you were on the jury, how would you vote?
Nuff said.
Good explanation of a reason why the justice system is broken. Some murderers get off free without doing time - cops who kill "suspects", often individuals who have done no crime but are perceived by the cop as a threat. On the other hand, here is an old guy who is not a threat to anyone, won't harm anyone again, and killed because he was victimized by violent thieves doing him harm. I would acquit him also.
For children, life is simple and the rules straightforward. After a lifetime of learned blinders and excuses, and imposed PC thought controls, the 80 YO is at the point where societal approval means nothing.
His comments suggest that from his perspective, approved speech is for people who have a lot of time on earth to be shamed, shunned, and punished if they don’t comply. The rules became plain and simple once again: see vermin, dispatch vermin.
Goes a long way in explaining Obamacare death panels.
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.