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 ...
Yes, most likely.
Why is that a factor to become "evidence"? I know lots of people who keep lots of money at home; $22 grand is tiny. Lots of people don't trust banks.
+1.
This guy is going to be most likely going to be charged (I think manslaughter is more appropriate than murder here). Part of his defense should be to argue that by taking his money and belongings they were threatening his ability to live (buy food, pay rent). I know it’s a stretch but a favorable jury may buy it. I’d acquit regardless.
It took me three hits with .22lr yesterday to dispatch a possum that had set up camp by where I feed my chickens. The first was in the fatal t area too but it must not have been direct. Shot placement is the key.
She knew the job was dangerous when she took it. When you initiate violence against someone you don’t get to throw up your hands and demand that person not retaliate.
I think his lawyer can make hay with the fact that they had robbed him twice before, and there was the threat of them returning a 4th time to rob/attack him.
On the guy - he was out of his house going after the two and shot the woman it appears in the back. She's down on the ground and as she's pleading for her life he pumps two into her head(?) killing her and her baby. It's just like that guy who killed that girl in his house after she was down and wounder - he went to get another gun to kill her. Jury convicted.
So in MHO the guy should get the book thrown at him.
Well I think his remarks convicted him already.
California might actually be the best chance he'd have of getting away with this. California has the broadest "Stand Your Ground" provision in the country. It's the only state where you are allowed to pursue an attacker if necessary to end the threat.
I doubt that will work here. It sure doesn't sound like he needed to defend himself at the point he shot. But it would only be necessary to convince a jury that the threat wasn't over. Outright jury nullification might not be required.
Opinions anyone?
Trial, conviction, sentencing. Then the sentence suspended, if there is justice.
Too bad it wasn’t in Texas. Committing a felony on someone else’s property in the nighttime ?
One can chase the felons down the street and shoot them dead.
As they deserve.
In Washington State you can shoot someone that is committing a felony, which includes them running away from the scene. It would help if the felon had some stolen merchandise on them as they are fleeing.
Texas doesn't need "stand your ground". We don't have to worry about "ending the threat". Here you can use deadly force to prevent the SOBs from getting away. Explicitly allowed. Including chasing the perps down the street.
It wasn’t self defense. It was vengeance for being beaten and robbed. He was pissed. Understandable. But he made a hasty unwise choice and this blabbermouth will spend the rest of his years and money fighting this if not in prison. Unfortunately the focus moves from these trashy criminals to a likely decent man who overreacted.
I fully agree. Once they jumped him all semblance of fairness went out the door. I would have pasted both of them. You enter my house and threaten me or my family you are dead meat whether standing or running. I would vote to acquit him.
Future crimes? I would vote to convict.
Might have been a time to shoot and shutup if there were no witnesses.
“On the guy - he was out of his house going after the two and shot the woman it appears in the back. She’s down on the ground and as she’s pleading for her life he pumps two into her head(?) killing her and her baby. It’s just like that guy who killed that girl in his house after she was down and wounder - he went to get another gun to kill her. Jury convicted.”
I read it differently. As I read it, they were beating on him and he manages to access a pistol. (my guess is that he had it in his pocket, but did not have a permit for it). She yells “Don’t shoot me, I’m pregnant” and moves away.. He takes after, but is slower, partly because of the beating, and shoots at her as she is moving away. Just where she was when she was hit is uncertain. People shot often run 50 to a hundred yards after being hit.
I see where your interpretation came from. I have read a couple of accounts. The sequence in this one seems to indicate that she was down and pleading.
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.