When I mention picking and choosing, I’m talking about him having the clarity of mind to actively select her as the slower of two targets and take her down. Now, no article mentions whether he was military or not, but if he was, I can definitely see him being trained to recognize and properly place a shot on a moving target that is slower than another optional target. That said, If he only fired the speculated three shots, dude’s aim is fucking impressive and he lined that shot up on her. Basically, he’s getting charged with at minimum, voluntary manslaughter.
I mention this point because, as people like to say in this thread, he would have had a lot of adrenaline in his system, but the adrenaline would have had him firing shots indiscriminately unless he was very well trained and/or very well in control of his thoughts when he fired.
No one’s questioning whether or not he intended to kill her… He clearly did, as evidenced by, “…and I shot her anyway.” If anything, people would argue that he didn’t have the clarity of mind to think of the law at that time.
(Yes, can we all just agree that firing a gun into the air is always extremely stupid and dangerous? That’s why I don’t get it when people do it to “celebrate”; at least with a “warning shot” it makes a vague kind of sense even if it’s still potentially life-threatening to people who aren’t even involved.)
While I thank you for the effort to answer my question, bmckay, that doesn’t really tell me anything I didn’t already know or haven’t been questioning with regards to self-defense in general. That’s why I was asking people at large and that’s why I said earlier that life is full of “gray areas”, which are often “slippery slopes”. It’s basically useless if only one person tries to answer that question, unfortunately.
Again, oh well.
Nah. South Park can actually be entertaining and informative.
The only saving grace this thread has is that it surprisingly hasn’t come anywhere near the level of stupidity that most other news threads so wholeheartedly nosedive into from the first page forward, vehement disagreements with minor name-calling aside.
I’m with the position that you can kill to defend yourself. I disagree that he was defending himself once the burglars fled, and especially when the woman was on the ground pleading for her life. You can make whatever claim about future possible burglaries, assaults, break ins you want. You can’t kill somebody on the future possibility of them committing a crime.
As for “heat of the moment” argument, he seemed pretty level headed when he was interviewed by reporters. Plus, I believe gun owners have an added responsibility when using their weapon. Or else they can get away with anything because hey, it was heat of the moment. Innocent by stander shot? I was just defending myself and stray bullet hit them. If you can’t be responsible and level headed when using a gun, I don’t believe you should be owning a gun in the first place. But whatever, I know this is my own personal opinion.
Just to kind of show I don’t blindly side with victims - there was a previous topic about a dad shooting some guy in his daughter’s room. The guy was sleeping with his daughter, but she denied knowing who the guy was. In that story, I actually sided with the father. Father claimed the guy made some movement that the father believed he was reaching for a weapon, so he shot him. Father called the cops, was trying to keep the guy detained, but something happened and father felt IMMEDIATE threat so he shot him.
In the case of the old guy, buglars were out of the house, he caught up to one, and he shot her anyway.
Edit: I thought she was on the ground. But first article just said she stumbled. Still not sure how he caught up to her. Maybe she sprained her ankle or something.
That’s a little subjective. You can’t say whether he was rational or not because you didn’t witness the crime, but it is reasonable to at least say that he was could have been in an irrational state of mind at the time the crime was occurring. And who is to say that his decision at the time wasn’t rational? His collarbone was broken, and 2 people were beating him violently. In the process, he managed to get a hold of a gun and killed one of the robbers. Someone that is cornered can easily pose a threat, whether it’s a male or female and if they are on the ground or not. What if he decided to have mercy on the female robber and he was shot instead? He had no way of knowing if she had a weapon, although the details are clear now, hindsight is 20/20.
It is clear now that he could have let her go, but that decision was not clear during the time of the robbery. Which is the biggest part of the argument that people are trying to get it. It’s easy to make judgements on a person’s decision making when all the information during the robbery is elucidated. But what about this poor man who has had his home invaded multiple times, and was beaten before gaining the upper hand? Was this homicide somehow NOT justifiable?
I’m personally with the crowd that says that he deserves no jail time.
tl;dr version: Even if it’s clear now that the woman’s life could have been spared, the decision to kill was justifiable based on the circumstances DURING the robbery, not AFTER.
Here’s something that no one’s talked about. There’s no way he gets convicted. Whatever side of the argument you’re on I don’t think anyone here would bet on 12 people sending an 80 year old man who was burglarized 4 times to prison. If indicted, he may not be found innocent, but I seriously doubt he’s found guilty.
(Nah. I at least mentioned that. I think a couple of other people did too.)
I also said that I don’t think (old) age should necessarily be a deterrent for sending someone to prison, but I don’t think it’s merited in this case personally even if it’s not self-defense (in California).
That said, you’re correct in saying that basically none of the people saying he “should” go to prison or at least has committed a crime haven’t commented on it.
I agree with him being charged, I know he’s going to get charged, I already said that the state is going to charge him with at least that. I just don’t see him being convicted if he gets, and I don’t agree that he should be charged with murder of any kind.
Trained or not, any situation like that isn’t going to have him acting rationally. Police, soldiers, nor other “trained” professionals behave like that in such situations. It’s always shoot first ask questions later, what makes this any different?
My issue with you was, is, and has been, the whole shoot into the sky cowboy shit.
What most of us are saying is subjective on both sides, myself included. People say it was “heat of the moment” decision, and I didn’t necessarily believe that 100%. At least from the first article, they wrote “And Tom Greer has no regrets about plugging the woman with two shots as she begged for her life.” This statement along with him saying her death will be a statement to the other intrudor makes me believe his actions weren’t heat of the moment. Was he still acting irrationally during the interview or something?
You’re right in the fact that somebody is cornered can pose a threat. Saying she could have had a weapon is stretching it though if she didn’t use it while in the house (like when he pulled out the gun, or WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED FIGHTING), but I kind of agree with you. Even if I had a gun pointed at a burglar who looks unarmed, if they make a sudden move and I think they are reaching for a weapon, I too would shoot. Maybe he/she hid it well and I missed it.
I do not believe it is self defense because the homeowner willingly went outside to chase them down. It’s not self defense when he continued to put himself in possible harm’s way when he found her in the alley. I’m thinking of the incident involving Michael Giles who knew a huge brawl broke out, went to get his gun (he had a permit for a concealed weapon), went back into the crowd to “find his friends”, got attacked, then open fired in self defense. Once you are out of immediate danger, you are out. Going back in is your own damn fault.
And see, I can agree with this post. Nearly all of it, actually. I, too, don’t agree that he should be charged with MURDER. Voluntary Manslaughter is as high as I would press it.
As for training, when I said that, I more meant ‘conditioning’. Being trained to shoot to kill vs being conditioned to shoot to kill will have a noticeable impact on your ability to land shots on moving targets at range during extreme stress.
And yeah, about that warning shot thing, I admit I was stupid about that.
Then there are serious felonies committed daily when a jury lets someone who has raped or murdered off simply because of their status in a community or the uniform they wear. Funny how those juries never get in trouble for that.
Yet the people that Jury Nullification can actually help, saaay, your typical sixteen year old caught with a joint. Get the book thrown in their face because something that makes you happy and doesn’t hurt anyone else will ruin your life so to protect you the state must ruin your life. All because the jury didn’t know that they can actually take back a little bit of the freedom the most incarcerated country in the world loves to boast about so often. MURIKA, FUCK YEAH!
Also, pretty sure there’s another thread about how being black in the daylight is enough to make " the authorities get on your ass" How did that turn out again? Did any of it seem logical to you? It didn’t to me, but hey, what the fuck do I know?