Homeowner fights back

I think the evidence must be tested in court. Here is a different account of what took place.

Homeowner makes an astonishing TV boast about shooting 'pregnant' home invader dead as she pleaded for mercy - but cops say her ACCOMPLICE could be charged with her murder

By Daily Mail Reporter
Updated: 19:37 AEST, 25 July 2014

An 80-year-old California man told a television station he shot dead a fleeing intruder who had begged for her life and claimed she was pregnant.

Tom Greer told a Los Angeles news station that he shot Andrea Miller twice in the back just outside his house, while she was
running away on Tuesday night.

It is not yet clear if Greer will be arrested over the death, but Miller's alleged accomplice Gus Adams has been charged with her murder, police said Thursday.

Greer claimed that he had returned home Tuesday night to find a man and woman breaking into his Long Beach home, and that the intruders had attacked him in the hallway.

He reportedly told KNBC on Wednesday: '[Miller] says, "Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant, I'm going to have a baby," and I shot her anyway.'

A coroner has not yet confirmed if the 28-year-old, from Long Beach, was actually pregnant. Greer told NBC 4 he believes he was acting in self defense after Miller and her alleged accomplice Adams, 26, attacked him and broke his collarbone.

Adams, from Long Beach, has been arrested on suspicion of murder for taking part in a crime that led to Miller's death.
Police chief Jim McDonnell said the charge was possible because Adams was involved in a felony that led to a death. The police chief added that Greer was cooperating with the investigation.

Greer had claimed that he found Miller and Adams trying to open his safe and, while Adams was distracted, Greer reached for his revolver. When the pair saw he was armed, they allegedly ran out of the house, but Greer told the TV station that he fired on them, hitting the woman.

He allegedly added he had no regrets about the shooting, telling KNBC: 'When the time comes to defend yourself, you best do something.'

Deputy police chief David Hendricks said: 'What we believe happened at this time is that a resident came home and possibly interrupted a crime in progress. 'At some point in time there was a shooting that took place and we have a suspect of that original crime deceased.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-ACCOMPLICE-charged-murder.html#ixzz38Zpgvg85
Click to expand...
I think there are some inconsistencies in Greer's story but the media is not renowned for reporting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, are they?
 
Yeah, I have mixed feelings with this one. I can only imagine what he may have been thinking. "If I don't shoot, will they turn around and come back?" or "If I don't shoot, maybe they do have a gun and will shoot at me." On the other hand, they did not show a weapon and they were running away. Tough decision.

Glad that I don't have to make the decision whether to charge him or not.
 

Last edited:
re:Tom Greer told a Los Angeles news station that he shot Andrea Miller twice in the back just outside his house, while she was
running away on Tuesday night.

He overreacted and yes he should be charge.
If this shooter was 30 or 40 years old,common would have prevailed and that girl would be alive today.
 
Last edited:
I am a part time resident here in Florida. I also own a home in a retirement village. It is gated and we have security, 24/7. I have come to learn from listening to those older than myself that they look at being secure different than I do. If the perpetrator is on his way or running away, I am probably going to let him run. An older gentleman may have such slow reactions that by the time he decides and then shoots, the burglar could be running away.

Not being a lawyer, I do not try to interpret the law. However, as California has it written, even the DA cannot positively figure out how to apply it in this case.
 
I had a stepfather who was a Texas Ranger, always told me, if you shoot someone as they are leaving your home, make sure you quickly drag them back inside before you call for assistance. I so glad I never had to face such an issue. :iwillbeback:
 
Ina said:
I had a stepfather who was a Texas Ranger, always told me, if you shoot someone as they are leaving your home, make sure you quickly drag them back inside before you call for assistance. I so glad I never had to face such an issue. :iwillbeback:
Click to expand...


That's probably good advice.
 
After he was attacked in his own home during an attempted felony theft, and had his collar bone broken by these two, I don't think he should be charged at all. The only mistake he made was not to shoot them when they were still inside the house. That woman wasn't stupid for claiming she was pregnant, she tried playing on his sympathy, but pregnant or not, you play, you pay, IMO. Hopefully the severity of an injury like that at his age won't cause complications that kill him in the end, that would be a shame.
 
You are exactly correct SeaBreeze, many times when a senior is injured and the injury does not heal, or becomes infected, or the person that is injured and while lying in a hospital gets pneumonia, he could die and then the charges would be changed to homicide.
 
Ina said:
I had a stepfather who was a Texas Ranger, always told me, if you shoot someone as they are leaving your home, make sure you quickly drag them back inside before you call for assistance. I so glad I never had to face such an issue. :iwillbeback:
Click to expand...

I heard this too, years ago. There laws are strange, they used to be more "cut and dry". Now it's as if they can be interpreted any way, and lawyers are all up on the ways to interpret.
 
I'm like Oldman in that it's a hard call from what I see in the article. And not being in the man's shoes, I can't say. You can bet it will be decided on how the "law" is interpreted again. Sometimes they actually get it right. Well, I've heard that can happen anyway:(
 
You are allowed to apply reasonable force to defend yourself but using deadly force on an assailant who is fleeing from you is not reasonable under law. Correct me if the situation in California is different.

As for the broken collar bone... How much broken? I always assume broken means just that and that your arm is hanging useless, but it could also mean a chipped bone. Or a hairline fracture. He didn't seem to incapacitated if he could find his gun, wave it at the would be burglars and then chase them out of the house and shoot one in the back as she ran away. He knew that she was unarmed because she had previously pleaded for her life.

He chose the woman as his target because she couldn't run as fast as the man. This implies premeditation to kill, not merely to defend himself. I haven't heard that she was the one who attacked and injured him.

The evidence needs to be tested in court by cross examination and testimony about evidence collected at the scene.

There are a lot of questions going round in my mind. If he has been broken in twice before, how does he know that these are the same burglars? Presumably this is the first time he surprised the culprits. Is there finger print evidence linking them to the earlier crimes? Did he even report these burglaries to the police? What was stolen previously and was the safe breached?

I also think it is overkill to charge the male with murder. The principle here is that if a pair of burglars, in the course of committing a robbery were to kill someone, then both would be charged with murder, regardless of who did the actual killing. I don't think the law was ever intended to charge the surviving burglar with murder because a victim or other third party shot and killed the other one. He's clearly guilty of break and enter and other similar charges relating to attempted burglary but murder? I wouldn't think so and if on the jury for this case it would take very strong arguments in law to convince me otherwise.
 
Although they were running away you have to remember this all happened in a matter of seconds. By the time they saw that he had a gun they turned to run and he shot at them, hitting the woman. Whether or not to shoot is a decision that has to be made in an instant. The intruders had plenty of time to decide if they were going to break into the man's home and steal from him and attack him.

It was the thieves who made the decision that led to all this.

Dame Warrigal, according to the law in many places, If a person dies while you are committing a felony you are responsible for the death no matter who dies or what they die of.

There have been cases where people have been convicted of murder because the person they were robbing had a heart attack and died.
 
There have been cases where people have been convicted of murder because the person they were robbing had a heart attack and died.
Click to expand...

This I understand, and this is how the law is applied here.

I still think he had enough time to refrain from killing the woman. According to his own words, they were all inside the house, he distracted the male, got his hand gun, pointed it at them, then they ran outside into the lane/street. At some stage the woman pleaded for her life, claiming pregnancy. All of this gives him time to decide whether or not to fire. When he does, the pair are running away, their backs to him. At that stage he decides to shoot the woman in the back because she is the slower. It was hardly a split second reflexive action. It is a deliberate, conscious act. The responsibility for the woman's death is primarily his IMO. That is stretching the murder charge for the male burglar a very long way but it is up to judge and jury in the end.

Perhaps whether or not Greer is charged with murder might depend on whether the male burglar is tried first for murder. If he goes down Greer gets off but is the charge is dismissed then the spotlight falls on Greer.

On another note - I wonder what security he had on his property after having been broken into twice before. We know he had a safe but what were his locks like? Did he have an alarm system? There are things you can do to protect your property besides killing people.

I'd really like to know more about the circumstances over and above what the media is reporting.
 
Wow, this is a tough case. Certainly hard to feel sympathy for the dead woman. The article I read said that after she & her accomplice had knocked the old man down, she continued to beat him while the guy tried to open the safe. He & her both have prior records, one arrest being for attempting to scam an elderly person out of their life savings. The more you read about them & after seeing their pictures, it's hard to not feel that the man did society a favor.

On the other hand, he shot her in the back, outside his house as she was running away. No matter how you look at it, it was not necessary & basically amounts to revenge.

Half of me wants to see him charged with at least manslaughter while the other half of me wants to see him awarded a medal.
 
They broke into his home and beat the old fellah.....end of, they had no right to be there and so suffer the consequences....why oh why is society turning to support theses scum bags who rob and beat old folk!!!
 
I would see it as a situation where a conviction is required*** but where the sentence might be lenient due to extenuating circumstances. The charge might be reduced to some kind of manslaughter rather than murder, even though I think murder is appropriate.

He & her both have prior records, one arrest being for attempting to scam an elderly person out of their life savings
Click to expand...
It's a principle of justice that prior records are inadmissible in deciding guilt for a later offence. I'm surprised the media is allowed to publish this.

*** Assuming that we have the facts, which we may not.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
This I understand, and this is how the law is applied here.

I still think he had enough time to refrain from killing the woman. According to his own words, they were all inside the house, he distracted the male, got his hand gun, pointed it at them, then they ran outside into the lane/street. At some stage the woman pleaded for her life, claiming pregnancy. All of this gives him time to decide whether or not to fire. When he does, the pair are running away, their backs to him. At that stage he decides to shoot the woman in the back because she is the slower. It was hardly a split second reflexive action. It is a deliberate, conscious act. The responsibility for the woman's death is primarily his IMO. That is stretching the murder charge for the male burglar a very long way but it is up to judge and jury in the end.

Perhaps whether or not Greer is charged with murder might depend on whether the male burglar is tried first for murder. If he goes down Greer gets off but is the charge is dismissed then the spotlight falls on Greer.

On another note - I wonder what security he had on his property after having been broken into twice before. We know he had a safe but what were his locks like? Did he have an alarm system? There are things you can do to protect your property besides killing people.

I'd really like to know more about the circumstances over and above what the media is reporting.
Click to expand...

DW, the charge of "Felony Murder" is a common one here in the US & has been applied many times before in the past. Even if the police shoot & kill a criminal in the act of committing a felony, any accomplices will be charged the same.

As for security, there aren't many things that will deter a determined burglar. If you stop them at the doors & windows, they can easily cut a hole in the roof. Then, you not only get robbed of your valuables, but you're stuck paying for an expensive home repair. Plus, all available security measures are expensive.

I don't like the idea of somebody shooting somebody else in the back while they are running away, but as far as him not doing enough to prevent the break in to begin with, I'm not sure there was much he could have done.

And I also think that the male accomplice deserves to get the Felony Murder charge. That's the law here & he should have both known about it & taken it into consideration before he decided to break into someone's home.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
I would see it as a situation where a conviction is required*** but where the sentence might be lenient due to extenuating circumstances. The charge might be reduced to some kind of manslaughter rather than murder, even though I think murder is appropriate.


It's a principle of justice that prior records are inadmissible in deciding guilt for a later offence. I'm surprised the media is allowed to publish this.

*** Assuming that we have the facts, which we may not.
Click to expand...

I agree that he should be charged with some lesser offense, then given probation. But as far as their prior criinal records are concerned, they may, in certain cases, be inadmissable as evidence against them in a trial, but outside of that, they are a matter of public record & thus, may be legally published by the media.

You can look up criminal records online, for that matter.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top