Homeowner fights back

rkunsaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've never heard it put this way, but it surely makes sense to me. That's what burns me on people that are victimized turning into the bad guys. If I am "asking" for trouble, I should get it. Going back to some discussion about people being punished rather than sent "home free", I think we'd have less crime if people actually have to pay for it when they break the law.

The thought also crossed my mind if the victim even "knew" he was shooting at a woman, but to me, male or female, do the crime, get the time.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
In that case it should be tried before a judge rather than a jury.
Click to expand...

But that's not the way our legal system works. The Constitution guarantees all criminal defendants the right to a trial by a jury of their peers unless they voluntarily forgo that right.

The jury system tends to work in spite of mass media coverage, because there are usually enough people who haven't paid enough attention to a given crime, to have formed a biased opinion. In cases where the media coverage has been so prevalent that it can be assumed that there are too few people in the local area who have not been over exposed, the defense can file a motion for a change of venue & have the trial moved to another city where the level of media coverage has been much lower.
 

romfty said:
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!!!
Click to expand...

I agree Romfty, they had no right to break into that elderly man's home, physically assault him, and attempt to steal his savings and possessions. They had already tried to scam another elderly man of his money in the past, so these scum bags did prey on the elderly, that is disgusting to me. :mad:

Society is supporting all of these low lifes, because they no longer think logically with their brains, they all are guided by their ...feelings..., oh, poor thieves and attackers, well, maybe they had a problem, maybe we should help them....the home owner should have done his job by getting better locks on his home, it's all his fault....really?!! :mad2:
 
Hopefully, this will at least make "scum bags" (dirt-bags my fave) think again about attacking older folks. I know it was a tv show, but Frost was one of my faves when I actually got cable (I do have it again now that I'm at my sis's) but I digress, lol. Ok, some guy broke in and beat an elderly gal, into a coma, and she finally died. This wasn't robbery, but a sicko who hated his mother so he was killing other elderly women.

I'm not going to get into a "right to own a gun" with anyone here, I am going to say the elderly need a way to protect themselves, especially those that seem to have no one to help them, or watch out for them:( I'm glad this fellow had a gun. I'm not glad the woman chose to go out looking for someone to rob, and beat up, bad choice imo. I'll fight back as long as I can, and am with those that feel the same.
 
SeaBreeze said:
Society is supporting all of these low lifes, because they no longer think logically with their brains, they all are guided by their ...feelings..., oh, poor thieves and attackers, well, maybe they had a problem, maybe we should help them....the home owner should have done his job by getting better locks on his home, it's all his fault....really?!!
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I don't see how you could be more wrong about that.


What society is supporting, is the protection of the rights of ALL PEOPLE. It has to be assumed, (& correctly so), that any one of us could be accused of a crime. You cannot tailor a legal system in a society of 350 million people to fit the precise details of each case. In order for the law to protect the rights of everybody, it has to protect the rights of scumbags like those who break into people's homes, commit robberies, etc. If we stop protecting their rights, the protection of all of our rights ceases to exist.


I can't believe that there are still people out there who don't get that. It is they who are the ones who aren't thinking logically with their brains & are guided by their feelings. Those who understand why the legal system has to be applied uniformly across the board for everyone, regardless of how low they may be, are the ones who are thinking logically with their brains.
 
This statement alone shows this shooter is nuts and should be charged.

t Greer says he managed to get his .22 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver. He says when that unarmed couple saw his gun they took off out the back door and he followed. "The lady didn't run as fast as the man so I shot her in the back twice. She's dead... but he got away"He said, "She says 'don't shoot me I am pregnant, I have a baby' and I shot her anyway."
 
MrJim said:
Sorry, but I don't see how you could be more wrong about that.


What society is supporting, is the protection of the rights of ALL PEOPLE. It has to be assumed, (& correctly so), that any one of us could be accused of a crime. You cannot tailor a legal system in a society of 350 million people to fit the precise details of each case. In order for the law to protect the rights of everybody, it has to protect the rights of scumbags like those who break into people's homes, commit robberies, etc. If we stop protecting their rights, the protection of all of our rights ceases to exist.


I can't believe that there are still people out there who don't get that. It is they who are the ones who aren't thinking logically with their brains & are guided by their feelings. Those who understand why the legal system has to be applied uniformly across the board for everyone, regardless of how low they may be, are the ones who are thinking logically with their brains.
Click to expand...

I agree with MrJim and Davey. I am trying, admittedly with only some of the facts, to picture the events that took place and to decide whether the victim was justified in firing on one of his assailants when both were fleeing in fear of him. We don't know how close they were to him at the time. If they were still very close he is less culpable than if they were already 50 yards down the alley. NWLady, he knew his target was a woman and chose her because she ran more slowly than the man. Probably she was closer and from his TV interview he certainly knew that she was a woman.

I think there is a lot of emotional reasoning on the part of people who identify with the 80 year old but why do we take his version as gospel truth without testing it? MrJim is 100% correct when he says that the law must support the rights of all people because if it doesn't, all of us are at risk of losing our rights.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth means you cannot take a life for a broken collar bone but you can take one to save a life.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top