- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,007
- Reaction score
- 5,434
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
And you people think she should have been free to just walk away from it.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said she should walk away free from it. She should go to prison for the rest of her life. And were she still attacking him when he shot her, he'd have been 100% justified. But she was outside his house, running away in an alley, and he shot her in the back. That's not self defense.
Um, 80 years old. As in EIGHT ZERO. JUST beaten, just thrown to the ground, just had collar bone broken, just robbed in own home. And you people wish to begrudge him for fighting back once he got to his weapon. Wow, just wow. No wonder the country is as screwed up as it is.
You sir are part of the problem. Good job.
This country would be a far worse place if it were filled with people like you. There are good reasons why we aren't allowed to kill people in revenge for something they did to us.
Yep, I said that and meant it. I have done the job. And those who have not. Havent a clue.My own stuff? What are you 12? Sorry, I have experience in said issues. Get out and do the job for a while and tell me how much sympathy people should have for the dead scumbag.
Yea Baby, Florida. Come to steal my junk, I pop a cap in yo azz post haste.
This just in, the woman wasn't pregnant:
Police Still Weighing Whether To Charge Man Who Allegedly Killed Burglar
Who exactly is saying that Greer did wrong when first started shooting at the crooks?And you people wish to begrudge him for fighting back once he got to his weapon.
A number of people on the intarwebz advocate evil because they think that it makes them "tuff".I see there's the usual quota of nuts here, which I've come to expect on forums like these. Anything involving killers who claim self-defense is sure to bring them out from under their rocks. These creeps obviously don't believe in the Constitution and the rule of law that many hundreds of thousands of far better men than them have died to protect.
80-Year-Old Extremely Pleased About Killing Pregnant Woman Fleeing Botched Robbery (Video) | Americans Against the Tea Party
I'm glad he killed her too. Those two criminals didn't hesitate to attack an old man and then they were so arrogant as to continue robbing him after they attacked him. I only wish he killed the man too.
John Prager is an unfortunate Liberal soul who lives uncomfortably in the middle of a Conservative hellscape and likes to refer to himself as an "island of reason in a sea of insanity." While he is not a fan of politicians, period, he has developed a deep-seated hatred for the bigotry, fear mongering, and lies of the Right Wing. John also works as a warden at one of Barry Soetoro's FEMA re-education camps and as a HAARP weather control coordinator. He can be reached at americanlesionx@gmail.com if you have any questions or comments.
We can agree about revenge. This was hot pursuit. I wonder just how many seconds have to go by or how many fleeing steps have to occur in order to make hot pursuit revenge. Is it five seconds and 20 steps? A bit less? A bit more?This country would be a far worse place if it were filled with people like you. There are good reasons why we aren't allowed to kill people in revenge for something they did to us.
Istm, hot pursuit implies two things which are different from our current situation.We can agree about revenge. This was hot pursuit. I wonder just how many seconds have to go by or how many fleeing steps have to occur in order to make hot pursuit revenge. Is it five seconds and 20 steps? A bit less? A bit more?
Istm, hot pursuit implies two things which are different from our current situation.
"hot pursuit" is a term applied to cops--obviously Greer is not a cop
"hot pursuit" applies to cops trying to apprehend a crook--Greer was not trying to apprehend Miller.
So I don't see how speculation about "hot pursuit" applies in this situation at all.
ymmv
My bad. I thought you were trying to use "hot pursuit" like a legal term.Hot pursuit is a perfectly good term. He got this gun and begin to chase. In just a few steps or seconds he killed her.
Do you believe there are terms that only apply to police? Would you feel more comfortable if I gave you a much longer phrase that means essentially the same thing? Where do all the pedants come from?
Reading the CA penal code linked earlier, it seems that if Greer had killed Miller inside of his house, the state's default position would be that Greer was justified.We ... more?
I see. So an 80 year old man who has been beaten, is being robbed gets his gun and confronts his two assailants. They both turn and run now that he has a chance against them. Is it revenge just as soon as they turn to run? Or do they have to run a step or two?So, to answer your question...
There's no difference for a civilian between chasing someone with a gun and "revenge."
So there's no magic number of steps or seconds or what have you.
It just starts off as "revenge" and finishes as "revenge".
Reading the CA penal code linked earlier, it seems that if Greer had killed Miller inside of his house, the state's default position would be that Greer was justified.
Not sure if you knew that or not.
:shrug:
I see. So an 80 year old man who has been beaten, is being robbed gets his gun and confronts his two assailants. They both turn and run now that he has a chance against them. Is it revenge just as soon as they turn to run? Or do they have to run a step or two?
Do you understand how pathetic your stance is? Are you a lawyer?
Is it revenge after the tenth time a running foot hits the ground? Or is there some magical number of foot steps or seconds that have to occur between the broken bones and a lawful killing? In your opinion is the difference between a lawful killing and a murder one second? Two?
If a reasonable person would not have fear for imminent loss of life or great bodily harm, etc then it is a crime to shoot.I see. So an 80 year old man who has been beaten, is being robbed gets his gun and confronts his two assailants. They both turn and run now that he has a chance against them. Is it revenge just as soon as they turn to run? Or do they have to run a step or two?
Would you write a wall of text explaining in detail exactly how pathetic it is?Do you understand how pathetic your stance is?
If a reasonable person would not have fear for imminent loss of life or great bodily harm, etc then it is a crime to shoot.Is it revenge after the tenth time a running foot hits the ground? Or is there some magical number of foot steps or seconds that have to occur between the broken bones and a lawful killing? In your opinion is the difference between a lawful killing and a murder one second? Two?
You are welcome to hold w/e sorts of opinions please you. You do not even have to justify these opinion at all.I don't think it matters.
Beat this horse all you want, my mind will not be changed in my believe that Mr. Greer did NOTHING wrong. I commend the old guy for doing what he did.Who exactly is saying that Greer did wrong when first started shooting at the crooks?
Afaict, it's nobody.
Nobody seems to fault Greer for shooting at the crooks when the crooks were inside his house.
No one.
Greer is criticized for shooting a fleeing, unarmed woman in the back.
This is something entirely different that what Greer was doing inside of his house when he was shooting at the crooks.
If you could recognize the difference between the two things [shooting to defend oneself and shooting a woman in the back], perhaps you would be better able to understand what your fellow posters are saying.
Imho, the differences between defending yourself and shooting a fleeing woman in the back are easily distinguishable.
But I guess that there is some way that the two things can get mixed up for some people.
So, to say it again:
Shooting crooks to defend yourself and your home = "GREAT JOB!"
Shooting a fleeing unarmed woman = "murder"
No one is objecting to the first part. We're all with you on that. Greer was well within his rights to defend himself by shooting at the crooks in his house.
No fault found.
The objection is to actions which occurred after the crooks started to flee.
Greer chased down an unarmed woman and shot her in the back.
That part, shooting an unarmed woman in the back, that's the objectionable part.
It seems very clear that no one is objecting to Greer shooting to defend himself.
I hope that is clear to you as well now.
No one is "[begrudging] him for fighting back once he got to his weapon."
Hope that helps. GL
Cry a river for the low lifes that beat an old person. You are part of the problem.The people in question turned to run, they were no longer a threat, period. He murdered the person. End of story. It is illegal to shoot someone fleeing because now there is no threat. It does not matter as to how many steps they took, they turned their backs to flee. At that point deadly force is no longer required.
I don't think it matters. I was asking you how many steps have to fall before a justified killing becomes murder. How many seconds? Is it ten steps and two seconds?
He was beaten. He was being robbed. he got his gun and they began to run. Do you think they ran for minutes or for one or two seconds before he killed the female assailant?
Beat this horse all you want, my mind will not be changed in my believe that Mr. Greer did NOTHING wrong. I commend the old guy for doing what he did.
He took scum off the street.
He definately did something wrong, the question is if it is legal. Morally and ethically it is wrong to kill someone in any case other than self defense or defense of others. I suppose there might be a few exceptions, like defending equiptemnt your life is dependent on or could be dependent on, but that goes back to self defense. Killing is wrong, unless you have to do it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?