80 Year old Man attacked by burglars, One shot.

Status
Not open for further replies.
These quotes from today's Huff Post will likely prove extremely damaging:

"Greer told KNBC-TV he shot Miller twice in the back as she ran away."

" She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant — I'm going to have a baby,' and I shot her anyway," Greer said in the interview Wednesday."

"The homeowner was able to get to another room where he grabbed a gun and returned to open fire on the suspects. "

"They fled through the garage and into an alley, and Greer gave chase, firing at them again outside, McDonnell said."

"Miller was hit, collapsed in the alley and died at the scene, McDonnell said."

" "The lady didn't run as fast as the man, so I shot her in the back twice," Greer told the TV station. "She's dead ... but he got away." "​

Emphasis added.

Did he talk too much? Of course. But even had he remained mute, the triers of fact would still have forensic evidence that would tell the story.
 
Probably not, but some things shouldn't be analyzed all that closely.
Click to expand...
Any shooting were a pregnant woman and her unborn is killed by being shot in the back, should definitely be analysed very closely. It does concern me that some people think that it ok to shoot someone and then imply they were burglars they got what they deserved, and the police should turn a blind eye. Burglar or innocent person they deserve the same impartial investigation into what happened by the police. She might of being guilty her unborn child certainly was not.

In California, it would probably be a good shoot under California Penal Code Section 197
Click to expand...
Just because something is legal doesn't mean its the right or proper thing to do.
 
Any shooting were a pregnant woman and her unborn is killed by being shot in the back, should definitely be analysed very closely. It does concern me that some people think that it ok to shoot someone and then imply they were burglars they got what they deserved, and the police should turn a blind eye. Burglar or innocent person they deserve the same impartial investigation into what happened by the police.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. The old man didn't choose the time and the place for this to happen, the robbers did. He was injured and probably not thinking totally clearly. Best thing for the DA to do here (in my opinion) is send it to a grand jury and soft-sell it; steer them towards a no-bill.
 
Posted by zxcvbob: The old man didn't choose the time and the place for this to happen, the robbers did.
Click to expand...
That is completely irrelevant.

But he did choose to chase them outside. Bad move.

He was injured and probably not thinking totally clearly.
Click to expand...
He almost certainly wasn't thinking clearly.

Bad decisions result in bad consequences.
 
if "it" happens then shut up!

Quote:
"but one clear error that the man made is talking to the media."

Yeah buddy. I don't like mentioning much of the training I've had being a police officer as I try not to sound like some kind of "know everything" expert. That said I was trained by a couple of well know authorities on courtroom survival and the aftermath following a self defense shoot.
I'll mention just one important aspect.
Shut up! There are ways to not volunteer information w/o seeming as tho one has something to hide or appearing uncooperative.
Just a thought for your consideration.
 
old man

Back when I was in le the old man would've have nothing to worry about.The day didn't tolerate things like,for instance a similar story to guys tried to rob this house an they got out but the owner shot both of them one in the back and one line the side,le shows up an tells them to drag them inside we will be back I 20 min.,so they come back an help them write the report and the day dismisses the case.OF course this was 40 years ago,I feel sorry for the old man,an yes he run his mouth too much.IF I was on the jury I would not vote guilty, sorry guys.I know they were fleeing the scene an he was in no immediate danger as they are going to call it ,but not guilty.
 
Posted by captneil19: I know they were fleeing the scene an he was in no immediate danger as they are going to call it ,but not guilty.
Click to expand...
?????

If they were in fact fleeing the scene, and if the man was in no immediate danger, and if he shot them knowingly and willingly, he was most certainly guilty.

The only remaining question is the severity of the charges.
 
I heard on the news this morning the other suspect was apprehended, and is being charged with murder, as she was killed in the commission of a felony.
They didn't mention the older gentleman.
 
If the female burglar was indeed pregnant & if she has relatives/children/ etc. there mostly likely will be a law suit. Even if a person is involved in a righteous shoot, no criminal charges, a civil suit most likely is coming.
Provided of course the elderly shooter has anything worth taking as a result of a civil action.
I've been sued 4 times that went all the way to jury. The experiences were freaking horrible & frankly I was a nervous wreck each time.
As a defendant in a civil suit I can speak with some authority that lawyers will find ways of making even a saint look awful.:eek:
I was never found culpable of anything despite the efforts of a well respected firm from Cleveland that almost convinced me that I most certainly did something wrong!
I would encourage anyone that considers lethal force for self defense to study court room survival & aftermath material.
Massad Ayood has some very good printed material that could be available on the net. There are others equally as good.
About the "old days" when cops might have said "shoot 'em & drag 'em inside, we'll be back in 20 minutes".
Poppycock!:mad: IF any copper was stupid enough to do such a thing then that cop has the I.Q. of a road killed 'possum! That kind of thing would absolutely & w/o a doubt, get out and burn everyone involved.
Doing such is a one way ticket to prison AND bankruptcy.
 
Quote:
Posted by zxcvbob: The old man didn't choose the time and the place for this to happen, the robbers did.
That is completely irrelevant.

But he did choose to chase them outside. Bad move.

Quote:
He was injured and probably not thinking totally clearly.

He almost certainly wasn't thinking clearly.
Bad decisions result in bad consequences.
Click to expand...

So what do you want to do about it now, string him up?
 
I'd give him a pat on the back. Score one for us older gentlemen.
Click to expand...
Give him a pat on the back for shooting a pregnant woman in the back killing her and her unborn child. :(

So what do you want to do about it now, string him up?
Click to expand...
No he should be investigated just like anyone else who shot and killed someone and the law should take its course. If a criminal shoots and kills someone he should face the law, same goes for someone that killed someone claiming self defence if it turns out that it was not justified.
 
Last edited:
So what do you want to do about it now, string him up?
Click to expand...
The charging authority will decide what to do next. If the reports are accurate, he will undoubtedly be charged with having knowingly and willingly used deadly force that resulted in death, without lawful justification.

If he will not or cannot reach a plea agreement, the case will undoubtedly go to trial.

I would not predict what the jury will do. But if the reports are accurate, there appears to be likely little in the way of an objective basis for acquittal.

What happens if he is found guilty? Sentencing. I would not want to predict the terms.

IIRC, a pharmacist over in Oklahoma City ended up with a life sentence not too long ago under circumstances that do not appear all that different.

At his age, a much less severe sentence could amount to the same thing.
 
Since when do pregnant women get a free pass to commit crime?
Click to expand...
No One said they did get a free pass, we have all made mistakes in our lives she made a mistake and paid with her life. He knew she was pregnant and shot her anyway when she was not a threat. You might think someone deserves a pat on the back for killing an unborn baby I am glad that I don't.
 
Manta,

It seems you're having a problem with reading comprehension.

I didn't say he deserved it for shooting the baby. I did say he deserved it for shooting a criminal female who invaded his home and caused him injury.
 
I didn't say he deserved it for shooting the baby. I did say he deserved it for shooting a criminal female who invaded his home and caused him injury.
Click to expand...
I have no problem comprehending, he knew she was pregnant and he shot her killing her and the baby you can't separate the two. I would not be giving him a pat on the back for shooting dead a defenceless woman in the back who was not a threat pregnant or not. When I have no compassion in that type of situation I will start to get concerned about myself.

The perpetrators began to flee the scene when the woman begged “Don’t shoot me, I’m pregnant! I’m going to have a baby!” Greer shot her anyway and had no regrets. “She was dead. I shot her twice, she best be dead.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Talking to the media was a bad idea but I think that his biggest problem is chasing them to the alley. I don't care if someone was in your house robbing you or not, if you have to chase them down to get a shot off that is no longer self defense.
 
With the disclaimer that I don't know what happened in this particular situation because I wasn't there and the facts we have are unreliable...

You don't get to kill people because you think they deserve to die. You don't get to kill people because they DID put you in danger a minute ago. You don't get to kill people because they are the scum of the earth.

You are permitted to kill if you are at imminent risk of death or severe bodily harm or defending another from same. (this isn't a legal opinion but a generalization, the rule varies by jurisdiction).

That's it. This is a society, not anarchy. We have courts and laws to punish crimes and to look at the underlying facts to determine the truth. If a person decides to kill based on aggression, not based on a threat, even if they were the victim a moment ago, I have little sympathy and am happy with that person seeing at the very least manslaughter charges.

Reading the opinions of people who are almost gleeful over the death is, to me, horrifying, especially in the context of a gun forum where most or all of us presumably have lethal tools at our disposal and should be setting an example as firearm owners in a public forum. Using lethal force should always be the absolute last option used when there isn't another option available. It is nothing to look forward to and is certainly nothing to celebrate.
 
I think we need to wait on the autopsy, they said she didn't look pregnant.
And God forbid a criminal saying she was pregnant to save her life.
Either way, he's going to have problems with the back shooting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top