80 Year old Man attacked by burglars, One shot.
- Thread starter OuTcAsT
- Start date
- Status
That's pure popycock, He was attacked, this is the third time the house was broken into, what no danger of them coming back do you see.
I doubt that he will be prosecuted it would be a waste of taxpayer's money, 1) no jury will convict him, 2) Any finding other than "Not Guilty" will be a death sentience for the 80 year old, 3) since when do we take the side of the criminal over that of the victim. Trying to break into his safe, what you think these are not professional criminals? Where is the THIRD man or woman, the inside person that told then were they could find everything, and 4) I am sure we are going to find out these two have a rap sheet 2 miles long.
And I don't care after they jumped him (then games on) if they were one legged wearing nuns outfits hopping away, they should have been treated like any other mad dog on the street.
I suppose you think Bonnie Parker should not have been shot either.
Jim
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with immediate danger, which is what is relevant.
True, sad, and irrelevant.
.Completely irrelevant.
Latest news I read is, the pregnancy claim was a lie, which is not surprising. I don't know the climate in Long Beach, but given that he's 80 years old, it was right in the midst of violent confrontation that broke his collarbone, and the records of the perps (probably meth addicts too, judging by the photos...), I'm betting he won't be charged, even though he made a huge misake in talking to the media. Other shooters in other circumstances, might be charged, especially in CA.
In Florida, shooting an unarmed BG in retreat is a no-no.
On the other hand, he was an older gentleman and had been brutally beaten by these two.
In FL, there are more stringent laws for those who assault the elderly.
(As well as there should be).
I think that they will look at the big picture and his brutal beating
and take that into consideration.
That being said, exercise you right to remain silent no matter what LEO threatens you with.
Retain a lawyer and increase your chances of being treated fairly.
On the other hand, he was an older gentleman and had been brutally beaten by these two.
In FL, there are more stringent laws for those who assault the elderly.
(As well as there should be).
I think that they will look at the big picture and his brutal beating
and take that into consideration.
That being said, exercise you right to remain silent no matter what LEO threatens you with.
Retain a lawyer and increase your chances of being treated fairly.
Quote:
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.
Talking to anyone in the manner the shooter did is an awful idea.
The pregnancy issue,if true could add a manslaughter charge, otherwise it's irrelevant. (except for really bad press)
If he did indeed leave the safety of his house to chase them down an alley to shoot one of them I'd guess the old fellow is in deep doo-doo.
Sad.
If you'd like I'll tell a sickening story of a case I handled in which the shooter went to prison for at least 3 yrs manditory & he was 76 yrs old shooting in what I thought was self defense. Anti-gun liberal judge ate him for lunch!
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.
Talking to anyone in the manner the shooter did is an awful idea.
The pregnancy issue,if true could add a manslaughter charge, otherwise it's irrelevant. (except for really bad press)
If he did indeed leave the safety of his house to chase them down an alley to shoot one of them I'd guess the old fellow is in deep doo-doo.
Sad.
If you'd like I'll tell a sickening story of a case I handled in which the shooter went to prison for at least 3 yrs manditory & he was 76 yrs old shooting in what I thought was self defense. Anti-gun liberal judge ate him for lunch!
Fugit1ve Wizard
New member
Sounds to me like a justified shoot. Two physically capable beings decided to bet their lives on criminal activity a few times too many. Wonder what any of the combat veterans I know would do if you broke into their house? (pregnant or not.) Or gee, maybe we should talk about how this man was jumped by two people in his own home. At the point he was beaten into submission, I imagine he had a realistic view of what was happening as he grabbed that gun, and I'm glad he had it.
Autopsy shows NO Pregnancy !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...meowners-boasts-begged-unborn-babys-life.html
Never believe a criminal who wants you to react in his/her favor !!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...meowners-boasts-begged-unborn-babys-life.html
Never believe a criminal who wants you to react in his/her favor !!
The pregnancy (or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant except that had she actually been pregnant and he were to be found guilty of murder, it might have been possible to charge him with two counts.
If a person is truly a threat then whether that person is pregnant or not is not relevant.
The media is going to focus on that aspect because it's sensational but it's not really cogent to the basic discussion of whether or not the shoot was justified.
If a person is truly a threat then whether that person is pregnant or not is not relevant.
The media is going to focus on that aspect because it's sensational but it's not really cogent to the basic discussion of whether or not the shoot was justified.
I reas where an autopsy was performed & the dead criminal wasn't pregnant.
Her criminal accomplice was charged with muder among other things.
This leaves open a question. Can the old man shooter now be charged under Kali law with any lesser homcide offense, as mansluaghter?
Her criminal accomplice was charged with muder among other things.
This leaves open a question. Can the old man shooter now be charged under Kali law with any lesser homcide offense, as mansluaghter?
OldMarksman
Staff
Yes.
Her accomplice was charged with felony-murder--his criminal act resulted in her death.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Several points:
1. Don't ever give statements prior to talking to a lawyer or without some training and tactical strategy. You're every word is scritinized and you're hyped up on adrenaline. One stupid comment can be dissected by armchair prosecutors to infinity.
2. Don't shoot someone in the back unless you are sure they are simply maneuvering.
3. The 80 year old had a clean prior record, had been repeatedly burgled, and suffered a broken collar bone from the assault he received after surprising these TWO burglars who broke in to rob him and committed a serious and possibly fatal assault on this venerable man. Let's not forget he was the victim.
4. The entire incident probably occurred in under 60 seconds from the surprise attack, beating, and their flight and him retrieving the gun and the shooting. Put yourself in his shoes. He doesn't have the benefit of knowing how many, if they are regrouping with weapons, getting help from others, or even the extent of his own injuries. In my view, it's a very close call. Someone's back can immediately become someone's front as they produce a weapon.
5. The medical examiner has determined the woman was NOT pregnant. Surprise, she lied.
It is a shame that modern law (driving by liberal anti-gun politics) tries to twist and manipulate things like this to make the homeowner the villain, and the burglars the victims.
So, here's an interesting question. At what point, and who determines, when a deadly encounter is over? Can someone shoot you, and then turn his back, and you can't shoot him back? Someone stabs you with a knife and then puts it in the sheath, and claims to be pregnant, and you aren't allowed to defend yourself from further attack?
As a defense lawyer, I would argue that when outnumbered by adults 50+ years younger than him, and jumped and beaten with near deadly force, these individuals were fair game as they maneuvered for tactical advantage. He may have not had the mental facility or awareness at the time to not continue to fear for his life, fear for another ambush or counter attack, or fear for the man to return with a shotgun from the car. Their 'retreat' did not necessarily end the threat, and they clearly knew how to break into his home, so he did not have sanctuary there. (I have not listened to the whole audio, so perhaps he did make statements that address these points, so this assumes his statements did not address these points...).
While he didn't handle this in a textbook manner, I do not believe this warrants any criminal charges against the home owner. I think that deference should be given to the 80 year old homeowner victim.
1. Don't ever give statements prior to talking to a lawyer or without some training and tactical strategy. You're every word is scritinized and you're hyped up on adrenaline. One stupid comment can be dissected by armchair prosecutors to infinity.
2. Don't shoot someone in the back unless you are sure they are simply maneuvering.
3. The 80 year old had a clean prior record, had been repeatedly burgled, and suffered a broken collar bone from the assault he received after surprising these TWO burglars who broke in to rob him and committed a serious and possibly fatal assault on this venerable man. Let's not forget he was the victim.
4. The entire incident probably occurred in under 60 seconds from the surprise attack, beating, and their flight and him retrieving the gun and the shooting. Put yourself in his shoes. He doesn't have the benefit of knowing how many, if they are regrouping with weapons, getting help from others, or even the extent of his own injuries. In my view, it's a very close call. Someone's back can immediately become someone's front as they produce a weapon.
5. The medical examiner has determined the woman was NOT pregnant. Surprise, she lied.
It is a shame that modern law (driving by liberal anti-gun politics) tries to twist and manipulate things like this to make the homeowner the villain, and the burglars the victims.
So, here's an interesting question. At what point, and who determines, when a deadly encounter is over? Can someone shoot you, and then turn his back, and you can't shoot him back? Someone stabs you with a knife and then puts it in the sheath, and claims to be pregnant, and you aren't allowed to defend yourself from further attack?
As a defense lawyer, I would argue that when outnumbered by adults 50+ years younger than him, and jumped and beaten with near deadly force, these individuals were fair game as they maneuvered for tactical advantage. He may have not had the mental facility or awareness at the time to not continue to fear for his life, fear for another ambush or counter attack, or fear for the man to return with a shotgun from the car. Their 'retreat' did not necessarily end the threat, and they clearly knew how to break into his home, so he did not have sanctuary there. (I have not listened to the whole audio, so perhaps he did make statements that address these points, so this assumes his statements did not address these points...).
While he didn't handle this in a textbook manner, I do not believe this warrants any criminal charges against the home owner. I think that deference should be given to the 80 year old homeowner victim.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
How about when the burglars have fled the house through the garage and are running down the alley?
The defender has the obligation to determine that. Now someone else will decide, based on the totality of the evidence, whether his determination had been reasonable, based upon what he knew at the time..
If they were running away, the immediate threat had ceased to exist.
And one cannot use deadly force simply to address the possibility of someone's return.
The suspect's having run after them will undoubtedly damage his case and could conceivably be used as evidence of premeditation.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Indeed. Premeditation can occur in an instant. From the excepts of the interview, it sounded like he shot to kill, not in defense. His statements are quite harmful.
However, consider again that he didn't premeditate being robbed, jumped and beaten badly by two people, to the point of a broken collar bone. Sure, he apparently was able to break from them to get his handgun, and pursue.
The further he pursued, the worse his defense surely is. A few steps is different than 50 yards.
One of the key pieces will be whether contact was in fact established and whether he was in defense out of fear mode, or whether he was in revenge killing mode. From the sounds of it, it may have been the latter.
- Status