I offer no opinion as to whether or not the person here was morally right or wrong, only what would be likely to happen if the same facts existed here.
There have been a number of very similar incidents that have occurred here over the last several years. I tried to be very clear about that. There are a number of very strong opinions expressed in this thread that are not necessarily correct according to the law, and the law is not universally the same everywhere.
Of course there is often a moral dilemma when the decision is made to use deadly force. In no way would I imply that it is morally OK to shoot someone in any given circumstance. However, there are circumstances where there may be some debate among some people as to whether or not the situation was morally right, but it was however legally correct, and the person would not be charged regardless of whether or not some people thought that the use of deadly force was morally right.
Old marksman...This is the first paragraph of the news article:
"80-year-old Tom Greer of Long Beach California arrived home Tuesday night to find a couple robbing his house. A man and a woman were rummaging through his things, including a safe. The robbers attacked Greer when he went inside."
I'm sorry maybe you didn't read it, which is why you saw nothing that indicated that it happened at night.
It says what it says, "he arrived home Tuesday night." It happened in Long Beach California, I don't know what the law is there. I clearly said "if it had happened here" which similar things have, which is why the General Assembly here felt the need to clarify the common law castle doctrine.
The article also says,
"Greer suffered serious shoulder and collarbone injuries from the altercation."
Someone else said... "it matters not what time of day"
Well, on the contrary read this...
SECTION 16-11-311. Burglary; first degree.
(A) A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree if the person enters a dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime in the dwelling, and either:
(1) when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immediate flight, he or another participant in the crime:
(a) is armed with a deadly weapon or explosive; or
(b) causes physical injury to a person who is not a participant in the crime; or
(c) uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument; or
(d) displays what is or appears to be a knife, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm; or
(2) the burglary is committed by a person with a prior record of two or more convictions for burglary or housebreaking or a combination of both; or
(3) the entering or remaining occurs in the nighttime.
(B) Burglary in the first degree is a felony punishable by life imprisonment. For purposes of this section, "life" means until death. The court, in its discretion, may sentence the defendant to a term of not less than fifteen years.
I am not in Texas, I don't know what the laws are there. Also I don't know what the laws are in Montana, I am not there either, nor did I see anything about Montana in the article. What I do know, is what the law is here.
Read this:
ARTICLE 6
Protection of Persons and Property
SECTION 16-11-410. Citation of article.
This article may be cited as the "Protection of Persons and Property Act".
HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.
SECTION 16-11-420. Intent and findings of General Assembly.
(A) It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person's place of business.
(B) The General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.
(C) The General Assembly finds that Section 20, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed.
(D) The General Assembly finds that persons residing in or visiting this State have a right to expect to remain unmolested and safe within their homes, businesses, and vehicles.
(E) The General Assembly finds that no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack.
HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.
SECTION 16-11-430. Definitions.
As used in this article, the term:
(1) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including an attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging there at night.
(2) "Great bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.
(3) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(4) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.
SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.
(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:
(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.
(B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:
(1) against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or
(2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used; or
(3) who uses deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(4) against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.
(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
(E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder.
HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.
SECTION 16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions; law enforcement officer exception; costs.
(A) A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known that the person is a law enforcement officer.
(B) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of deadly force as described in subsection (A), but the agency may not arrest the person for using deadly force unless probable cause exists that the deadly force used was unlawful.
(C) The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of a civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (A).
HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.
The law says nothing about whether or not the offender has decided to leave, it only say that the entering is in progress, or has occurred. Clearly, it was in progress when the victim arrived home at night. Clearly the victim sustained an injury that could be serious and permanent.
The law also assumes that if you used deadly force, you were in fear of imminent peril.
What is not clear is how long would it take the police to get there, and were there other persons there that the victim was not aware of, and did the suspects intend to return to a vehicle to respond to the victims weapon with a weapon of their own.
They had apparently robbed him twice before, it would be reasonable for him to think that there may be a fourth time, or maybe next time they will kill me.
Who knows what Mr. Greer thought, but what he thought at the time has a huge bearing on whether or not the prosecutor will pursue any charges in the case.
How did he know that the female was telling the truth? "Oh wait don't shoot, I'm pregnant...Bang, works every time old man. Well, in fact she was not pregnant.
This law also foresees the huge expense that may be incurred on a person in such a situation, and the General Assembly provides a remedy for it to also protect the victim from being needlessly ruined financially because he felt compelled to defend himself.
Again, if it occurred here he could not even be arrested under the same circumstances. Of course, things do not always happen as the person relates them to the police.
There is often more to the story.
If the investigation revealed later that he was not truthful, then he possibly be charged later according to what the facts indicated to actually have happened.
There are several elements involved in what happened in this incident that would covered Mr. Greer if he lived here. Again, I don't misunderstand the law in Texas, in fact I know nothing of it. On the other hand, I do have a very concrete understanding of the law in South Carolina.
Again my post applied the circumstances to what would happen (has happened) here. Obviously, the prosecutor in California thought he was justified in doing what he did, and declined to charge Mr. Greer. What if he had not done what he did, would Mr. Greer be dead instead? We don't know, and he didn't know either. What we do know is that he did what he did, and he lived to explain it to the police.
Someone said "the convicted murderer". Which one? Mr. Tom Greer was not charged. I don't know which murderer they were referring to.
As to advanced age not being important when facing a long prison term?
What I want more than anything else in my life is to attend my Daughter's college graduation, attend her wedding, and hold her baby when it is born. I would not be able to do that in prison. Maybe Mr. Greer wants to do those same things.
Maybe if he had listened to the lying female thief, he would never get to do those things.
Maybe, maybe not. Mr. Greer wasn't prepared to bet his life on it was he.
Good for him.
Whether or not he was morally right or wrong, is a matter he will have to reconcile with his god if he has one.
And just to be clear about that gross misinterpretation I have about the law in Texas? Maybe so, I don't know about Texas, but read this South Carolina Statute.
Is Texas alone among US jurisdictions really?
Well, here you go.
SECTION 17-13-20. Additional circumstances when citizens may arrest; means to be used.
A citizen may arrest a person in the nighttime by efficient means as the darkness and the probability of escape render necessary, even if the life of the person should be taken, when the person:
(a) has committed a felony;
(b) has entered a dwelling house without express or implied permission;
(c) has broken or is breaking into an outhouse with a view to plunder;
(d) has in his possession stolen property; or
(e) being under circumstances which raise just suspicion of his design to steal or to commit some felony, flees when he is hailed.
The suspects in Mr. Greer's incident from what I read met about four out of the five above listed provisions in this statute.
Clearly, Mr. Greer would have been "Good to Go" here. If the facts as he related them were true, there would never even be any question.
We can debate about whether or not it is right or wrong to shoot an escaping criminal thief on your property at night, but if it happens here, the best advise I can give him is "when he is hailed", he better stop and lay down.
That is the law HERE. This is why it is imperative if you own or carry a gun, that you are aware of the laws in your state. It is you responsibility.
They are all different.
Many people would not believe that such a situation could be legal under the laws of a particular state, yet they are, and some states even go so far as to provide civil and criminal immunity in such a situation.
Somewhere else, you may go to jail. But the law here is QUITE clear. As I said before, some people want to debate morals, and their opinions about what is right and wrong.
But, the law may say different, and then your opinion doesn't matter.
Know your laws. If you are doing right, it will help you.