Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Should the 80 year old man be charged in this case?

+9
QueenOfHearts
Sal
Markle
Hospital Bob
2seaoat
dumpcare
knothead
Joanimaroni
boards of FL
13 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Should the 80 year old man be charged in this case?

Should the 80 year old man be charged in this case? - Page 6 I_vote_lcap39%Should the 80 year old man be charged in this case? - Page 6 I_vote_rcap 39% [ 7 ]
Should the 80 year old man be charged in this case? - Page 6 I_vote_lcap61%Should the 80 year old man be charged in this case? - Page 6 I_vote_rcap 61% [ 11 ]
Total Votes : 18


Go down  Message [Page 5 of 9]

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Bob wrote:
Markle wrote:

We have virtually children here saying what an 80 year old man should have done after several previous break ins and getting the crap kicked out of him.  Others here who have never had the crap kicked out of them much less what they would do in the same circumstances.


nicely put.  

BS. The DA will struggle with it, but he will have to charge the 80-year-old, who will then have to go before a judge, if not a jury. I hope he's hired a lawyer.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Floridatexan wrote:
Bob wrote:
Markle wrote:

We have virtually children here saying what an 80 year old man should have done after several previous break ins and getting the crap kicked out of him.  Others here who have never had the crap kicked out of them much less what they would do in the same circumstances.


nicely put.  

BS.  The DA will struggle with it, but he will have to charge the 80-year-old, who will then have to go before a judge, if not a jury.  I hope he's hired a lawyer.  

Exactly why he should have lied to the cops and the prosecutors.

boards of FL

boards of FL

When your personal philosophy calls for you to shoot women in the back and then lie to the police....perhaps it is time to have a long hard look in the mirror.

Pre-emptive disclaimer: Breaking and entering is wrong. Battery on the elderly is wrong. Anyone who commits either of these crimes deserve to be caught, tried, and sentenced appropriately.


_________________
I approve this message.

Snyderfish

Snyderfish

Just read through this entire discussion. One of the most interesting discussions on these boards in awhile. I actually agreed with just about everyone on this one. First time ever.

First, it is irrelevant that one of the perps was a woman. They are scum and they both deserved to get shot. I agree with you Bob, once they decided to enter my home and assault me they will always be considered a threat. I am curious on how far they got before he shot her. Was she still on his property?(Is the alley part of his property?) In the heat of the moment after being assaulted in my own home I would probably have shot at them to at least the end of my property. However, the 80 year old will be charged because the law in CA is fairly clear. He should be charged if the law was broken. Hopefully though he will be found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:  Breaking and entering is wrong.  Battery on the elderly is wrong.    

At least we got that part established, snyderfish. I guess we'll have to settle for that at this juncture. lol

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:  Breaking and entering is wrong.  Battery on the elderly is wrong.    

At least we got that part established,  snyderfish.  I guess we'll have to settle for that at this juncture.  lol


That has been established since page 1 of the thread.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/31/opinion/navarrette-shooting-pregnant-intruder/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

San Diego (CNN) -- Tom Greer is an 80-year-old crime victim who had the absolute right to use deadly force to defend himself when a pair of burglars -- a man and a woman -- broke into his home in Long Beach, California, and began assaulting him. And yet, if there is any justice, the 80-year-old should spend the remainder of his golden years in prison.

That's because he killed 28-year-old Andrea Miller, who begged for her life, telling Greer: "Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!"

Not true, according to the L.A. County Coroner's Office. Miller was not pregnant. But Greer didn't know when he pulled the trigger -- for a second time.

The homeowner, who has been robbed before, told police that he returned home one night and found Miller and her accomplice, who has been identified as 26-year-old Gus Adams, trying to open his safe. Greer said they immediately attacked him and threw him to the ground, breaking his collarbone. While the intruders were distracted, Greer got up and retrieved his .22 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. When Miller and Adams saw he was armed, he said they ran out of the house.

Greer told a Los Angeles television station that he pursued the intruders outside and into a nearby alley, gun in hand.


First mistake. He told KNBC: "When the time comes to defend yourself, you best do something." But, at this point, Greer was no longer defending himself because he wasn't in imminent danger. And he was not protecting his home. Instead, he was stalking his prey.

Then, Greer told the television station, he fired on the burglars, hitting Miller in the back.

Second mistake. If Greer shot Miller in the back, it makes it hard for him to argue that he wasn't in control of the situation and that somehow he felt threatened by Miller.

Finally, Greer said with no remorse, as Adams ran off, Miller pleaded for her life and claimed to be pregnant. But Greer fired off another shot anyway, killing her.


Third mistake. Since Miller wasn't really pregnant, we can assume that she was just trying to save her own skin. Maybe Greer believed her, or maybe he didn't. What matters is this: With the suspect already wounded and bleeding, Greer should have called police and waited for them to arrive. He didn't do that.

Instead, he meted out his own punishment. Was that because Greer was angry and frustrated at being victimized and wanted retribution? If so, that's not a good excuse for taking a life.

Adams has been found and arrested on suspicion of murder for taking part in a crime that led to Miller's death. His arraignment is scheduled for August 11.
Given that we're talking about an 80-year-old crime victim who grabbed a gun with the intent to defend himself, there are clearly extenuating circumstances. But they are not enough to let Greer avoid taking some responsibility for killing Miller.

He's a victim, but not a completely innocent one. The fact that he was robbed and beaten doesn't excuse everything that happened next. Greer pursued Miller out of his house and into the alley. He shot her in the back. And then, with her lying wounded on the ground and pleading for her life -- and still not clear on whether or not she was really pregnant -- he fired the fatal shot.

This wasn't premeditated, but neither was it a spontaneous crime of passion. During this entire ordeal, Greer had plenty of time to think about what was happening and how to react. He chose to react by shooting down someone who was no longer fleeing and no longer a threat to him.

By firing the fatal shot at someone who was alone, unarmed, wounded, defenseless and pleading for her life, Greer committed a cold-blooded act.

Let's be clear. If you confront a burglar in your home, and you feel your life is in danger, and you grab a gun to defend yourself and kill that person, most reasonable people could consider that to be a justified use of deadly force. This is not that. And it cheapens the right to self-defense to apply that label to what happened here.


Because his crime wasn't premeditated, Greer shouldn't be charged with first-degree murder. Second-degree will suffice. And if it is proved in court that he punitively and needlessly took a life, then he should be locked up for the rest of his.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:Greer shouldn't be charged with first-degree murder. Second-degree will suffice. And if it is proved in court that he punitively and needlessly took a life, then he should be locked up for the rest of his life.

We need to get that old racist right-winger off the streets before he kills us all.
He's a menace to civilized society.
How do you know it wasn't premeditated.  I bet when those young people jumped on his back he wanted to see them dead.  Because those old geezers are just like that.  They're bloodthirtsy and want to murder young people.
Give him the electric chair because that's what he deserves.
And the estate of that innocent young woman he killed needs to file a lawsuit against him and take everything he's got. That'll teach him and everyone like him what happens to you when you vote for bush and watch fox news.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Greer shouldn't be charged with first-degree murder. Second-degree will suffice. And if it is proved in court that he punitively and needlessly took a life, then he should be locked up for the rest of his life.

We need to get that old racist right-winger off the streets before he kills us all.
He's a menace to civilized society.
How do you know it wasn't premeditated.  I bet when those young people jumped on his back he wanted to see them dead.  Because those old geezers are just like that.  They're bloodthirtsy and want to murder young people.
Give him the electric chair because that's what he deserves.
And the estate of that innocent young woman he killed needs to file a lawsuit against him and take everything he's got.  That'll teach him and everyone like him what happens to you when you vote for bush and watch fox news.


When you can't argue against the facts of the case, make up some absurd shit and argue against that.

Nice to see someone filling the void of stupid that was left here after the mass exodus of GOP supporters.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:


When you can't argue against the facts of the case, make up some absurd shit and argue against that.

Nice to see someone filling the void of stupid that was left here after the mass exodus of GOP supporters.

All those GOP's run off with their tails between their legs because all GOP's are retarded. We liberals are taking over this place now.

knothead

knothead

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:


When you can't argue against the facts of the case, make up some absurd shit and argue against that.

Nice to see someone filling the void of stupid that was left here after the mass exodus of GOP supporters.

All those GOP's run off with their tails between their legs because all GOP's are retarded.  We liberals are taking over this place now.

Bob, you are a hoot . . . . .

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

It is refreshing to know what all the liberals would do if they were in the same situation as the 80 year old man. Such insight....like Monday morning quarterbacks.

Sal

Sal

Joanimaroni wrote:It is refreshing to know what all the liberals would do if they were in the same situation as the 80 year old man. Such insight....like Monday morning quarterbacks.


I feel pretty darn confident that I wouldn't shoot a woman in the back who was fleeing from me and pleading for her life.

But, that's just me.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

I wouldn't shoot if she stopped, put her hands up and surrendered.


Who has the presence of mind to lie while fleeing a crime?   A career criminal, possibly.

Guest


Guest

Joanimaroni wrote:I wouldn't shoot if she stopped, put her hands up and surrendered.


Who has the presence of mind to lie while fleeing a crime?   A career criminal, possibly.

It does sound rehearsed.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Joanimaroni wrote:Who has the presence of mind to lie while fleeing a crime?   A career criminal, possibly.


Absolutely anyone who finds them self in a life or death situation.


_________________
I approve this message.

Sal

Sal

The fact that this woman was burglarizing the man's home does not give him the right to chase her down an alley and shoot her in the back as she was fleeing and pleading for her life.

The fact that this woman physically assaulted the man does not give him the right to chase her down an alley and shoot her in the back as she was fleeing and pleading for her life.

The fact that this woman was not a nice person and was quite possibly a liar-liar-pants-on-fire does not give him the right to chase her down an alley and shoot her in the back as she was fleeing and pleading for her life.

Snyderfish

Snyderfish

No, he didn't have the right. But, she got what she deserved. The man did everyone a favor.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Snyderfish wrote:No, he didn't have the right. But, she got what she deserved. The man did everyone a favor.



"...he didn't have the right..."

You could have stopped there.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Floridatexan wrote:
Snyderfish wrote:No, he didn't have the right. But, she got what she deserved. The man did everyone a favor.



"...he didn't have the right..."

You could have stopped there.  

We could have avoided all the discussion in these latest threads and replaced it with just Snyderfish's post and Floridatexan's reply to it.  Because those two posts get to the heart of the disagreement.
One side values the life and the rights of violent criminals.  
The other side cares about the welfare of the victims.  It's really that simple.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Snyderfish wrote:No, he didn't have the right. But, she got what she deserved. The man did everyone a favor.



"...he didn't have the right..."

You could have stopped there.  

We could have avoided all the discussion in these latest threads and replaced it with just Snyderfish's post and Floridatexan's reply to it.  Because those two posts get to the heart of the disagreement.
One side values the life and the rights of violent criminals.  
The other side cares about the welfare of the victims.  It's really that simple.

Wrong. 


One side values the rule of law and the criminal justice system, and the other values vigilantism. 


It's really that simple. 

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal wrote:

Wrong. 


One side values the rule of law and the criminal justice system, and the other values vigilantism. 


It's really that simple. 

Of course you value how the criminal justice system and the rule of law dealt with George Zimmerman now don't you. lol

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:And yet it offends your liberal sensibilities that an old beaten man who was let down by the society that was supposed to be there to protect him took the law into his own hands.


He shot a fleeing woman in the back.  Let's be clear on what it is that we are disagreeing about here.  I don't believe it is OK for someone to shoot a fleeing person in the back.  When someone is fleeing and pleading for their life, they clearly do not represent an imminent threat to you.  Therefore, you cannot kill them.

Re-read the above a few times and see if you can decipher what is being said there.  I doubt you can, but give it a try.

Should the 80 year old man be charged in this case? - Page 6 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTw_2cxlKGUsi9hsG5jUNzngqs5zCrfOuPLz_ytwYD-ugV_cjZblg

He was let down by the law enforcement agency, and most likely the criminal justice system, to be attacked by people who are obviously repeat offenders. Therefore society failed him leaving him no choice but to take action.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3a2op-lejU

 Smile

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Bob wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Snyderfish wrote:No, he didn't have the right. But, she got what she deserved. The man did everyone a favor.



"...he didn't have the right..."

You could have stopped there.  

We could have avoided all the discussion in these latest threads and replaced it with just Snyderfish's post and Floridatexan's reply to it.  Because those two posts get to the heart of the disagreement.
One side values the life and the rights of violent criminals.  
The other side cares about the welfare of the victims.  It's really that simple.

No, Bob, it is NOT that simple, and you must have some concept of that. The woman was obviously a criminal or under the influence of a criminal. You don't know what happened in that man's house. Those details matter. I believe the old man was under duress, but he made the choice to take the law into his own hands. That doesn't absolve the criminals actions, but it makes the victim now subject to indictment for murder, because he fired at a someone leaving the scene. Why is this so hard for you?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Floridatexan wrote: but it makes the victim now subject to indictment for murder, because he fired at a someone leaving the scene.  Why is this so hard for you?  

I know he's subject to indictment for murder,  tex.  I'm not questioning the fact that he's subject to indictment for murder.  I've never questioned the fact that he's subject to indictment for murder.
I'm questioning whether HE SHOULD be indicted for murder.
Why is that so hard for you?

If it is hard for you,  then let me try to explain it this way.
You believe George Zimmerman should have been convicted of a crime.
George Zimmerman was not convicted of a crime.
But,  even though he was not convicted of a crime,  that doesn't stop you from believing he should have been convicted of a crime.
It's no different here.  I realize this person is subject to indictment for murder.  But that doesn't keep me from HAVING THE OPINION that he SHOULD NOT be subject to indictment for murder.
Just exactly like Zimmerman being acquitted does not keep you from HAVING THE OPINION that he should have been convicted.

Please don't make me have to explain this again because I don't wish to waste any more time doing so.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 5 of 9]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum