To me the societal aspect of "this shit isnt going to be tolerated" is actually what we are discussing right now. For some of you it seems you are placing what happened here on the same vein as that other elderly man from MN. I do not think this is even close to the same. I guess what it is coming down to, for me, is what Laze said. This man isnt a threat to our society, which is the main aspect of why we punish "crime", and so I do not think he should get "major" punishment.
To justify lethal self defense, you need to show that the attacker had the ability to seriously harm or kill you, the opportunity, and the intent.
When the bad guys were coming up to him, he's clearly not going to be able to fight them off (they have ability), they're right there and they made it past any door locks (opportunity), and they're clearly going to do it (intent). Justified self defense.
The bad guys finish up, and run away. They still have the ability, but they no longer have opportunity or intent. The opportunity is gone, because they're no longer close enough to hurt him. And the intent is gone, because now they are not actively trying to hurt him. They are leaving.
Even if the bad guys shout "We're going to come back in 5 minutes and beat you some more!" while they're running, and reestablish intent, they still don't have opportunity and you can't shoot them in the back.
There should be some acknowledgement by the state that Greer was in the wrong for the shooting, but I can't see throwing a lot of punishment his way. An old man, beaten viciously in his home by two intruders and with malice (the female continued beating him while he was on the floor while the male tried to open the safe), suffering from severe injuries, kills his attackers shortly after they've fled the home. That's a lot of extenuating circumstances, and it's reasonable to believe he wasn't thinking clearly during the ordeal.
I don't think this man is a threat to anyone in the public that isn't invading his home, so a stiff sentence isn't justified.
On the flip side, if you don't send a message that this shit isn't going to be tolerated, you might as well start shooting all the criminals as soon as you turn 80 because why the hell not?
I'm not saying send him up for all time, but he should be penalized. He broke the law, being old and having a crime committed against you doesn't mean you get to chase after people and kill them in cold blood.
You believe he was calm and calculating while pursuing his attackers? Considering the pain he was in and the short timeframe between the shooting and when he was beaten, my assumption is anything but. That he was highly emotional when he pulled the trigger.
To me the societal aspect of "this shit isnt going to be tolerated" is actually what we are discussing right now. For some of you it seems you are placing what happened here on the same vein as that other elderly man from MN. I do not think this is even close to the same. I guess what it is coming down to, for me, is what Laze said. This man isnt a threat to our society, which is the main aspect of why we punish "crime", and so I do not think he should get "major" punishment.
Except that his conduct actually is a threat to our society. There is a reason that, barring a few very tightly defined edge cases, the state maintains a monopoly on force. When you start to weaken that monopoly, that makes things dangerous, especially for the underclass.
There should be some acknowledgement by the state that Greer was in the wrong for the shooting, but I can't see throwing a lot of punishment his way. An old man, beaten viciously in his home by two intruders and with malice (the female continued beating him while he was on the floor while the male tried to open the safe), suffering from severe injuries, kills his attackers shortly after they've fled the home. That's a lot of extenuating circumstances, and it's reasonable to believe he wasn't thinking clearly during the ordeal.
I don't think this man is a threat to anyone in the public that isn't invading his home, so a stiff sentence isn't justified.
On the flip side, if you don't send a message that this shit isn't going to be tolerated, you might as well start shooting all the criminals as soon as you turn 80 because why the hell not?
I'm not saying send him up for all time, but he should be penalized. He broke the law, being old and having a crime committed against you doesn't mean you get to chase after people and kill them in cold blood.
You believe he was calm and calculating while pursuing his attackers? Considering the pain he was in and the short timeframe between the shooting and when he was beaten, my assumption is anything but. That he was highly emotional when he pulled the trigger.
His very own description of the events seems pretty cold and methodical to me.
"She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant — I'm going to have a baby,' and I shot her anyway,"
"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."
Even though the pregnancy turned out to be a lie, she still had enough time to talk to him and he made the decision to ignore her. There was no imminent threat. If his emotions were running high, it was for revenge, not justice.
He was also most likely teeming with adrenaline from the broken bone and other aspects of the situation. I am curious on how an already weakened monopoly on force, castle doctrine, SYG, etc, would be damaged by this case getting a reduced sentence and not 1st degree?
He was also most likely teeming with adrenaline from the broken bone and other aspects of the situation. I am curious on how an already weakened monopoly on force, castle doctrine, SYG, etc, would be damaged by this case getting a reduced sentence and not 1st degree?
I think manslaughter is probably a better fit for what happened. But the people saying he should just be let off the hook entirely (and there are oodles of them, if the comments on these articles are anything to go by) are so wrong it's ridiculous.
Ahh well Manslaughter is appropriate because it has the "heat of the moment" statue attached to it. I will respond by stating by the comments in this section, (ie will not be tolerated), the general tone was this man should get a felony murder charge and spend the rest of his life in jail.
Honestly without some diagrams and a step by step I am having a hard time putting together a coherent stream of events. Like in the time it takes to say that, she could have easily booked it beyond this guy having a shot with a .22 pistol. This isn't some ranch with 500 yards of open field, and I don't see how a beat up 80 year old chases down a 28 year old with a head start, stops and has a chat, then shoots her.
Reading the article again, maybe she yelled that as she was fleeing the house through the (attached?) garage, while he was following.
Honestly without some diagrams and a step by step I am having a hard time putting together a coherent stream of events.
This is going to be pretty pertinent to the whole thing, when it comes down to it. If he shot her 150 feet down an alley way, he's kinda shot himself in the foot as well. If he shot her two feet out the back gate which is 5 feet away from his garage door, completely different.
If he had just not given a press interview, he'd probably not even be getting any scrutiny.
I think he's probably still safe just because, he is on the right side of 2 powerful lobbies; the NRA and the AARP. And the lobby for late 20s career criminals, is a lot less existent. Especially since she was white so there isn't a race angle.
To me the societal aspect of "this shit isnt going to be tolerated" is actually what we are discussing right now. For some of you it seems you are placing what happened here on the same vein as that other elderly man from MN. I do not think this is even close to the same. I guess what it is coming down to, for me, is what Laze said. This man isnt a threat to our society, which is the main aspect of why we punish "crime", and so I do not think he should get "major" punishment.
Both parties needed consequences for breaking the law. Vigilantism is not tolerated in society no matter who you are. We're not barbarians we have a system in place for situations like this. It was up to law the handle the criminals, except if he had to defend himself, and now the law needs to come down on him. Criminals aren't faceless monsters, they have rights and deserve justice for being wronged, like what we have here. People don't stop being humans when they rob your house. You can't become Judge Dredd when you turn 80. Criminals aren't punished strictly for being threats, they're punished for breaking the law. You break the law, you get punished for it. That's how the system is supposed to work.
Honestly without some diagrams and a step by step I am having a hard time putting together a coherent stream of events.
This is going to be pretty pertinent to the whole thing, when it comes down to it. If he shot her 150 feet down an alley way, he's kinda shot himself in the foot as well. If he shot her two feet out the back gate which is 5 feet away from his garage door, completely different.
I'd honestly wait for something like that, too, before getting in a twist over something.
But then again facts and common sense rarely get in the way of the hardcore pro and anti gun nutters.
To me the societal aspect of "this shit isnt going to be tolerated" is actually what we are discussing right now. For some of you it seems you are placing what happened here on the same vein as that other elderly man from MN. I do not think this is even close to the same. I guess what it is coming down to, for me, is what Laze said. This man isnt a threat to our society, which is the main aspect of why we punish "crime", and so I do not think he should get "major" punishment.
Both parties needed consequences for breaking the law. Vigilantism is not tolerated in society no matter who you are. We're not barbarians we have a system in place for situations like this. It was up to law the handle the criminals, except if he had to defend himself, and now the law needs to come down on him. Criminals aren't faceless monsters, they have rights and deserve justice for being wronged, like what we have here. People don't stop being humans when they rob your house. You can't become Judge Dredd when you turn 80. Criminals aren't punished strictly for being threats, they're punished for breaking the law. You break the law, you get punished for it. That's how the system is supposed to work.
I have said so many times, (judge jury executioner is not good), we just do not know all of the details of the circumstances. The press writing is sensationalized a bit. "Chasing" down someone in your 80s with a broken collarbone raises my eyebrow a bit. Plus his, "I am not sorry for what I did", matter of fact interview. It tends to make people matter of fact back.
"The lady didn't run as fast so I shot her in the back twice," is plenty to twist up over, I believe. I get anger and rage and fear and adrenaline, but that's a fucked up thing to say, let alone do. There are few extenuating circumstances that excuse shooting a fleeing party, and as I don't think this woman had just stolen the nuclear codes from the old dude's safe, I doubt this was one of those circumstances.
To me the societal aspect of "this shit isnt going to be tolerated" is actually what we are discussing right now. For some of you it seems you are placing what happened here on the same vein as that other elderly man from MN. I do not think this is even close to the same. I guess what it is coming down to, for me, is what Laze said. This man isnt a threat to our society, which is the main aspect of why we punish "crime", and so I do not think he should get "major" punishment.
Both parties needed consequences for breaking the law. Vigilantism is not tolerated in society no matter who you are. We're not barbarians we have a system in place for situations like this. It was up to law the handle the criminals, except if he had to defend himself, and now the law needs to come down on him. Criminals aren't faceless monsters, they have rights and deserve justice for being wronged, like what we have here. People don't stop being humans when they rob your house. You can't become Judge Dredd when you turn 80. Criminals aren't punished strictly for being threats, they're punished for breaking the law. You break the law, you get punished for it. That's how the system is supposed to work.
I have said so many times, (judge jury executioner is not good), we just do not know all of the details of the circumstances. We also do not know the details as the press writing is sensationalized a bit. "Chasing" down someone in your 80s with a broken collarbone raises my eyebrow a bit. Plus his, "I am not sorry for what I did", matter of fact interview. It tends to make people matter of fact back.
Its fine for authorities to be thoroughly with their investigation. Him saying that stuff in the interview didn't help his case, we do know enough to scrutinize his actions, until anything comes to light to discourage that thought in public opinion. If what he said is true he needs to be punished for it, not celebrated and encouraged.
To me the societal aspect of "this shit isnt going to be tolerated" is actually what we are discussing right now. For some of you it seems you are placing what happened here on the same vein as that other elderly man from MN. I do not think this is even close to the same. I guess what it is coming down to, for me, is what Laze said. This man isnt a threat to our society, which is the main aspect of why we punish "crime", and so I do not think he should get "major" punishment.
Both parties needed consequences for breaking the law. Vigilantism is not tolerated in society no matter who you are. We're not barbarians we have a system in place for situations like this. It was up to law the handle the criminals, except if he had to defend himself, and now the law needs to come down on him. Criminals aren't faceless monsters, they have rights and deserve justice for being wronged, like what we have here. People don't stop being humans when they rob your house. You can't become Judge Dredd when you turn 80. Criminals aren't punished strictly for being threats, they're punished for breaking the law. You break the law, you get punished for it. That's how the system is supposed to work.
I have said so many times, (judge jury executioner is not good), we just do not know all of the details of the circumstances. We also do not know the details as the press writing is sensationalized a bit. "Chasing" down someone in your 80s with a broken collarbone raises my eyebrow a bit. Plus his, "I am not sorry for what I did", matter of fact interview. It tends to make people matter of fact back.
Its fine for authorities to be thoroughly with their investigation. Him saying that stuff in the interview didn't help his case, we do know enough to scrutinize his actions, until anything comes to light to discourage that thought in public opinion. If what he said is true he needs to be punished for it, not celebrated and encouraged.
He's also an old man who was just beaten to a pulp.
So it'd be wise to wait on fact instead of getting on a tangent based on his bitter words.
To me the societal aspect of "this shit isnt going to be tolerated" is actually what we are discussing right now. For some of you it seems you are placing what happened here on the same vein as that other elderly man from MN. I do not think this is even close to the same. I guess what it is coming down to, for me, is what Laze said. This man isnt a threat to our society, which is the main aspect of why we punish "crime", and so I do not think he should get "major" punishment.
Both parties needed consequences for breaking the law. Vigilantism is not tolerated in society no matter who you are. We're not barbarians we have a system in place for situations like this. It was up to law the handle the criminals, except if he had to defend himself, and now the law needs to come down on him. Criminals aren't faceless monsters, they have rights and deserve justice for being wronged, like what we have here. People don't stop being humans when they rob your house. You can't become Judge Dredd when you turn 80. Criminals aren't punished strictly for being threats, they're punished for breaking the law. You break the law, you get punished for it. That's how the system is supposed to work.
I have said so many times, (judge jury executioner is not good), we just do not know all of the details of the circumstances. We also do not know the details as the press writing is sensationalized a bit. "Chasing" down someone in your 80s with a broken collarbone raises my eyebrow a bit. Plus his, "I am not sorry for what I did", matter of fact interview. It tends to make people matter of fact back.
Its fine for authorities to be thoroughly with their investigation. Him saying that stuff in the interview didn't help his case, we do know enough to scrutinize his actions, until anything comes to light to discourage that thought in public opinion. If what he said is true he needs to be punished for it, not celebrated and encouraged.
He's also an old man who was just beaten to a pulp.
So it'd be wise to wait on fact instead of getting on a tangent based on his bitter words.
I wasn't on a tangent, I only said if he's guilty for what happened being an old man who was just beaten to a pulp isn't a get out of jail free card. He'd probably get leniency someone younger wouldn't, of course. Vigilantism should not be tolerated if he did that.
To me the societal aspect of "this shit isnt going to be tolerated" is actually what we are discussing right now. For some of you it seems you are placing what happened here on the same vein as that other elderly man from MN. I do not think this is even close to the same. I guess what it is coming down to, for me, is what Laze said. This man isnt a threat to our society, which is the main aspect of why we punish "crime", and so I do not think he should get "major" punishment.
Both parties needed consequences for breaking the law. Vigilantism is not tolerated in society no matter who you are. We're not barbarians we have a system in place for situations like this. It was up to law the handle the criminals, except if he had to defend himself, and now the law needs to come down on him. Criminals aren't faceless monsters, they have rights and deserve justice for being wronged, like what we have here. People don't stop being humans when they rob your house. You can't become Judge Dredd when you turn 80. Criminals aren't punished strictly for being threats, they're punished for breaking the law. You break the law, you get punished for it. That's how the system is supposed to work.
I have said so many times, (judge jury executioner is not good), we just do not know all of the details of the circumstances. We also do not know the details as the press writing is sensationalized a bit. "Chasing" down someone in your 80s with a broken collarbone raises my eyebrow a bit. Plus his, "I am not sorry for what I did", matter of fact interview. It tends to make people matter of fact back.
Its fine for authorities to be thoroughly with their investigation. Him saying that stuff in the interview didn't help his case, we do know enough to scrutinize his actions, until anything comes to light to discourage that thought in public opinion. If what he said is true he needs to be punished for it, not celebrated and encouraged.
He's also an old man who was just beaten to a pulp.
So it'd be wise to wait on fact instead of getting on a tangent based on his bitter words.
I wasn't on a tangent, I only said if he's guilty for what happened being an old man who was just beaten to a pulp isn't a get out of jail free card. He'd probably get leniency someone younger wouldn't, of course. Vigilantism should not be tolerated if he did that.
@Harry Dresden Upon re-reading I realize that it comes across as a shot at you directly and I apologize. I meant it as a general statement towards the discussion in general, not at you.
To me the societal aspect of "this shit isnt going to be tolerated" is actually what we are discussing right now. For some of you it seems you are placing what happened here on the same vein as that other elderly man from MN. I do not think this is even close to the same. I guess what it is coming down to, for me, is what Laze said. This man isnt a threat to our society, which is the main aspect of why we punish "crime", and so I do not think he should get "major" punishment.
Both parties needed consequences for breaking the law. Vigilantism is not tolerated in society no matter who you are. We're not barbarians we have a system in place for situations like this. It was up to law the handle the criminals, except if he had to defend himself, and now the law needs to come down on him. Criminals aren't faceless monsters, they have rights and deserve justice for being wronged, like what we have here. People don't stop being humans when they rob your house. You can't become Judge Dredd when you turn 80. Criminals aren't punished strictly for being threats, they're punished for breaking the law. You break the law, you get punished for it. That's how the system is supposed to work.
I have said so many times, (judge jury executioner is not good), we just do not know all of the details of the circumstances. We also do not know the details as the press writing is sensationalized a bit. "Chasing" down someone in your 80s with a broken collarbone raises my eyebrow a bit. Plus his, "I am not sorry for what I did", matter of fact interview. It tends to make people matter of fact back.
Its fine for authorities to be thoroughly with their investigation. Him saying that stuff in the interview didn't help his case, we do know enough to scrutinize his actions, until anything comes to light to discourage that thought in public opinion. If what he said is true he needs to be punished for it, not celebrated and encouraged.
He's also an old man who was just beaten to a pulp.
So it'd be wise to wait on fact instead of getting on a tangent based on his bitter words.
I wasn't on a tangent, I only said if he's guilty for what happened being an old man who was just beaten to a pulp isn't a get out of jail free card. He'd probably get leniency someone younger wouldn't, of course. Vigilantism should not be tolerated if he did that.
@Harry Dresden Upon re-reading I realize that it comes across as a shot at you directly and I apologize. I meant it as a general statement towards the discussion in general, not at you.
I do think the Vigilantism, Judge Jury Executioner, Judge Dredd, etc comparison are a bit excessive, short of it turning out that he did fire off some shot 100 ft down the alley.
It seems much more likely he just continued to engage them as they fled through his house and out the garage. Which is not good(though maybe still legal), but is quite a bit different from vigilante justice.
Which is frankly where the challenge is going to be in prosecuting.
At what point does shooting cross from justified to not.
When they turn to run?
When they exit the room he is in?
When they leave his house proper, but are in his garage?
When their foot strikes the alley pavement?
Once they are 30 feet down the alley?
In hindsight it's easy to criticize the decision to pursue, but losing sight of someone who is a lethal threat to you isn't wise. They could have ducked right back around the corner and returned fire for all he knows at the time, maybe better to keep engaging to drive them off.
So the DA is probably left arguing with the defense over 'no if he had shot them 2 seconds sooner it would have been fine, but now he goes to jail for 3 years'. With a detestable victim and a generally sympathetic(if he shuts his mouth) defendant.
I mean as soon as the prosecution starts its 'rule of law speech', the defense just needs to go "If the law was working these people, career criminals with previous arrests for crimes specifically targeting the elderly would have been in jail, instead they were released and 2 months later break in and savagely assault an 80 year old man".
Amusingly, while I was googling for some NRA info just now, I came across this:
Two days earlier, a woman named Anna Marie Yocum had been murdered in her South Bend home. An autopsy determined she had been shot three times, once through the chest and twice in the back, likely at close range as she'd either fled or fallen down the stairs from her apartment. Two .45-caliber bullets had pierced her heart.
Less than an hour after her body was found, two police officers had gone to Dowlut's home and asked him to help locate Yocum's 16-year-old daughter, whom he'd dated. After a short, fruitless search, the officers took him to police headquarters. Though Dowlut was booked as a material witness, investigators soon came to suspect that the tall, polite Army private, home on a two-week leave, had killed Yocum. After a day of intense questioning, Dowlut allegedly broke down and confessed in detail to the murder as well as to a botched robbery attempt earlier the same night in which the owner of a pawnshop was seriously wounded.
The gun Dowlut unearthed less than a half mile from the murder scene was a Webley Mark VI, a British-made six-shot military revolver commonly sold in the United States after World War II. The Indiana State Police Laboratory determined that it had fired a bullet recovered from Yocum's body, one retrieved from her apartment, and another found at the pawnshop.
Less than six years later, Robert Dowlut would be a free man—his murder conviction thrown out by the Indiana Supreme Court because of a flawed police investigation. The court ordered a new trial, but one never took place. Dowlut would return to the Army and go on to earn college and law degrees. Then he would embark on a career that put him at the epicenter of the movement to transform America's gun laws.
Today, the 68-year old Dowlut is the general counsel of the National Rifle Association. As the NRA's top lawyer, he has been a key architect of the gun lobby's campaign to define the legal interpretation of the Second Amendment. He helped oversee the NRA's effort to strike down Chicago's handgun ban in the 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago, and he is the longtime secretary of the organization's Civil Rights Defense Fund, which has spent millions assisting gun owners in court and sponsoring gun rights researchers. Dowlut's journal articles have been cited by federal judges and are quoted by pro-gun activists. Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the NRA's lobbying operation, has praised him as "a longtime distinguished Second Amendment scholar." Dowlut's behind-the-scenes legal work may have done as much to tighten the NRA's grip on gun policy as its blustery talking heads and provocative PR campaigns.
So, the head lawyer for the organization that wants to give good guys guns to protect us from bad guys with guns was apparently once a pretty fucking bad guy with a gun.
Also from the article
It is unclear whether he has ever disclosed his past to any colleagues—Hardy told me he had "no idea" about the murder conviction—or to his employer; LaPierre and other NRA leaders also did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The 'Hardy' is David T. Hardy who is a pro-gun lawyer and apparent long time friend who attended Dowlut's wedding along with Wayne LaPierre.
Can't make this shit up folks. Not nearly enough drugs.
After looking at the video; assuming the open-carry people resemble most of the ones around here, they should have just taken off their shirts too. Would have drawn way more coverage. "The fire department was called in today to clean up after two opposing protests cause a citywide outbreak of projectile vomiting"
These open carry protesters were not simply walking around with holsters on their hips, but were walking around carrying rifles in their hands aggressively instead hanging across their back by the strap?
One of the issues apparently muddying the waters here is that Greer used a .22 revolver in his defense. There are no ejected shell casings to give investigators a rough idea of where the shots where fired from, and the bullet wounds are quite small. It's difficult to state definitively if the lethal shots where fired inside the house or in the alleyway.
These open carry protesters were not simply walking around with holsters on their hips, but were walking around carrying rifles in their hands aggressively instead hanging across their back by the strap?
guy with assault rifle demanding rick perry use the texas national guard against the immigrant children
this is the kind of guy I trust to carry a rifle around everywhere, he sounds like he has sound judgement, it's the second amendment equivilent of running around calling everyone an obscenity because you have the right to
One of the issues apparently muddying the waters here is that Greer used a .22 revolver in his defense. There are no ejected shell casings to give investigators a rough idea of where the shots where fired from, and the bullet wounds are quite small. It's difficult to state definitively if the lethal shots where fired inside the house or in the alleyway.
I am willing to bet that blood splatter analysis will reveal this.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
One of the issues apparently muddying the waters here is that Greer used a .22 revolver in his defense. There are no ejected shell casings to give investigators a rough idea of where the shots where fired from, and the bullet wounds are quite small. It's difficult to state definitively if the lethal shots where fired inside the house or in the alleyway.
I am willing to bet that blood splatter analysis will reveal this.
Eh, I would be surprised if it did. A .22 might not give an exit would, especially because most 22 ammo is hollow point or non-jacked lead.
I shot my deer last fall through the heart with a 30-06 and there wasn't splatter. A trail of blood, starting about 6 feet on from where I shot him, but the giant spray of red like movies make you think of nope.
One of the issues apparently muddying the waters here is that Greer used a .22 revolver in his defense. There are no ejected shell casings to give investigators a rough idea of where the shots where fired from, and the bullet wounds are quite small. It's difficult to state definitively if the lethal shots where fired inside the house or in the alleyway.
I am willing to bet that blood splatter analysis will reveal this.
.22 entry wounds are tiny and often don't have an exit wound as a round that small sometimes won't even pass through. There's a reason you shoot squirrels with a .22, and it's so you don't asplode them to pieces. Depending on where she was shot, any immediate bleeding may easily have been small enough to be absorbed/contained by her clothing, so there may not be much or any blood at all in his house.
About the best that can be hoped for is that there's clear evidence of rounds that missed the target in his house (i.e. bullets/holes in the walls) that would indicate everything fired within the home missed and only the shots in the alleyway would have hit. Or vice versa where they can clearly identify where the rounds fired outside went (assuming not into the target) which would help indicate only rounds inside the house hit, and would help to exonerate him.
Either way it's a big dirty mess and a big contributing factor as to why it's a SNAFU to bring action against him, deserving or not.
These open carry protesters were not simply walking around with holsters on their hips, but were walking around carrying rifles in their hands aggressively instead hanging across their back by the strap?
guy with assault rifle demanding rick perry use the texas national guard against the immigrant children
this is the kind of guy I trust to carry a rifle around everywhere, he sounds like he has sound judgement, it's the second amendment equivilent of running around calling everyone an obscenity because you have the right to
People like this are why I feel ashamed for loving guns, because I know if I let anyone know it I'll be instantly lumped in with stupid.
Also obligatory chucklefuck talking about 'Muricuh Freedum blah blah while holding what appears to be a goddamn AK variant rifle
Nothing against the AK family of rifles, they are amazing firearms. I just find the irony of them holding them while doing it painful
30 years ago some of these same open carry wackos we see today would have balked at the notion of taking a gun into a restaurant and deemed it to be "irresponsible".
30 years ago some of these same open carry wackos we see today would have balked at the notion of taking a gun into a restaurant and deemed it to be "irresponsible".
30 years ago they probably figured their white hoods were intimidating enough to get their point across.
My favorite part is the business cards. Somehow in his mind, business cards elevate a concept to a more professional, serious aspect than other means of communicating information.
Posts
When the bad guys were coming up to him, he's clearly not going to be able to fight them off (they have ability), they're right there and they made it past any door locks (opportunity), and they're clearly going to do it (intent). Justified self defense.
The bad guys finish up, and run away. They still have the ability, but they no longer have opportunity or intent. The opportunity is gone, because they're no longer close enough to hurt him. And the intent is gone, because now they are not actively trying to hurt him. They are leaving.
Even if the bad guys shout "We're going to come back in 5 minutes and beat you some more!" while they're running, and reestablish intent, they still don't have opportunity and you can't shoot them in the back.
You believe he was calm and calculating while pursuing his attackers? Considering the pain he was in and the short timeframe between the shooting and when he was beaten, my assumption is anything but. That he was highly emotional when he pulled the trigger.
Except that his conduct actually is a threat to our society. There is a reason that, barring a few very tightly defined edge cases, the state maintains a monopoly on force. When you start to weaken that monopoly, that makes things dangerous, especially for the underclass.
His very own description of the events seems pretty cold and methodical to me.
Even though the pregnancy turned out to be a lie, she still had enough time to talk to him and he made the decision to ignore her. There was no imminent threat. If his emotions were running high, it was for revenge, not justice.
Who said he should get charged with 1st degree?
Reading the article again, maybe she yelled that as she was fleeing the house through the (attached?) garage, while he was following.
This is going to be pretty pertinent to the whole thing, when it comes down to it. If he shot her 150 feet down an alley way, he's kinda shot himself in the foot as well. If he shot her two feet out the back gate which is 5 feet away from his garage door, completely different.
I think he's probably still safe just because, he is on the right side of 2 powerful lobbies; the NRA and the AARP. And the lobby for late 20s career criminals, is a lot less existent. Especially since she was white so there isn't a race angle.
Both parties needed consequences for breaking the law. Vigilantism is not tolerated in society no matter who you are. We're not barbarians we have a system in place for situations like this. It was up to law the handle the criminals, except if he had to defend himself, and now the law needs to come down on him. Criminals aren't faceless monsters, they have rights and deserve justice for being wronged, like what we have here. People don't stop being humans when they rob your house. You can't become Judge Dredd when you turn 80. Criminals aren't punished strictly for being threats, they're punished for breaking the law. You break the law, you get punished for it. That's how the system is supposed to work.
I'd honestly wait for something like that, too, before getting in a twist over something.
But then again facts and common sense rarely get in the way of the hardcore pro and anti gun nutters.
I have said so many times, (judge jury executioner is not good), we just do not know all of the details of the circumstances. The press writing is sensationalized a bit. "Chasing" down someone in your 80s with a broken collarbone raises my eyebrow a bit. Plus his, "I am not sorry for what I did", matter of fact interview. It tends to make people matter of fact back.
Its fine for authorities to be thoroughly with their investigation. Him saying that stuff in the interview didn't help his case, we do know enough to scrutinize his actions, until anything comes to light to discourage that thought in public opinion. If what he said is true he needs to be punished for it, not celebrated and encouraged.
He's also an old man who was just beaten to a pulp.
So it'd be wise to wait on fact instead of getting on a tangent based on his bitter words.
I wasn't on a tangent, I only said if he's guilty for what happened being an old man who was just beaten to a pulp isn't a get out of jail free card. He'd probably get leniency someone younger wouldn't, of course. Vigilantism should not be tolerated if he did that.
@Harry Dresden Upon re-reading I realize that it comes across as a shot at you directly and I apologize. I meant it as a general statement towards the discussion in general, not at you.
No worries.
ala
It seems much more likely he just continued to engage them as they fled through his house and out the garage. Which is not good(though maybe still legal), but is quite a bit different from vigilante justice.
Which is frankly where the challenge is going to be in prosecuting.
At what point does shooting cross from justified to not.
When they turn to run?
When they exit the room he is in?
When they leave his house proper, but are in his garage?
When their foot strikes the alley pavement?
Once they are 30 feet down the alley?
In hindsight it's easy to criticize the decision to pursue, but losing sight of someone who is a lethal threat to you isn't wise. They could have ducked right back around the corner and returned fire for all he knows at the time, maybe better to keep engaging to drive them off.
So the DA is probably left arguing with the defense over 'no if he had shot them 2 seconds sooner it would have been fine, but now he goes to jail for 3 years'. With a detestable victim and a generally sympathetic(if he shuts his mouth) defendant.
I mean as soon as the prosecution starts its 'rule of law speech', the defense just needs to go "If the law was working these people, career criminals with previous arrests for crimes specifically targeting the elderly would have been in jail, instead they were released and 2 months later break in and savagely assault an 80 year old man".
Can't make this shit up folks. Not nearly enough drugs.
So, the head lawyer for the organization that wants to give good guys guns to protect us from bad guys with guns was apparently once a pretty fucking bad guy with a gun.
Also from the article
The 'Hardy' is David T. Hardy who is a pro-gun lawyer and apparent long time friend who attended Dowlut's wedding along with Wayne LaPierre.
he straight up murdered that woman, going by his own statement
given the detestable nature of the victim though there's probably no chance of a conviction though
After looking at the video; assuming the open-carry people resemble most of the ones around here, they should have just taken off their shirts too. Would have drawn way more coverage. "The fire department was called in today to clean up after two opposing protests cause a citywide outbreak of projectile vomiting"
These open carry protesters were not simply walking around with holsters on their hips, but were walking around carrying rifles in their hands aggressively instead hanging across their back by the strap?
@ 3:55
guy with assault rifle demanding rick perry use the texas national guard against the immigrant children
this is the kind of guy I trust to carry a rifle around everywhere, he sounds like he has sound judgement, it's the second amendment equivilent of running around calling everyone an obscenity because you have the right to
I am willing to bet that blood splatter analysis will reveal this.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Eh, I would be surprised if it did. A .22 might not give an exit would, especially because most 22 ammo is hollow point or non-jacked lead.
I shot my deer last fall through the heart with a 30-06 and there wasn't splatter. A trail of blood, starting about 6 feet on from where I shot him, but the giant spray of red like movies make you think of nope.
.22 entry wounds are tiny and often don't have an exit wound as a round that small sometimes won't even pass through. There's a reason you shoot squirrels with a .22, and it's so you don't asplode them to pieces. Depending on where she was shot, any immediate bleeding may easily have been small enough to be absorbed/contained by her clothing, so there may not be much or any blood at all in his house.
About the best that can be hoped for is that there's clear evidence of rounds that missed the target in his house (i.e. bullets/holes in the walls) that would indicate everything fired within the home missed and only the shots in the alleyway would have hit. Or vice versa where they can clearly identify where the rounds fired outside went (assuming not into the target) which would help indicate only rounds inside the house hit, and would help to exonerate him.
Either way it's a big dirty mess and a big contributing factor as to why it's a SNAFU to bring action against him, deserving or not.
People like this are why I feel ashamed for loving guns, because I know if I let anyone know it I'll be instantly lumped in with stupid.
Also obligatory chucklefuck talking about 'Muricuh Freedum blah blah while holding what appears to be a goddamn AK variant rifle
30 years ago they probably figured their white hoods were intimidating enough to get their point across.