Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Discussion of firearm-related news stories. Please use "Off Topic" for non-firearm news.
Forum rules
Do NOT post the full text of published articles. If you would like to discuss a news story please link to it and, at most, include a brief summary of the article.

Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby Drewski on Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:01 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/25/ma ... latestnews


"The lady didn't run as fast as the man, so I shot her in the back twice," Greer told KNBC-TV outside his house. "She's dead ... but he got away."
Drewski
 
Posts: 30 [View]
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby gunsmith on Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:47 pm

The story is worth a little quoting....a case of a pair of 20 something MAGGOT THUGS vs and 80 yr old man who was beaten and suffered a broken collar bone in the assault.

It is common for such bottom feeders to seek out the very weak for an attack and the female is dead.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/25/ma ... latestnews

LONG BEACH, Calif. – Prosecutors deciding whether to charge a California man who says he fatally shot a violent burglar in the back in an alley as she fled his home face a difficult decision because the case falls in a gray area involving self-defense, a legal expert said Friday.

Long Beach homeowner Tom Greer, 80, told a TV station he began firing after his collarbone was broken during an assault by the woman and a man that Greer discovered in his home.


======================================================================================================

Gus Adams, 26, her suspected accomplice, was later booked on suspicion of residential burglary and murder and was being held on bail of just over $1 million. The murder charge is possible because Adams is accused of participating in a felony that led to a death, McDonnell said.

The case was referred on Friday to prosecutors who will have to decide whether to charge Adams and Greer. A decision might not come until Monday.

Under California law, homeowners have a right to protect themselves with deadly force inside their homes and in the immediate vicinity -- such as a patio -- if they feel they are in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death, said Lawrence Rosenthal, a former federal prosecutor who teaches law at Chapman University.

But this case enters a gray area because Greer, by his own account, chased the burglars and fired at them outside his home as they were fleeing, Rosenthal said.

Prosecutors will have to decide if the evidence shows the immediate threat had subsided by the time Greer fired again, or if he still could reasonably fear for his life.

"As a technical matter, this would be a homicide, possibly second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter, but that doesn't mean that you should charge everything that's technically an offense," Rosenthal said.

"The problem here is that all this happens very fast and his legal right to use force probably ended just a few seconds before he did use deadly force. So the question is should you charge somebody on the basis of what really was a series of split-second decisions when he's just been robbed and physically assaulted?"

Miller and Adams, who had histories of similar crimes, were unarmed, McDonnell said.


Greer had been burglarized three times before and believed the same suspects were responsible.

He returned home shortly after 9 p.m. Tuesday to find the pair in his home. Police said both suspects attacked him, hitting him with their fists and ultimately body-slamming him to the floor and breaking his collarbone, McDonnell said. Miller continued to hit him, McDonnell said, while Adams went to a safe and tried to pry it open.

When Miller left him to also work on the safe, Greer was able to get to another room where he grabbed a gun and returned to open fire on the suspects, police said.

They fled through the garage and into an alley, and Greer chased them, firing again, McDonnell said.

McDonnell would not say whether Miller was shot in the back as Greer said. He also declined to say how many shots were fired and whether either of the suspects was hit inside the house before fleeing.
User avatar
gunsmith
 
Posts: 1904 [View]
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 2:18 pm

Re: Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby Uffdaphil on Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:55 am

I'd acquit him. But yet another lesson in why you keep your yap shut until your mouthpiece says to open it.
NRA Endowment Member
Gun Owners Caucus Life Member
Viet Nam Veteran
High Information Voter
Uffdaphil
 
Posts: 614 [View]
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:37 pm
Location: Bloomington

Re: Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby gunsmith on Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:44 am

Ded Ho
ded ho.jpg


Ded Ho Pimp

ded ho pimp.jpg


80 yr old good guy

80 yr old good guy.JPG


This is an interesting case concerning "Disparity of Force"

2 20 yr olds vs an 80 year old...If they charge the guy that's a trial I'd like to see televised.
User avatar
gunsmith
 
Posts: 1904 [View]
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 2:18 pm

Re: Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby Rip Van Winkle on Sat Jul 26, 2014 12:33 pm

The question isn't "Disparity of Force", it's using deadly force after the threat has passed. Shooting even these shreds of human debris in the back while fleeing is a legal no no.

Having said that, I don't think I would vote to convict if I was on the jury.
I will never apologize for being an American.
Post 435 Gun Club
North Star Rifle Club
cmpofficer@post435gunclub.org
48 down, Still in the hunt for a heavy!
President's Hundred (#48 2018)
Certified NRA RSO
User avatar
Rip Van Winkle
 
Posts: 4165 [View]
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Unfashionable end of the western spiral arm, Galaxy Milky Way

Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby jshuberg on Sat Jul 26, 2014 3:41 pm

It depends on the details of state law. Here in MN you can lawfully shoot a fleeing burglar in defense of dwelling, even in the back, although doing so looks bad. However, it is restricted to only within the home. Once the bad guy exits the home, defense of dwelling no longer applies.

Juries can acquit based on the totality of circumstance. Texas juries for example tend to acquit people who overstep the law when defending themselves, others, or their homes. Given the disparity of force, his age, the fact he was injured, and that his home had been burglarized in the past, my guess is that they won't pursue charges because he looks very sympathetic to a jury.
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Personal Protection In The Home Instructor
NRA Life Member
MCPPA Certified Instructor
Gulf War Veteran
User avatar
jshuberg
 
Posts: 1983 [View]
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:35 pm

Re: Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby gunsmith on Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:49 pm

jshuberg wrote:Juries can acquit based on the totality of circumstance. Texas juries for example tend to acquit people who overstep the law when defending themselves, others, or their homes. Given the disparity of force, his age, the fact he was injured, and that his home had been burglarized in the past, my guess is that they won't pursue charges because he looks very sympathetic to a jury.


As the imaginary defense attorney I'd like to bring in 5 80 year old men for the jury to observe. And then 5 other men of 80,70,60, 50, 40 years of age and line them up and compare them to a 26 year old man with big shoulders (plus a 28 yr old female)

My argument would be 'How can we hold a man who is on paper 4 years past his life expectancy of 76 to a legal standard written for a young healthy man or even a 40 or 50 year old?"

Was he wearing his glasses? Did he suffer a small concussion when he was slammed to the floor with enough force to break a major bone in his body? What effect did his pain medication and his high blood pressure medication have on his perception and judgment?

Was he in 100% complete fear for his life when the two thugs were on top of him beating him?

HOW MANY SECONDS 10? 260? 960? 3000? DOES IT TAKE FOR THE PERCEPTION OF 'FEAR OF DEATH' TO EVAPORATE?

Picking a jury willing to acquit the old guy should not be hard.

And then what would the penalty be? Jail him for 18 months till he dies of natural causes? Put him on house arrest so he isn't out all night pillaging?

California doesn't have the death penalty but this case, in my opinion has the 'special circumstances' that merit its use.
User avatar
gunsmith
 
Posts: 1904 [View]
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 2:18 pm

Re: Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby Deputyhiro on Sun Jul 27, 2014 1:06 pm

Excercise your right to remain silent.
It is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.
User avatar
Deputyhiro
 
Posts: 412 [View]
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:40 pm
Location: Between a rock.... And a hard place

Re: Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby yukonjasper on Sun Jul 27, 2014 1:56 pm

He will loose.
Deo Adjuvante Non Timendum - (with the help of God there is nothing to be afraid of)
Spectamur Agendo - (We are proven by our actions)
Non Ducor, Duco - (I am not led, I lead)
NRA Life Member
User avatar
yukonjasper
 
Posts: 5823 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: eagan

Re: Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby bensdad on Sun Jul 27, 2014 9:15 pm

yukonjasper wrote:He will loose.


Any lawyer with half a brain will get at least a couple favorable jurors. An activist judge setting aside a verdict would be a bigger concern to me.
I got nothin'
bensdad
 
Posts: 2113 [View]
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Lakeville

Re: Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby gunsmith on Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:24 am

Zimmerman got himself a lynch Mob...This guy:

Image

is not going to attract one....
User avatar
gunsmith
 
Posts: 1904 [View]
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 2:18 pm

Re: Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby yukonjasper on Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:57 am

The last I heard you are not allowed to chase people down and shoot them in the back as they flee. I understand the emotion of the situation, but once the threat has retreated, you become a hunter if you pursue. Maybe there are different laws in that area.

I also believe he won't see hard time for this if he is convicted. There are other ways the Courts can soften the technical verdict, unless there is mandatory sentancing.
Deo Adjuvante Non Timendum - (with the help of God there is nothing to be afraid of)
Spectamur Agendo - (We are proven by our actions)
Non Ducor, Duco - (I am not led, I lead)
NRA Life Member
User avatar
yukonjasper
 
Posts: 5823 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: eagan

Re: Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby bensdad on Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:14 pm

I understand the emotion of the situation


I, for one, am sorry to hear that you've been burglarized four times, taken a beating from two people 1/3 your age, had your collar bone broken and in the end had an opportunity to finally do something. You've shown amazing restraint :roll:
I got nothin'
bensdad
 
Posts: 2113 [View]
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Lakeville

Re: Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby jshuberg on Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:38 pm

I'm not a lawyer, and nothing I ever post online or discuss in conversation is legal advice. Now that that's out of the way:

According to California's Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) 505 and 506:
“A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/<insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/docum ... f#page=289
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/docum ... f#page=295

So it appears that the fact that that he chased them wasn't in and of itself a nullification of his claim of self defense, provided that he still reasonably perceived them as a threat. That would be a hard sell to a jury though. Shooting someone in the back while they were retreating outside the home is very hard to argue as self defense. If he is charged, it will come down to the psychology of the victim, and the exact series of events in the timeline. A difference of seconds could be the difference between whether he is guilty of a crime or not.

It has been successfully argued in multiple courts that when a person is fighting for their life, during the physiological and psychological effects of a chemical cocktail dump, that it's reasonable that a victim may not recognize that a threat no longer exists for a short period of time. A victim may continue fighting for several seconds after the threat has ended before they realize the threat has ended, and not necessarily be guilty of a crime. However, if the jury believes that a reasonable person under the same circumstances should have realized that the threat had ended, any further violence on the part of the victim is excessive and not justified. An example of this is stopping to reload after a bad guy goes down. If there is break in the fight, or if a sufficient amount of time has passed, a person would be expected to recognize that the threat had ended.

Unfortunately for Greer, his actions put him very deep into the gray area of the law. A good lawyer may be able to call a bunch of expert witnesses on forensics and victim psychology, and make a plausible argument to the jury that a reasonable person under the same stress and injury Greer was under would have acted the same way Greer had. This could be incredibly expensive, possibly 6 figures expensive, and is still a roll of the dice if it goes before a jury. His statement to police and the press without an attorney present also works against him. He should have kept his mouth shut.

This is a perfect example of why everyone who owns a firearm should seek out training, not only on usage of the weapon, but on the laws regarding use of force in the state they live in. When a person learns the legalities involved with use of force, and thinks through and visualizes the proper response to various scenarios like a home invasion, the mind will play back the visualized response in real-time if you ever find yourself in a similar situation. You will respond how you imagined yourself responding when you had the time to think through the legal consequences of your actions. If you don't bother leaning the laws of self defense and use of force, or think through and visualize the proper response to various threats, you're rolling the dice that your reaction to a violent threat will in fact be lawful.

I'm sure this guy is regretting not learning the law and thinking through the proper response to a home invasion. He's also probably regretting having spoke to both the police and the press without an attorney present. A little training and forethought would have saved him this whole can of worms he's in now. The only things he's got going for him is he's a sympathetic victim to the jury. If it does goes to trial, it will likely ruin him financially.
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Personal Protection In The Home Instructor
NRA Life Member
MCPPA Certified Instructor
Gulf War Veteran
User avatar
jshuberg
 
Posts: 1983 [View]
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:35 pm

Re: Old boy doesn't sugar coat it.

Postby shooter115 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:48 pm

It's cases like this that further my belief that our legal system needs to be dramatically overhauled for things to get better. In my world there wouldn't even be a hearing. You've got 2 twenty something dead thugs that attacked an 80 year old man after robbing him........ How'd they die? Who cares.
shooter115
 
Posts: 1734 [View]
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:25 pm
Location: Morris, MN

Next

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron