Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The brave pair of thieves ganged up on an 80 year old man. That speaks volumes about their character. The brave pair were breaking into another persons home. Once again speaks volumes about their character. This wasn't the first time they broke into other peoples homes. Once again speaks to their character. The woman continued beating the 80 year old man after he was body slammed and down. They broke his collarbone, the attack was so violent.
What frame of mind would anyone be in after such a prolonged beating? How would most of us have felt?
The woman begged for her life after beating the man. Who would feel mercy for their attacker? many may lie and say they would have granted the mercy. Some might. I wouldn't have. The woman was killed by her own greed and her own sense of superiority over her victim. It is a shame that her partner didn't stop a bullet with her.
I can't fault the old man for what he did. This isn't a case where he saw someone in his garage and chased them before shooting them. They beat him and beat him bad enough to break bones, then continued to beat him. His biggest mistake was talking to the police before hiring a lawyer. Every cop I know tells me to say nothing to the police until I have a lawyer.
If I were on the jury the man would walk. I can't convict someone for doing what I most likely would have done.
There is but one victim in this story and that is the 80 year old man.
Yep. While I wouldn't have shot an unarmed women in the back, even after what happened to poor old guy (I would have been angry enough to wish to, but anger and guns don't mix well), if I did have a gun and used it in circumstances like this I certainly wouldn't have said one word to the police until speaking to a lawyer.
People are quite gullible in believing police are always your friends and if there is even an inkling that one could be charged for a crime you are an idiot to say anything to them until you get legal advice. It the prosecutors job to prove a crime, it is not yours to help them even if you think that no crime has taken place and you firmly believe you are in the right and just want to tell your story to the police because they ask you to. Don't.
Yep. While I wouldn't have shot an unarmed women in the back, even after what happened to poor old guy (I would have been angry enough to wish to, but anger and guns don't mix well), if I did have a gun and used it in circumstances like this I certainly wouldn't have said one word to the police until speaking to a lawyer.
People are quite gullible in believing police are always your friends and if there is even an inkling that one could be charged for a crime you are an idiot to say anything to them until you get legal advice. It the prosecutors job to prove a crime, it is not yours to help them even if you think that no crime has taken place and you firmly believe you are in the right and just want to tell your story to the police because they ask you to. Don't.
Correct. Ask any cop not trying to arrest you and they will tell you to lawyer up. I have a friend who was ESD in the NYPD. She preaches to me to never talk to a cop investigating a crime no matter what I feel about my guilt or innocence. Lawyer up and let the lawyer talk for me. Cops are there to find evidence to convict, not find evidence to prove innocence. When you are involved in a crime cops are not your friend.
Just saying... in no jurisdiction in the United States is aggravated assault a Capital Crime. None. Not even Texas. So.... without due process a citizen of the United States of America self appoints themselves judge, jury and executioner for a crime, that, if it had gone through the usual channels would have resulted in possibly some jail time for the guy and probably none at all for the woman since it is very likely she was more of an accessory than the prime instigator. Alrighty then. I already knew how bloodthirsty some of you were. No surprises here. I never quite get used to the total lack of humanity though exhibited by some. I mean... ... all the life lessons an 80 year old must have received growing up... ... only recently has it been popular to go against mainstream Christian teachings in written and filmed morality lessons... this guy would have grown up with 'turn the other cheek'... even an eye for an eye would have seen him spare the womans life as his had also been spared. Bet this guy did some time as a Christian. Even money on whether some saying the shooting was justified are also regular church goers. That's why I don't go anymore.
He was no longer under any threat when he shot her in the alley in the back, nope even here in Texas most would not condon his actions.
Agreed, once the threat is gone then one shouldn't shoot. The only reasons to take anothers life is in defense of yourself, in defense of others, or your property.
Just saying... in no jurisdiction in the United States is aggravated assault a Capital Crime. None. Not even Texas. So.... without due process a citizen of the United States of America self appoints themselves judge, jury and executioner for a crime, that, if it had gone through the usual channels would have resulted in possibly some jail time for the guy and probably none at all for the woman since it is very likely she was more of an accessory than the prime instigator. Alrighty then. I already knew how bloodthirsty some of you were. No surprises here. I never quite get used to the total lack of humanity though exhibited by some. I mean... ... all the life lessons an 80 year old must have received growing up... ... only recently has it been popular to go against mainstream Christian teachings in written and filmed morality lessons... this guy would have grown up with 'turn the other cheek'... even an eye for an eye would have seen him spare the womans life as his had also been spared. Bet this guy did some time as a Christian. Even money on whether some saying the shooting was justified are also regular church goers. That's why I don't go anymore.
H
Not a church goer and never was. I detest religion. It is a tool used to control the masses.
That said I firmly believe that when you decide to victimize someone you fully accept the consequences. In a perfect world the old man wouldn't have been beaten, no one would have tried to rob him and the woman wouldn't have been shot.
The woman was shot because she decided to rob and then beat an unarmed 80 year old man. In fact she decided to continue the beating after the man was down. It wasn't you or I that it happened to so we can say I never would have done this or that. It's easy to say the old guy was wrong and that he over reacted. I do know that I would do anything to protect my family. I have been in combat and have little doubt that I would not hesitate to shoot. If I witnessed my wife harmed I am reasonably certain that I would be less than rational and would seek vengeance. If I were attacked as that old man was, repeatedly beaten, body slammed and beaten some more, I think that I wouldn't see male or female attacker, I would only see targets. I wouldn't hear a plea for mercy, I would only hear the taunts they used as they beat me. Call me blood thirsty or call me honest, but I know one thing, I would be thinking what if they come back.
Agreed, once the threat is gone then one shouldn't shoot. The only reasons to take anothers life is in defense of yourself, in defense of others, or your property.
So they can come back again and again. After all they see it as easy pickens... they can whip the old mans ass.
Agreed, once the threat is gone then one shouldn't shoot. The only reasons to take anothers life is in defense of yourself, in defense of others, or your property.
I agree shooting the fleeing villain is a no no. Had the man not been severely beaten and not traumatized I would agree that he should be held accountable. But, he was beaten and repeatedly beaten even after he was down by both parties. Who would be in their right mind after that? His greatest mistake was talking to the cops. He should have lawyered up.
For those who have never been in combat they don't get the rush after a fire fight. The guy was probably high on adrenalin and let his mouth run away with the story.
I agree shooting the fleeing villain is a no no. Had the man not been severely beaten and not traumatized I would agree that he should be held accountable. But, he was beaten and repeatedly beaten even after he was down by both parties. Who would be in their right mind after that? His greatest mistake was talking to the cops. He should have lawyered up.
For those who have never been in combat they don't get the rush after a fire fight. The guy was probably high on adrenalin and let his mouth run away with the story.
Being hit and his age will weigh in his favor. I doubt a jury will convict him. It'll be interesting if this is pursued. If so, it wont be a popular choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
