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.
Like I said, two people running away from you do not constitute a threat to your life.
Not only that but the guy knew they were no longer a threat when he shot at them. Look at how the guy talked about it after words, and his attitude about the situation. If I were on his jury, his own words would be the clinch pin in my guilty verdict.
Ever been in a fire fight? How about a good street fight? People tend to talk big afterwards. The adrenalin rush. Add to this, in our society you look weak if you show that your were afraid.
Running away doesn't mean lack of threat. Not to me. It means they are running to get away from consequences. They might be back and with friends. They already demonstrated what they will do. 80 years old I would be very afraid of people like them and that they know where I live. I would feel very afraid that next time they would kill me. That's why you don't talk to cops. They don't take into consideration that its pure adrenalin talking.
If I am on the jury I wait to hear what the shrinks have to say and what the guy says after the fact. When he has his wits about him. But mostly I honestly don't care that a thug was killed. One less thug is a good thing.
Like I said, two people running away from you do not constitute a threat to your life.
Not only that but the guy knew they were no longer a threat when he shot at them. Look at how the guy talked about it after words, and his attitude about the situation. If I were on his jury, his own words would be the clinch pin in my guilty verdict.
Extenuating circumstances.
1. The victim is 80
2. The victim had been robbed several times recently.
3. There were two men & one woman in their 20s who broke into his home.
4. The three criminals viciously attacked the man to the point of a broken collar bone only stopping when he managed to reach his gun. This means they could have intended to beat him to death. Even if that wasn't their intention, that could have been the result had he not reached his gun. I say this because of his age and the age and number of attackers.
5. Taking such a beating impairs your judgement at the moment.
6. These three have been to his home at least twice, if he didn't shoot them, they would be back to kill him.
Glad she's dead, wish her partners were also dead.
+1, I have ZERO sympathy for somebody who breaks into other peoples houses.
Not only breaks into the home but beats the snot out of an 80 year old man. Who knows what their intent actually was or what might have happened if he didn't get to his gun. Based upon the violence I think it more than reasonable to assume they would have killed him so he couldn't identify them.
According to the news, the woman burglar was not pregnant. Her accomplice was caught and charged. The old man victim of this alleged assault and robbery has not been charged with a crime.
I have no sympathy for this dead female criminal. "The homeowner was struck repeatedly and ultimately thrown to the floor,” police said in a news release.
“The female continued to strike him, while the male suspect walked over to the homeowner's safe, attempting to break into it. The female suspect eventually stopped her assault and joined the male suspect in attempting to open the safe.”
According to the news, the woman burglar was not pregnant.
LOL not surprised. Like I said earlier I wouldn't believe a word that came out of her mouth. Anyone who would beat on an 80 year old man, break into houses etc can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything.
Extenuating circumstances.
1. The victim is 80
2. The victim had been robbed several times recently.
3. There were two men & one woman in their 20s who broke into his home.
4. The three criminals viciously attacked the man to the point of a broken collar bone only stopping when he managed to reach his gun. This means they could have intended to beat him to death. Even if that wasn't their intention, that could have been the result had he not reached his gun. I say this because of his age and the age and number of attackers.
5. Taking such a beating impairs your judgement at the moment.
6. These three have been to his home at least twice, if he didn't shoot them, they would be back to kill him.
Glad she's dead, wish her partners were also dead.
If they are fleeing but still in your home, then you are still under reasonable threat. You don't know when they can stop turn around and shoot at you. If they already exited your home, then I don't believe you have the right to shoot.
Wish all three of the were dead, victimizing an 80 year old man. Too bad California tax payers will have to house and feed the other two for 20+ years.
People keep saying he was no longer under threat from them. But - that was their 3rd time doing this to him. 3rd! I'd say he definitely was under threat. He didn't want a 4th. If they got away with it 2 times with no repercussions, and had attacked him on the 3rd, you damn well bet he was still under threat!
People keep saying he was no longer under threat from them. But - that was their 3rd time doing this to him. 3rd! I'd say he definitely was under threat. He didn't want a 4th. If they got away with it 2 times with no repercussions, and had attacked him on the 3rd, you damn well bet he was still under threat!
This time they know he has a gun!! When they come back they most likely will be armed. Will they come back? They already have several times. Yes he had good reason to be afraid.
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.