I'm curious here, does the fact that she was pregnant/said she was pregnant really make a difference here for people? Would it have been ok to shoot her once if she wasn't pregnant? Shoot her the second time? Is this really an important fact for anyone in deciding how they feel about this situation?
I'm curious here, does the fact that she was pregnant/said she was pregnant really make a difference here for people? Would it have been ok to shoot her once if she wasn't pregnant? Shoot her the second time? Is this really an important fact for anyone in deciding how they feel about this situation?
It doesn't for me. Either it was truly self defense and he was justified or he killed her in the heat of the moment and should go to jail. Whether or not she was pregnant has no real relevance.
While I have no real sympathy for the woman I just can't condone shooting anyone to kill when they're on the ground and unarmed.
Ok so they've done it before? I can totally see him being scared and fed up really. I mean, if they've done it before they clearly have to remorse, and I'm willing to bet they intentionally targeted an 80 year old man thinking he would be frail and an easy target.
It is a shame that someone, possibly an unborn baby as well, had to die over this but the fact that this was a repeat attack suggests an ongoing threat to this man. Her leaving for the time being doesn't mean he didn't act in self defense in my opinion.
You're only entitled to self defense if there's an imminent threat of bodily harm or death. Even if there was an ongoing threat, that doesn't mean you get to claim self defense.
You're only entitled to self defense if there's an imminent threat of bodily harm or death. Even if there was an ongoing threat, that doesn't mean you get to claim self defense.
I think the standard is a subjective one though.
Also, that's the law school answer but different states have codified the standard differently. Not sure what CA's standard is.
Earlier in the thread I posted a link to a quick and dirty rundown of self-defense laws in CA.
The Castle Doctrine permits the use (or the justification of rather) of deadly force when someone breaks in and "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury". You could also be acquitted under a stand your ground defense - "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."
It's interesting to me that CA actually allows for pursuit, but it looks like there has to be a certain standard of imminent threat. Does this case meet those standards? As illustrated by the varying responses in this thread, a jury could well be of mixed opinion.
I do think charges should be brought against him. You just don't get to shoot and kill people because you're angry.
But I'm not brimming with sympathy for her either. Play stupid games and all that.
I don't really have a problem with this either. I think it's important to remember that this man is old (I know the board doesn't always have a lot of respect for the oldz lol), and his house was broken into at least twice by these people. PLUS they beat him up. I also think it's a valid point that during his interview he may have gone from victim feelings to feelings of (rightful) anger. He's a victim too and I'm kind of surprised that people think the burglar is a victim.
Ok so they've done it before? I can totally see him being scared and fed up really. I mean, if they've done it before they clearly have to remorse, and I'm willing to bet they intentionally targeted an 80 year old man thinking he would be frail and an easy target.
If I was 80 years old, and had been victimized repeatedly, in various ways by the same people, I probably would have done the same thing.
I feel like I need to point out that this is what he claims - that these two individuals had robbed him several times before. But at this point that's his personal belief, not (yet) fact. It could very well turn out that these burglars had hit his house more than once, but it also could be that he was robbed by others.
- She chose to break into someone's home and go through their stuff. She knew what she was doing was wrong and could potentially lead to a confrontation with the homeowner.
- What's not sitting well is he pursued her out of his home, she begged for her life and the life of her unborn child and he then shot her in the back TWICE. Seems like a stretch to me with the self defense argument.
But what do you do in his shoes? You're in a back alley, you have a gun on this woman, she's begging for her life, you can't just say, "Stay here while I go get my phone to call 911" What a horrible situation.
Um. I feel like we are treading dangerously close to blaming the victim, and I'm kind of curious as to why that's about to happen.
Really? I'm glad he brandished his weapon and was able to frighten the robbers enough that they chose to flee the scene. I don't like that he took it further and shot the woman twice in the back after pursuing her to an alley. I don't see how that's blaming the victim.
Um. I feel like we are treading dangerously close to blaming the victim, and I'm kind of curious as to why that's about to happen.
Really? I'm glad he brandished his weapon and was able to frighten the robbers enough that they chose to flee the scene. I don't like that he took it further and shot the woman twice in the back after pursuing her to an alley. I don't see how that's blaming the victim.
I think it's probably that I don't really care a lot about the criminal's perspective on things. Maybe it's my own value system--and the fact that I'm not a criminal. I guess I believe that minute you choose to take the risk of breaking into someone's house, then attacking them, punching them, breaking their collar bone, and taking their stuff--you kind of lost a lot of your rights, and you risk bodily harm. I think it's interesting that the woman didn't really care about her unborn child until that moment. If she really cared, she would have thought about the risk before she made that choice.
Especially when compounded on the fact that the man had been robbed before, whether by them or others--I am pretty sure that adrenaline was probably pumping enough for him to make a narrowed decision.
I feel sorry for this guy, and I kind of think if the story went like this: 80 year old woman raped and burglarized, then shoots rapist outside home... the board wouldn't think twice about supporting her.
Post by mominatrix on Jul 25, 2014 13:13:11 GMT -5
this guy played judge, jury, and executioner. Literally.
You can and should be penalized for breaking into somebody's house, and beating them up.
In only the most regressive and, frankly, idiotic cultures is that penalty DEATH.
If this woman (pregnant or not) got the death penalty for these acts, we'd be all up in arms about the fuckeduppedness of the court's (and prosecutor's) decisions. But a prosecutor (and a court) deciding not to prosecute somebody who executes somebody for these crimes... that's a-ok? All we do when we let this go is encourage more vigilantism.
Really? I'm glad he brandished his weapon and was able to frighten the robbers enough that they chose to flee the scene. I don't like that he took it further and shot the woman twice in the back after pursuing her to an alley. I don't see how that's blaming the victim.
I think it's probably that I don't really care a lot about the criminal's perspective on things. Maybe it's my own value system--and the fact that I'm not a criminal. I guess I believe that minute you choose to take the risk of breaking into someone's house, then attacking them, punching them, breaking their collar bone, and taking their stuff--you kind of lost a lot of your rights, and you risk bodily harm. I think it's interesting that the woman didn't really care about her unborn child until that moment. If she really cared, she would have thought about the risk before she made that choice.
Especially when compounded on the fact that the man had been robbed before, whether by them or others--I am pretty sure that adrenaline was probably pumping enough for him to make a narrowed decision.
I feel sorry for this guy, and I kind of think if the story went like this: 80 year old woman raped and burglarized, then shoots rapist outside home... the board wouldn't think twice about supporting her.
I'll point out that plenty of people are driven to crime by extreme poverty, or perhaps she was forced to help by the man who was with her (you help me do this or I will beat you, your other children, kill you, etc). I have no problem for those who don't sympathize with her, but let's not pretend we know her thought process either.
Really? I'm glad he brandished his weapon and was able to frighten the robbers enough that they chose to flee the scene. I don't like that he took it further and shot the woman twice in the back after pursuing her to an alley. I don't see how that's blaming the victim.
I think it's probably that I don't really care a lot about the criminal's perspective on things. Maybe it's my own value system--and the fact that I'm not a criminal. I guess I believe that minute you choose to take the risk of breaking into someone's house, then attacking them, punching them, breaking their collar bone, and taking their stuff--you kind of lost a lot of your rights, and you risk bodily harm. I think it's interesting that the woman didn't really care about her unborn child until that moment. If she really cared, she would have thought about the risk before she made that choice.
Especially when compounded on the fact that the man had been robbed before, whether by them or others--I am pretty sure that adrenaline was probably pumping enough for him to make a narrowed decision.
I feel sorry for this guy, and I kind of think if the story went like this: 80 year old woman raped and burglarized, then shoots rapist outside home... the board wouldn't think twice about supporting her.
Um. I know you're not trying to insinuate that I must be a criminal if I'm bothered that someone who was a criminal was shot in the back. Right?
this guy played judge, jury, and executioner. Literally.
You can and should be penalized for breaking into somebody's house, and beating them up.
In only the most regressive and, frankly, idiotic cultures is that penalty DEATH.
If this woman (pregnant or not) got the death penalty for these acts, we'd be all up in arms about the fuckeduppedness of the court's (and prosecutor's) decisions. But a prosecutor (and a court) deciding not to prosecute somebody who executes somebody for these crimes... that's a-ok? All we do when we let this go is encourage more vigilantism.
Thanks mominatrix, you put it much more succinctly than I would right now. I'm too busy smh.
Also lets not forget that her accomplice, the guy who ran away, has not only been charged for the robbery but also the woman's death since it happened during the commission of said crime. Which is exactly what should happen under these circumstances.
I feel sorry for this guy, and I kind of think if the story went like this: 80 year old woman raped and burglarized, then shoots rapist outside home... the board wouldn't think twice about supporting her.
I will admit a personal bias and I have no desire to play "who has it worse," but I side eye an equivalence between "raped and burglarized" and "assaulted and burglarized."
Moreover, the key factor for me is that the woman was shot in the back. Yes, perhaps he feared she would return. But she wasn't returning. She was fleeing. Do I think I, either now or as an 80 year old, would not make that same decision? No, not necessarily (presuming I had in my hand a loaded gun). But I wouldn't expect to tra la la out of any accountability for it, nor would I give statements to the press like "yeah, so what that she was pregnant, I shot her anyway."
Post by RoxMonster on Jul 25, 2014 13:52:43 GMT -5
I don't think it's blaming the victim at all. I feel horribly for this man. I can't imagine how scary and violating it is to have two people burglarizing your home who then beat you up and continue robbing you. And I don't blame him for getting his weapon, and if they were still inflicting harm to him and he feared for his life, even shooting them in his home in that moment.
But I think we are getting into a dangerously gray area when he chases one of them down into an alley after fleeing his house and then killing her. Hell, I can even see being afraid they would come back if you let them go because they know where you live, and as they run from your house, shoot them in the leg so they can't immediately get away. What I have an issue with is when he shot her a second time to kill her. She was no longer on his property and it sounds like he had the upper hand if she was begging for her life.
She absolutely needed to be punished for burglarizing this man and assaulting him. No doubt about it. But that is not the death penalty. And I think it's a slippery slope if we let what this man did go. Those are my opinions based on what we know. We're mainly getting this man's side of the story, and I understand that too, so I'm just going off of what was said.
ETA: I'll even add that if you shoot someone to stop them from getting away as they are leaving your property after this incident and they die, OK, I can see that. But again, that isn't what it sounds like happened here. I know how much it would suck to let burglars get away (or anyone who committed any crime against you) but chasing them down the street with a gun and then killing them doesn't seem to be the best choice.
Ok so they've done it before? I can totally see him being scared and fed up really. I mean, if they've done it before they clearly have to remorse, and I'm willing to bet they intentionally targeted an 80 year old man thinking he would be frail and an easy target.
If I was 80 years old, and had been victimized repeatedly, in various ways by the same people, I probably would have done the same thing.
I feel like I need to point out that this is what he claims - that these two individuals had robbed him several times before. But at this point that's his personal belief, not (yet) fact. It could very well turn out that these burglars had hit his house more than once, but it also could be that he was robbed by others.
Ok I get that, I must've misread. I assumed the police were called the other times so he couldn't be lying, kwim? Even so though, he was in fact robbed before, and these people assaulted him, she wasn't too pregnant to assault an 80 year old man.
I'm in no way saying she "deserved" it by any means, but i can see his point of view.
If we're going to go all anecdotey, I have in fact been robbed at knife-point in my own home, and I still think shooting someone in the back as they flee makes you a shady person. Seeming to gloat about killing said person, especially when they begged for their life? Makes you seem like a dickhead.
We have legal procedures for a reason. We don't need a country full of vigilantes.
I'm so sorry that happened.
I have also had my home burglarized (though I was not home when it happened, but it was obvious that the house was being watched for the all-clear when my roommates and I left), so I do know the feeling of violation and despair that comes from having your privacy violated with that.
And no, I would not shoot an intruder. Because I do not own a gun and have no interest in owning a gun. If I did own a gun, I would not have a loaded gun. I would never feel comfortable shooting a human being in my own home, let alone chasing someone down the street for the opportunity to shoot them.
I realize I am privileged, though, in that I have always felt comfortable calling the police and knowing they will help me.
You're only entitled to self defense if there's an imminent threat of bodily harm or death. Even if there was an ongoing threat, that doesn't mean you get to claim self defense.
I think the standard is a subjective one though.
Also, that's the law school answer but different states have codified the standard differently. Not sure what CA's standard is.
It has taken a considerable amount of restraint for me to not analyze this as a crim law hypo.
Um. I feel like we are treading dangerously close to blaming the victim, and I'm kind of curious as to why that's about to happen.
Because the only reason she got shot was because she broke into someone's house and robbed and assaulted an old man?
Yes, I do indeed blame her. It's like someone (hbc, I think) said upthread - if you choose to wear all black and walk across the highway in the middle of the night, well, you can't be surprised that you get hit by a car. It's not that the penalty for walking on the highway *should* be death, but you can't exactly be described as an innocent victim when the completely forseeable consequence of your action befalls you.
Also, that's the law school answer but different states have codified the standard differently. Not sure what CA's standard is.
It has taken a considerable amount of restraint for me to not analyze this as a crim law hypo.
It's taking restraint for me not to analyze this as a WWHIRDAL (what would happen in real DA life) scenario.
Bottom line is that I think if he got charged with anything arising from this, there's no way he or his attorney would concede to a plea bargain. Because if he took it to the box, it would be very unlikely that a jury would convict him.