How many stories do we see of British Police who are unable or unwilling to do anything despite witnesses or CCTV?
The bit about British sums that statement up, but even then if you show the police a cctv of someone leaving premises after breaking in I'm sure they'd follow it up.
Are people even bringing up stand-your-ground in relation to this? It's irrelevant and not applicable here.
I've no idea what legal principles are being applied in this specific case. Have you?
I was simply commenting that these SYG laws seem to be responsible for giving people some rather odd ideas about what might constitute a justifiable shooting.
Just because no-one was home doesn't mean that they were't seen. Neighbours, CCTV or he he could have arrived home in time to to see them fleeing are a few ideas that immediately spring to mind.
Had it been proven that these were the exact same people?
I've no idea what legal principles are being applied in this specific case. Have you?
I was simply commenting that these SYG laws seem to be responsible for giving people some rather odd ideas about what might constitute a justifiable shooting.
Well I know stand your ground is irrelevant because the incident took place at his home, where he already has no duty of retreat. The castle doctrine is already in effect so SYG doesn't have to come into play.
And even when people try to use it as a defence, a judge has to allow it first AFAIK, so no matter people's misconceptions, they're not using SYG without a solid legal basis to do so.
There was a scuffle in which he broke his collar bone. We don't know how severe the break was. He obviously knew who they were so could have identified them after the event. He purposely shot her in the back twice whilst she was running away. She was no immediate threat to him. You can't kill someone because you think that in the future they might harm you.
Q broken collar bone is a broken collar bone, inflicted by vicious thugs.
She cannot expect consideration for her condition when she had none for the old man's age.
As for shooting her, there was no time to think it out. Inthe confusion of fear and pain and anger he fired.
It's all very well to be rational sitting safely in your own home - that's not the situation the old man was in.
Nice touch that jer accomplice faces murder charges.
If she WAS pregnant, it'd be an interesting logic puzzle for the Christian Right. Given that to some you're not allowed to kill a foetus even if the mother wishes it, which right would trump the other, self-defence or the unborn child?
Another thing that puzzles me is this, he arrives home, is attacked in his hallway, beaten to the ground his collarbone broken. They then leave, he manages to get up, get his gun and still they're within firing range, they must be the slowest escapees on record or he is one hell of a shot with a handgun and can fire single handed to a range of say 50-100m and hit a moving target twice in the back.
If you read the article you'll see that he was attacked and then they continued with their burglary. It was only when he got hold of his gun that they make their escape so puzzle no more.
Was wondering where peoples opinions are on this. On the face of it, it might sound like an unreasonable use of force...but he is a very old man who was undoubtedly terrified and full of the adrenaline that comes with that. On the basis of that and the fact he had this happen to him, rather than seeking out trouble in any way, I think I would favour no action being taken against him. I reckon in the end none will be, too, barring some shocking new development.
Anyone who thinks he deserves to be prosecuted for the shooting?
Based on the info given yes, self defence is and should always be a right, but whilst he may have been beaten and may have been scared shooting someone outisde your home running away is not self defence, to me that is revenge and making sure they dont get away. With the right of self defence comes also the responsibility to act within the law. Do I feel sorry for the burlgars, no they left themslves open to this when they broke in but then neither do I feel the homeowner acted correctly, if he had shot them inside the house during the attack then that would be different
Depends. The fact they were running away does not mean it was reasonable to assume he was not at risk. Would it be unreasonable to assume they were removing themselves from his line of sight, but would come back.
Depends. The fact they were running away does not mean it was reasonable to assume he was not at risk. Would it be unreasonable to assume they were removing themselves from his line of sight, but would come back.
Thats not a justification for shooting someone twice in the back.
As others have said, it could be justified as self defence if they were still in his house, and therefore clearly still a threat.
But I'm afraid the 'I will shoot them as they are running away just in case they come back ' argument just won't wash.
Frankly if you want to try and argue that principal as justification for killing someone, you will have people shooting people for the most trivial things and arguing ' I was in fear of my life, because they looked at me like they were going to kill me' etc.
Fundamentally, you cannot claim self defence and justify it because of your own opinions or beliefs. Whether you like it or not, we are all subject to the law and it is the law that will decide if your actions will be justified. Does not matter what people on the internet think.
Was wondering where peoples opinions are on this. On the face of it, it might sound like an unreasonable use of force...but he is a very old man who was undoubtedly terrified and full of the adrenaline that comes with that. On the basis of that and the fact he had this happen to him, rather than seeking out trouble in any way, I think I would favour no action being taken against him. I reckon in the end none will be, too, barring some shocking new development.
Anyone who thinks he deserves to be prosecuted for the shooting?
Yes.
This was somebody who was at the homeowner's total mercy and begged for her life. It was a cold and calculated killing, albeit with prior provocation. He had the situation totally under his control with no unpredictable elements.
Comments
The bit about British sums that statement up, but even then if you show the police a cctv of someone leaving premises after breaking in I'm sure they'd follow it up.
I've no idea what legal principles are being applied in this specific case. Have you?
I was simply commenting that these SYG laws seem to be responsible for giving people some rather odd ideas about what might constitute a justifiable shooting.
Because of the Daily Godawful Mail <rolleyes>
Had it been proven that these were the exact same people?
And even when people try to use it as a defence, a judge has to allow it first AFAIK, so no matter people's misconceptions, they're not using SYG without a solid legal basis to do so.
Q broken collar bone is a broken collar bone, inflicted by vicious thugs.
She cannot expect consideration for her condition when she had none for the old man's age.
As for shooting her, there was no time to think it out. Inthe confusion of fear and pain and anger he fired.
It's all very well to be rational sitting safely in your own home - that's not the situation the old man was in.
Nice touch that jer accomplice faces murder charges.
Cause' it doesn't happen ever day. Oh.. wait...
Live by the sword............
If you read the article you'll see that he was attacked and then they continued with their burglary. It was only when he got hold of his gun that they make their escape so puzzle no more.
Based on the info given yes, self defence is and should always be a right, but whilst he may have been beaten and may have been scared shooting someone outisde your home running away is not self defence, to me that is revenge and making sure they dont get away. With the right of self defence comes also the responsibility to act within the law. Do I feel sorry for the burlgars, no they left themslves open to this when they broke in but then neither do I feel the homeowner acted correctly, if he had shot them inside the house during the attack then that would be different
He should die the death of a thousand Big Macs.
Thats not a justification for shooting someone twice in the back.
As others have said, it could be justified as self defence if they were still in his house, and therefore clearly still a threat.
But I'm afraid the 'I will shoot them as they are running away just in case they come back ' argument just won't wash.
Frankly if you want to try and argue that principal as justification for killing someone, you will have people shooting people for the most trivial things and arguing ' I was in fear of my life, because they looked at me like they were going to kill me' etc.
Fundamentally, you cannot claim self defence and justify it because of your own opinions or beliefs. Whether you like it or not, we are all subject to the law and it is the law that will decide if your actions will be justified. Does not matter what people on the internet think.
Yes.
This was somebody who was at the homeowner's total mercy and begged for her life. It was a cold and calculated killing, albeit with prior provocation. He had the situation totally under his control with no unpredictable elements.