Homeowner shoots intruder who was not pregnant...

20,396
14,184
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
A Long Beach homeowner has no regrets after shooting and killing a woman who said she was pregnant after he got into a confrontation with her and another man who were ransacking his sprawling home.

Tom Greer, an 80-year-old retiree, arrived to his upscale Bixby Knolls neighborhood Tuesday night to find a couple in the middle of a late-night break-in.

the catch...

"Investigators have to look at both sides of this coin," said legal analyst Royal Oakes. "On the one hand a frail man in his 80s is being attacked in his own home by intruders, he has a right to self-defense. On the other hand, he did shoot a person who was trying to get away, so he wasn't in imminent danger himself and the law says you can't shoot somebody under those circumstances."

Rest of Article in Link

It's going to be real interesting to see how this plays out.
 
 he did shoot a person who was trying to get away, so he wasn't in imminent danger himself and the law says you can't shoot somebody under those circumstances."
Not exactly what the law says. The rationale, you never know if she was going to get a gun or get help or whatever, so, in most jurisdictions, if a person is on your property, the burden is on them (their survivors) to show he was in no imminent danger. Laws are generally homeowner friendly.

That being said, why are you robbing people while you are pregnant? There are much better hustles pregnant women can do that don't involve as high a possibility of getting shot.

Not saying he was right, but not saying he was wrong. Living in the midwest, I learned a long time ago, if you don't know the house, don't darken the owners doorstep, for any reason.
 
he went out into an alley and killed her after he had already pretty much handled the threat at hand

he wanted to kill somebody

lock his old *** up
 
Shame on OP for not posting the most important part of the story.


When I went in there, they tackled me," Greer told NBC4 Wednesday. "Both of them jumped up on top of me."

The intruders, a man and woman, may have underestimated Greer, he said, as they ransacked his safe and yanked the door open right in front of him.

The intruders threw Greer to the ground, but they didn't know he'd gotten his .22-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver.

"I come back and they see me with a gun, and they run," he said.

The man escaped, but the woman fell after being struck by Greer's gunfire in an alley behind the house.

"She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!' And I shot her anyway," Greer said.

When asked what he saw happen to the woman after he fired shots, Greer responded: "She was dead. I shot her twice, she best be dead ... (The man) had run off and left her."
 
Last edited:
 
Not exactly what the law says. The rationale, you never know if she was going to get a gun or get help or whatever, so, in most jurisdictions, if a person is on your property, the burden is on them (their survivors) to show he was in no imminent danger. Laws are generally homeowner friendly.

That being said, why are you robbing people while you are pregnant? There are much better hustles pregnant women can do that don't involve as high a possibility of getting shot.

Not saying he was right, but not saying he was wrong. Living in the midwest, I learned a long time ago, if you don't know the house, don't darken the owners doorstep, for any reason.
The burden isn't necessarily on the survivors . . .if he's charged, he'll assert self-defense as an affirmative defense to the charge, so the burden is on him. Depending on the state and the exact text/precedent concerning self-defense, once the threat was over, he can't respond with disproportionate force (shooting retreating intruders). But if they were coming at him armed, or the two of them were approaching him in an aggressive manner, he could successfully argue self-defense. IT doesn't have anything to do with "not knowing what they'll do next;" it't the immenent and immediate fear of death or substantial bodily harm. You can't conjecture possible harm and respond with overwhelming force.
 
The burden isn't necessarily on the survivors . . .if he's charged, he'll assert self-defense as an affirmative defense to the charge, so the burden is on him. Depending on the state and the exact text/precedent concerning self-defense, once the threat was over, he can't respond with disproportionate force (shooting retreating intruders). But if they were coming at him armed, or the two of them were approaching him in an aggressive manner, he could successfully argue self-defense. IT doesn't have anything to do with "not knowing what they'll do next;" it't the immenent and immediate fear of death or substantial bodily harm. You can't conjecture possible harm and respond with overwhelming force.

I'm not law expert but this sounds about right. He has to prove his case, but after trayvon Martin I just don't know.
 
All three are idiots, mainly the girl that's pregnant and robbing a house.
indifferent.gif
 
Shame on OP for not posting the most important part of the story.


When I went in there, they tackled me," Greer told NBC4 Wednesday. "Both of them jumped up on top of me."

The intruders, a man and woman, may have underestimated Greer, he said, as they ransacked his safe and yanked the door open right in front of him.

The intruders threw Greer to the ground, but they didn't know he'd gotten his .22-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver.

"I come back and they see me with a gun, and they run," he said.

The man escaped, but the woman fell after being struck by Greer's gunfire in an alley behind the house.

"She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!' And I shot her anyway," Greer said.

When asked what he saw happen to the woman after he fired shots, Greer responded: "She was dead. I shot her twice, she best be dead ... (The man) had run off and left her."




It was in the link, man. In addition, there was enough info in the thread title + the two paragraphs I posted to draw a conclusion.
 
Last edited:
**** is cray

killing her was uneccessary. 1 or 2 shots to the lower body woulda been cool

inb4 nas vs jay z
 
**** is cray

killing her was uneccessary. 1 or 2 shots to the lower body woulda been cool

inb4 nas vs jay z

Word...he should have aimed to graze her ankle.

*edit*

In all seriousness, you assume the risk when you do something as moronic as burglarize a home. Makes it even more moronic that this dummy was out there doing these things while pregnant. The baby obviously doesn't choose who it's parents are, but for someone to be this negligent to participate in something like this while carrying a child, I mean...damn. :smh: It can only make you wonder about the careless decisions this mother would make when the baby was actually here.
 
Last edited:
Might sound bad, but don't break into my house and expect not to lose your life. She coulda had twins for all I care, she gotta go.
She coulda repented and asked for forgiveness in my face and still caught a shot, don't break into my property.
 
Last edited:
The man escaped, but the woman fell after being struck by Greer's gunfire in an alley behind the house.

"She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!' And I shot her anyway," Greer said.
This is part where he is or should have a hard time trying to prove self-defense.  The real victim in all of this is the dead baby. 
 
I have no problem with him shooting her when he felt his life was legit in danger (if he ever did)

but to murder her after you've already wounded her and addressed the threat

means to me you just wanted to kill someone and for that he should be in prison

and I'm sure he knew him being an 80yr old white man would play in his favor anyway

how can you read the quote Deuce posted and think this was justifiable is beyond me
 
Unless I'm missing something that man had every right to shoot her

Only victim is the baby but the man/woman thought robbing this old man would be easy. Tired of old people getting got so props to that man
 
Last edited:
Word...he should have aimed to graze her ankle.

*edit*

In all seriousness, you assume the risk when you do something as moronic as burglarize a home. Makes it even more moronic that this dummy was out there doing these things while pregnant. The baby obviously doesn't choose who it's parents are, but for someone to be this negligent to participate in something like this while carrying a child, I mean...damn. :smh: It can only make you wonder about the careless decisions this mother would make when the baby was actually here.

A lot of truth here, sad situation all around.
 
Back
Top Bottom