Homeowner shoots intruder who was not pregnant...

Oh they were off the property when he let that fatal shot go? Still don't blame him but in court that's gonna be a ***** to beat. But nothing is impossible when you have privilege so he might skate
 
As always...it depends...largely on the court as to who the burden of proving wrongful death or self-defense. Most (more than half) place the burden of persuasion on the defendant, but a lot of jurisdictions (stand your ground states mainly) place the burden on the plaintiff, rationale, if it was self-defense, it wasn't wrongful death, so you must prove it's not self-defense.
Conclusion
In
jurisdictions
where the
question
of the allocation of the burdenof proof
on the issue of self-defense in a wrongful
death action has not yet
been
decided,
it is
to be expected
that the choice between the "majority"
rule and the one adopted
by the Texas courtwill
dependon the
dispositionof the
particularappellatecourt
to treat self-defense either as a plea
of confession and avoidance or to treat the negation
of self-defenseas a
step
in the
plaintiff's
proof
that the homicidewas a wrongful one.


It seemslikely,however,
thatwhenthe
plaintiff
has
shownthatthedefendant intentionally
killed the decedent,
the defendant will then have at least the obliga-
tion of going
forwardwith evidence
tending
to show
self-defense,
whether or not it devolves
upon him
ultimately to
persuadethe
jury, or the court
in a
non-jury
case,
that the homicidewas justified.
California Law Review Robert Daggett

*Full article also throws in, in criminal trials the burden is on the State to show ("more likely than not") the death was in fact a homicide because, before he can assert a self-defense the state must show he actually committed homicide, and committing a homicide in self-defense is not actually committing a homicide. I only kind of understand how the actual process works, I'll let ya'll know more in may lol.


As far as shooting someone in the back because they are on your land. There is a famous court case, a tort case, where a man shot a robber in the back, he was not convicted of wrongful death/homicide because he feared for his life, he said he didn't know if someone would jump out of the bushes.  Remember, the law is interpreted at the time the event happened, not at the result of what happened. Just because there wasn't someone else on the scene in fact, doesn't mean you don't have a justified belief that a person was in the bushes....in this case he saw two robbers...well three robbers...zinggggg..no idea what other dude was going to get. Plus, now other dude can be charged with the murder under the felony murder rule.

Also, doesn't matter that she was pregnant or that he was old (legally) you "take the victim as they are."

Long story short, in this jurisdiction, he walking, rather easily.
As always...it depends...largely on the court as to who the burden of proving wrongful death or self-defense. Most (more than half) place the burden of persuasion on the defendant, but a lot of jurisdictions (stand your ground states mainly) place the burden on the plaintiff, rationale, if it was self-defense, it wasn't wrongful death, so you must prove it's not self-defense.
Conclusion
In
jurisdictions
where the
question
of the allocation of the burdenof proof
on the issue of self-defense in a wrongful
death action has not yet
been
decided,
it is
to be expected
that the choice between the "majority"
rule and the one adopted
by the Texas courtwill
dependon the
dispositionof the
particularappellatecourt
to treat self-defense either as a plea
of confession and avoidance or to treat the negation
of self-defenseas a
step
in the
plaintiff's
proof
that the homicidewas a wrongful one.


It seemslikely,however,
thatwhenthe
plaintiff
has
shownthatthedefendant intentionally
killed the decedent,
the defendant will then have at least the obliga-
tion of going
forwardwith evidence
tending
to show
self-defense,
whether or not it devolves
upon him
ultimately to
persuadethe
jury, or the court
in a
non-jury
case,
that the homicidewas justified.
California Law Review Robert Daggett

*Full article also throws in, in criminal trials the burden is on the State to show ("more likely than not") the death was in fact a homicide because, before he can assert a self-defense the state must show he actually committed homicide, and committing a homicide in self-defense is not actually committing a homicide. I only kind of understand how the actual process works, I'll let ya'll know more in may lol.


As far as shooting someone in the back because they are on your land. There is a famous court case, a tort case, where a man shot a robber in the back, he was not convicted of wrongful death/homicide because he feared for his life, he said he didn't know if someone would jump out of the bushes.  Remember, the law is interpreted at the time the event happened, not at the result of what happened. Just because there wasn't someone else on the scene in fact, doesn't mean you don't have a justified belief that a person was in the bushes....in this case he saw two robbers...well three robbers...zinggggg..no idea what other dude was going to get. Plus, now other dude can be charged with the murder under the felony murder rule.

Also, doesn't matter that she was pregnant or that he was old (legally) you "take the victim as they are."

Long story short, in this jurisdiction, he walking, rather easily.


Man, stop it...

...you posted a BS excerpt regarding a tort - we're talking criminal.

And in criminal cases, the state's burden is always "beyond a reasonable doubt"...

...in addition, defense of property does not justify lethal force.

If "Gran Torino" shot her while she was retreating, don't be surprised if he gets charged...
 
 
 
No sympathy for anyone involved in this situation, really. This obviously wasn't a dude defending his property.  This was a dude that was heated about being robbed and wanted vengeance at any cost. 
this...

wouldnt surprise me if baited them to his property, just so he could get away with something like this...guy was probably one of those angry at the world types...

"A Minnesota man who shot and killed two teenagers during a robbery ended up being convicted on Tuesday of premeditated murder. Byron Smith, age 65, had claimed that he was only trying to defend himself while the two teens broke in his home in the town of Little Falls, Minnesota back on Thanksgiving Day 2012. Smith’s attorney exclaimed Smith was fearful after numerous thefts.

However prosecutors contended that Smith was waiting in his basement and anticipated killing the teenagers. There were a total number of nine shots fired at Nick Brady, age 17, and Haile Kifer, age 18."

Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/minne...bery-convicted-of-murder/#bybOIQr1dce46keL.99"
Let's not go crazy now.
 
you don't do this and think it's all sweet if it goes downhill for you


what does that have to do with murdering a woman you already shot once who was no longer a threat to you?

Look man, if you're gonna do something against the law, you better be ready for whatever consequences come your way. Did he have to do what he did? Absolutely not and I don't condone it. But I'm a firm believer that you reap what you sow.
 
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.

The box is big enough to post the whole article man

Also I'm neutral to this whole situation. The only reason this is news is because she was pregnant. We probably wont even hear what happens to him
 
:lol: @ the man baiting them on to his property. NT, bruh...NT :lol:

*edit*

No one knows if she was indeed pregnant...it was just something she said before getting shot.
 
Last edited:
Well he executed her. He didn't kill her in self defense. Defense was injuring her and then calling the cops and retreating to safety. So if I were on a jury I'd convict him.

he did the world a service; you think they weren't gonna rob another spot?

Is that his job to prevent robbers from robbing other houses? I thought that was the job of the police
 
Line gets blurred once he chased her down and pulled on her but they broke into the man's home
 
Is that his job to prevent robbers from robbing other houses? I thought that was the job of the police
If Dexter has taught me anything, it's that the police never catch the bad guys and you have to take matters into your own hands.
 
You don't have to be a stickler, you just have to be coherent.  That post was an incoherent mess of words.

You followed just fine but you were trying to be cute it is what it is baby girl lets discuss this old coward instead of playing Internet grammar police.
 
Last edited:
 
You don't have to be a stickler, you just have to be coherent.  That post was an incoherent mess of words.
You followed just fine but you were trying to be cute it is what it is baby girl lets discuss this old coward instead of playing Internet grammar police.
I actually didn't have any clue what you were saying since it had no frame of reference (let alone punctuation).  But I digress...

Back to the topic at hand.
 
Last edited:
**** that. Home invasion is not on the list of approved prenatal activities.

Would it really be better if a baby is born to career criminal parents?

Oh, and for you "shoot her in the finger" folks...everybody knows you go for center body mass.
 
no but I don't have sympathy for them; he is an 80 year old man
Well you rob my house and I am 80 years old there is no telling what I would do when I am scared as hell
Exactly. These dudes are failing to see that the shooter is an old *** man who lives by himself.

Shoot, my dad's uncle, who I'm very close with, lives by himself. If someone robbed his place, I'd want them dead just for peace of mind. Just let him live in peace.
 
We need to start a TAG, Thread about grammar.  And just quote and paste things other NTers say in there.
 
 
You think a judge and a jury is going to factor that into their decision making?
no but I don't have sympathy for them; he is an 80 year old man
I don't have sympathy for them either.  I said from the get-go that I don't have sympathy for anyone in the situation.  

...but just because you're 80 years old doesn't mean you have the right to chase people down once the threat is gone and shoot them multiple times.  The lady was already down and he STILL pulled the trigger.  That's unwarranted use of overwhelming force.
 
Man, stop it...

...you posted a BS excerpt regarding a tort - we're talking criminal.

And in criminal cases, the state's burden is always "beyond a reasonable doubt"...

...in addition, defense of property does not justify lethal force.

If "Gran Torino" shot her while she was retreating, don't be surprised if he gets charged...
This be the ish i'm talking about. Cats swear I'm wrong, despite me posting sources. FIND/READ the article, they talk about criminal law ( I even put what they said in * for you)

A) "beyond a reasonable doubt"  is only for the final verdict, whether or not you are proving homicide before he asserts a defense is during the trial, it's an evidentiary issue, which the standard is "more likely than not" or "perponderance." So, in order for him to be convicted of homicide, the state needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed homicide, after he brings his defense.

B) 90% of the time Tort law mirrors criminal law in all but the standards.

C) In my og post I was talking about the survivors, looking beyond the criminal issue to future parallel issues (thats what good lawyers do)

Swear,  NTers just have to make me wrong. It's annoying, but whatever, here to help.

I don't want to argue though, go look up the law, post what you find if you're so sure. Like I say, I'm open to being wrong.
 
You followed just fine but you were trying to be cute it is what it is baby girl lets discuss this old coward instead of playing Internet grammar police.
I honestly had no idea what you were saying man, I thought I was the only one. I still don't know what you meant lol.

No shots fired at all, just saying I had a hard time comprehending.
 
I don't have sympathy for them either.  I said from the get-go that I don't have sympathy for anyone in the situation.  

...but just because you're 80 years old doesn't mean you have the right to chase people down once the threat is gone and shoot them multiple times.  The lady was already down and he STILL pulled the trigger.  That's unwarranted use of overwhelming force.

I def get that; I guess I am little compassion for people who choose to live their life by robbing people, etc

This is why I am not a judge :lol:
 
 
I don't have sympathy for them either.  I said from the get-go that I don't have sympathy for anyone in the situation.  

...but just because you're 80 years old doesn't mean you have the right to chase people down once the threat is gone and shoot them multiple times.  The lady was already down and he STILL pulled the trigger.  That's unwarranted use of overwhelming force.
You're right, from a legal standpoint, his case probably won't hold up. It was also morally wrong, depending on who you ask.

But I 100% understand why he did what he did.
 
Unjust killing.

Just shooting.

Once she was off his property retreating and wounded its over. No need to catch that body.
 
people who think he should be convicted...

you feeling the same way if this was your grandfather? I highly doubt it
 
Back
Top Bottom