Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

My follow-up on 80 y/o homeowner who shot 'pregnant' robber...

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Monica Cowles, Jan 29, 2015.

  1. Monica Cowles

    Monica Cowles Grays Harbor, Washington Member, NRA (Life) USCCA, ACLDN, SAF (Life) Staff Member Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    I wrote this on my blog to follow up on an earlier post;:)

    I wrote back in July about the 80 year old gentleman who was robbed and beaten by a man and a woman and ended up shooting the woman, who claimed to be pregnant (shocking, she wasn't). I stated that I would be curious to see how this case develops and whether he would be charged or not for using deadly force. I mentioned that while initially he had every right to defend himself from the pair of worms who accosted him, once they ran away, he no longer had the legal right to chase them down the alley and shoot the female, since the threat of imminent bodily harm had passed.

    Remember, unless every single moment during a violent encounter meets the very strict criteria of a self defense plea, one may very well spend a good many years thinking about how one could have avoided, de-escalated or removed oneself from the situation while wearing a new striped suit and sitting in a new 'cubicle'.

    Revisiting the requirements of a legitimate self defense plea, one needs to be able to prove;

    Innocence-you can not have in any way started, sustained or escalated a conflict.

    Imminence-you believed, based on the circumstances and behavior of your attacker(s) that you were in immediate fear of death or great/grave bodily harm.

    Proportionality-any force you use must not be greater than necessary to stop the threat, and must cease immediately as soon as the threat is over.

    Avoidance-commonly referred to as taking every opportunity to retreat.

    Reasonableness-any action you take must meet both subjective and objective reasoning by anyone else who would have been in your shoes.

    "Greer, who was robbed on two other occasions, “held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury,” wrote Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. Janet Moore, explaining the office’s decision not to charge him.
    “Greer exercised his legal and legitimate right of self-defense when he shot and killed Andrea Miller,” Moore wrote. (you can read the rest of the article here.)

    Once again, based on the original interview with the man after his violent encounter, he admitted that he shot the female robber as she ran away, then fell down and was pleading for her "baby's" life. He was pretty adamant about the fact that as she was pleading, he 'shot her anyway'. Again, based strictly on those narrow stipulations for self defense mentioned above, he could not possibly have been in immediate fear of his life while he held a gun in his hands and she was lying on the ground, obviously fearing for HER life.

    During a recent defensive pistol training course I attended, a comment was made about how we do not have a 'justice system' we have a 'legal system'. While justice may make the most sense in a case like this, (I certainly empathize with the frustration and anger expressed at having his home burglarized twice before by these same losers) the cold hard boundaries of the legal requirements are not to be ignored. Additionally, in many cases, it does not matter what really happened in a use of deadly force incident, it only matters what the prosecutor thinks the chances are that he/she can convince a jury of 12 average people to believe happened. This can and sometimes does work against a person who may have been legally justified in their use of force, but it appears in this unusual case, it worked in the gentleman's favor.

    I strongly urge anyone who carries a firearm to protect themselves or their loved ones from harm never to assume that you will get off so easy if you chase a robber down your driveway and shoot them twice in the back. Unless you happen to be 80 years old.o_O
     
  2. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,480
    Likes Received:
    19,499
    I already commented on this in another thread, but it probably bears repeating here - anyone who has been through training (which I have) has been taught/lectured on this very subject. When I first heard this story last year, I was certain he would be charged, perhaps not with murder, but something just below that. He proved by his own statement that she was no longer a threat, then basically executed her.

    I'm quite shocked he wasn't charged. I have to believe he's got a friend in high places. Any of us would be in jail over a similar incident.
     
  3. Monica Cowles

    Monica Cowles Grays Harbor, Washington Member, NRA (Life) USCCA, ACLDN, SAF (Life) Staff Member Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Exactly. I was shocked too.
    I wonder if the prosecutor doubted that she could find a jury who would sympathize with the robber, no matter what the 'facts' were, and she decided to make a political move to protect her own reputation...
     
    Sgt Nambu, Capn Jack and etrain16 like this.
  4. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,480
    Likes Received:
    19,499
    It would be interesting to get into her head and see what exactly her reasons for not charging him were. The fact that the guy was already gone and she was down and already shot would seem, I think, to most reasonable people to be plenty of evidence that the imminent threat was no longer present. Strange case to be sure. And even though it worked out for him, it's a good lesson on what not to do. It sounds like you'll already be incorporating this story into your classes?
     
  5. Monica Cowles

    Monica Cowles Grays Harbor, Washington Member, NRA (Life) USCCA, ACLDN, SAF (Life) Staff Member Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    HA!
    I already have...we've discussed it in several classes, and I've added my own assessment and interpretation of potential difficult consequences...for what it was worth...LOL!:rolleyes:
     
    etrain16 likes this.
  6. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,266
    I am surprised at 80 he was able to "chase" anyone down:D.
     
  7. Sstrand

    Sstrand La Grande OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    Likes Received:
    2,683
    Jim
    They stole his Viagra. . .

    Sheldon
     
  8. NoFlinch

    NoFlinch In a van down by the river Owner of Cocaine addicted dog.

    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    1,358
    "Proportionality-any force you use must not be greater than necessary to stop the threat, and must cease immediately as soon as the threat is over."

    Question;

    If someone came into my house at night, and I felt fear for my life, I would grab my G-19 9mm and shoot4-5-6 times, to be CERTAIN they were not going to "bouncer Back".

    Would that be considered "Non-Proportional?", or "shoot until the threat is eliminated?"

    Cops seem to do it all the time, although I am not a cop...........

    (we had one "perp" shot 60+ times down here a few years ago by various Oregon law enforcement on scene.

    He died.......:confused:

    Great thread, by the way.:D:D
     
  9. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,266
    :s0140:
     
  10. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,178
    Likes Received:
    6,628


    I hate to say it but as I was reading this the only thing I could think of is "If only Law enforcement where held to the same standard"

    :(:(:(
     
  11. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,266
    When and if I reach 80 I doubt I would care what the government does especially if they couldn't keep me from being robbed two other times. Either the bad guys kill you or the good guys do.
     
  12. Nick Burkhardt

    Nick Burkhardt NE Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,653
    Likes Received:
    1,819
    clearconscience likes this.
  13. ogre

    ogre Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,753
    Likes Received:
    1,291
    Sure you do.
     
  14. clearconscience

    clearconscience Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,558
    Likes Received:
    7,031
    Not sure if this applies, but could he have used the excuse that they had been there before, assaulted him and his fear of the lethal threat be they will return to finish the job?
    However, you still at that point are not in life threatening circumstances.

    I mean, I'm all for people being able to protect themselves and use lethal force.
    And there's that fear if someone tries to hurt, kill, rob me, etc and they get away I will forever fear they will come back to intend to do me or my family harm.

    It seems like the badguys are becoming more common and more bold and the good people of our society are constantly being restricted from protecting ourselves or getting justice when something does happen.

    The law favors criminals these days and more people are getting sick of it.
     
  15. Monica Cowles

    Monica Cowles Grays Harbor, Washington Member, NRA (Life) USCCA, ACLDN, SAF (Life) Staff Member Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    They are.
     
  16. NoFlinch

    NoFlinch In a van down by the river Owner of Cocaine addicted dog.

    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    1,358
    The Prosecutor, being a county paid employee, which means I PAY your defense if not found guilty.

    Let's change that to Prosecutor "Personally" pays for your defense if.........:):confused:o_O
     
    clearconscience likes this.
  17. clearconscience

    clearconscience Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,558
    Likes Received:
    7,031
    And law enforcement these days are becoming more restricted in their duty to prevent or react to crime.
    Soon enough they will be required to walk away or retreat from any criminal that resists.
    Like the mental guy in portland the other day.
     
    NoFlinch and Monica Cowles like this.
  18. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,178
    Likes Received:
    6,628
    They may be expected to meet the same standard, but they are not held to it the way the public is.

    I dont want to get into a LE bashing on your thread and I know that the vast majority of cops are good folks, but there are way to many that use unwarranted force and are not held accountable.
     
  19. clearconscience

    clearconscience Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,558
    Likes Received:
    7,031
    Well everyone LEOs and regular citizens are held accountable by the same laws, same use of force.
    But there is a difference.
    We as citizens get to run away from danger.
    LEOs have to run towards it.
    We have an obligation to avoid trouble and when confronted by a situation of violence it is our duty to flee and/or use every avenue to get away from danger.
    LEOs have a legal obligation to confront it and try to diffuse it.
    When confronted with force LEOs have to use force greater than what is presented to them. They have to be the aggressor and have to take control of any situation.

    And they have strong union lawyers to make sure they are protected.

    That helps.
     
    albin25 likes this.
  20. Sgt Nambu

    Sgt Nambu Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    7,540
    Likes Received:
    10,517
    I'm shocked by this outcome! It sounds as though this shooting was completely out of the bounds of legality, and I certainly would not have fired! That said,
    Good job grandpa!