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

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.

 

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?

 

I am surprised at 80 he was able to "chase" anyone down.

 

Jim
They stole his Viagra. . .

Sheldon

 

"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.......

Great thread, by the way.

 

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"

 

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.

 

That is why Oregon needs a codified Castle Doctrine and whatever law Washington and some other states have that the Prosecutor has to pay your defense if you are found not guilty.

I think that the DA reccommended a No Bill of this guy http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...walla-walla-shopkeeper-dont-try-this-at-home/ because of it.

 

Sure you do.

 

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.

 

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.........

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!