# Homeowner fights back



## rkunsaw (Jul 26, 2014)

Admittedly a gray area but I don't think the homeowner should be charged. 


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/2...ing-burglar-who-falsely-claimed-was-pregnant/


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 26, 2014)

I think the evidence must be tested in court. Here is a different account of what took place.



> Homeowner makes an astonishing TV boast about shooting 'pregnant' home invader dead as she pleaded for mercy - but cops say her ACCOMPLICE could be charged with her murder
> 
> By Daily Mail Reporter
> Updated: 19:37 AEST, 25 July 2014
> ...


I think there are some inconsistencies in Greer's story but the media is not renowned for reporting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, are they?


----------



## oldman (Jul 26, 2014)

Yeah, I have mixed feelings with this one. I can only imagine what he may have been thinking. "If I don't shoot, will they turn around and come back?" or "If I don't shoot, maybe they do have a gun and will shoot at me." On the other hand, they did not show a weapon and they were running away. Tough decision. 

Glad that I don't have to make the decision whether to charge him or not.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 26, 2014)

The legal issues are discussed here. Do let us know whether they charge Greer with murder. I reckon he has a case to answer.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/07/pro-tip-shooting-fleeing-women-in-the-back-is-not-self-defense/


----------



## Falcon (Jul 26, 2014)

IMO  NO gray area.  As long as he wasn't harmed, there is NO reason for him to chase after them and shoot.  
  Mr. Greer is GUILTY.


----------



## hollydolly (Jul 26, 2014)

Falcon said:


> IMO  NO gray area.  As long as he wasn't harmed, there is NO reason for him to chase after them and shoot.
> Mr. Greer is GUILTY.


  But he WAS harmed, they broke his collar bone


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 26, 2014)

re:Tom Greer told a Los Angeles news station that he shot Andrea Miller twice in the back just outside his house, *while she was 
running away* on Tuesday night.

He overreacted and yes he should be charge.
If this shooter was 30 or 40 years old,common would have prevailed and that girl would be alive today.


----------



## oldman (Jul 26, 2014)

I am a part time resident here in Florida. I also own a home in a retirement village. It is gated and we have security, 24/7. I have come to learn from listening to those older than myself that they look at being secure different than I do. If the perpetrator is on his way or running away, I am probably going to let him run. An older gentleman may have such slow reactions that by the time he decides and then shoots, the burglar could be running away.  

Not being a lawyer, I do not try to interpret the law. However, as California has it written, even the DA cannot positively figure out how to apply it in this case.


----------



## Ina (Jul 26, 2014)

I had a stepfather who was a Texas Ranger, always told me, if you shoot someone as they are leaving your home, make sure you quickly drag them back inside before you call for assistance. I so glad I never had to face such an issue. :iwillbeback:


----------



## oldman (Jul 26, 2014)

Ina said:


> I had a stepfather who was a Texas Ranger, always told me, if you shoot someone as they are leaving your home, make sure you quickly drag them back inside before you call for assistance. I so glad I never had to face such an issue. :iwillbeback:




That's probably good advice.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 26, 2014)

After he was attacked in his own home during an attempted felony theft, and had his collar bone broken by these two, I don't think he should be charged at all.  The only mistake he made was not to shoot them when they were still inside the house.  That woman wasn't stupid for claiming she was pregnant, she tried playing on his sympathy, but pregnant or not, you play, you pay, IMO.  Hopefully the severity of an injury like that at his age won't cause complications that kill him in the end, that would be a shame.


----------



## Ina (Jul 26, 2014)

My husband was following this case, and he told me it was the third time they had broke in to rob him, and an autopsy showed no pregnancy.


----------



## oldman (Jul 26, 2014)

You are exactly correct SeaBreeze, many times when a senior is injured and the injury does not heal, or becomes infected, or the person that is injured and while lying in a hospital gets pneumonia, he could die and then the charges would be changed to homicide.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 26, 2014)

Thanks for the update Ina!


----------



## Denise1952 (Jul 26, 2014)

Ina said:


> I had a stepfather who was a Texas Ranger, always told me, if you shoot someone as they are leaving your home, make sure you quickly drag them back inside before you call for assistance. I so glad I never had to face such an issue. :iwillbeback:



I heard this too, years ago.  There laws are strange, they used to be more "cut and dry".  Now it's as if they can be interpreted any way, and lawyers are all up on the ways to interpret.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jul 26, 2014)

I'm like Oldman in that it's a hard call from what I see in the article.  And not being in the man's shoes, I can't say.  You can bet it will be decided on how the "law" is interpreted again.  Sometimes they actually get it right.  Well, I've heard that can happen anyway


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 26, 2014)

Looks like the majority here thinks that shooting a fleeing felon in the back outside your house is the right way to go


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 26, 2014)

You are allowed to apply reasonable force to defend yourself but using deadly force on an assailant who is fleeing from you is not reasonable under law. Correct me if the situation in California is different.

As for the broken collar bone... How much broken? I always assume broken means just that and that your arm is hanging useless, but it could also mean a chipped bone. Or a hairline fracture. He didn't seem to incapacitated if he could find his gun, wave it at the would be burglars and then chase them out of the house and shoot one in the back as she ran away. He knew that she was unarmed because she had previously pleaded for her life.

He chose the woman as his target because she couldn't run as fast as the man. This implies premeditation to kill, not merely to defend himself. I haven't heard that she was the one who attacked and injured him.

The evidence needs to be tested in court by cross examination and testimony about evidence collected at the scene.

There are a lot of questions going round in my mind. If he has been broken in twice before, how does he know that these are the same burglars? Presumably this is the first time he surprised the culprits. Is there finger print evidence linking them to the earlier crimes? Did he even report these burglaries to the police? What was stolen previously and was the safe breached?

I also think it is overkill to charge the male with murder. The principle here is that if a pair of burglars, in the course of committing a robbery were to kill someone, then both would be charged with murder, regardless of who did the actual killing. I don't think the law was ever intended to charge the surviving burglar with murder because a victim or other third party shot and killed the other one. He's clearly guilty of break and enter and other similar charges relating to attempted burglary but murder? I wouldn't think so and if on the jury for this case it would take very strong arguments in law to convince me otherwise.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jul 27, 2014)

Although they were running away you have to remember this all happened in a matter of seconds. By the time they saw that he had a gun they turned to run and he shot at them, hitting the woman. Whether or not to shoot is a decision that has to be made in an instant. The intruders had plenty of time to decide if they were going to break into the man's home and steal from him and attack him. 

It was the thieves who made the decision that led to all this.

Dame Warrigal, according to the law in many places, If a person dies while you are committing a felony you are responsible for the death no matter who dies or what they die of.

There have been cases where people have been convicted of murder because the person they were robbing had a heart attack and died.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 27, 2014)

> There have been cases where people have been convicted of murder because the person they were robbing had a heart attack and died.



This I understand, and this is how the law is applied here.

I still think he had enough time to refrain from killing the woman. According to his own words, they were all inside the house, he distracted the male, got his hand gun, pointed it at them, then they ran outside into the lane/street. At some stage the woman pleaded for her life, claiming pregnancy. All of this gives him time to decide whether or not to fire. When he does, the pair are running away, their backs to him. At that stage he decides to shoot the woman in the back because she is the slower. It was hardly a split second reflexive action. It is a deliberate, conscious act. The responsibility for the woman's death is primarily his IMO. That is stretching the murder charge for the male burglar a very long way but it is up to judge and jury in the end.

Perhaps whether or not Greer is charged with murder might depend on whether the male burglar is tried first for murder. If he goes down Greer gets off but is the charge is dismissed then the spotlight falls on Greer.

On another note - I wonder what security he had on his property after having been broken into twice before. We know he had a safe but what were his locks like? Did he have an alarm system? There are things you can do to protect your property besides killing people.

I'd really like to know more about the circumstances over and above what the media is reporting.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 27, 2014)

Wow, this is a tough case. Certainly hard to feel sympathy for the dead woman. The article I read said that after she & her accomplice had knocked the old man down, she continued to beat him while the guy tried to open the safe. He & her both have prior records, one arrest being for attempting to scam an elderly person out of their life savings. The more you read about them & after seeing their pictures, it's hard to not feel that the man did society a favor.

On the other hand, he shot her in the back, outside his house as she was running away. No matter how you look at it, it was not necessary & basically amounts to revenge. 

Half of me wants to see him charged with at least manslaughter while the other half of me wants to see him awarded a medal.


----------



## romfty (Jul 27, 2014)

They broke into his home and beat the old fellah.....end of, they had no right to be there and so suffer the consequences....why oh why is society turning to support theses scum bags who rob and beat old folk!!!


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 27, 2014)

I would see it as a situation where a conviction is required*** but where the sentence might be lenient due to extenuating circumstances. The charge might be reduced to some kind of manslaughter rather than murder, even though I think murder is appropriate.



> He & her both have prior records, one arrest being for attempting to scam an elderly person out of their life savings


It's a principle of justice that prior records are inadmissible in deciding guilt for a later offence. I'm surprised the media is allowed to publish this.  

*** Assuming that we have the facts, which we may not.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 27, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> This I understand, and this is how the law is applied here.
> 
> I still think he had enough time to refrain from killing the woman. According to his own words, they were all inside the house, he distracted the male, got his hand gun, pointed it at them, then they ran outside into the lane/street. At some stage the woman pleaded for her life, claiming pregnancy. All of this gives him time to decide whether or not to fire. When he does, the pair are running away, their backs to him. At that stage he decides to shoot the woman in the back because she is the slower. It was hardly a split second reflexive action. It is a deliberate, conscious act. The responsibility for the woman's death is primarily his IMO. That is stretching the murder charge for the male burglar a very long way but it is up to judge and jury in the end.
> 
> ...



DW, the charge of "Felony Murder" is a common one here in the US & has been applied many times before in the past. Even if the police shoot & kill a criminal in the act of committing a felony, any accomplices will be charged the same.

As for security, there aren't many things that will deter a determined burglar. If you stop them at the doors & windows, they can easily cut a hole in the roof. Then, you not only get robbed of your valuables, but you're stuck paying for an expensive home repair. Plus, all available security measures are expensive.

I don't like the idea of somebody shooting somebody else in the back while they are running away, but as far as him not doing enough to prevent the break in to begin with, I'm not sure there was much he could have done.

And I also think that the male accomplice deserves to get the Felony Murder charge. That's the law here & he should have both known about it & taken it into consideration before he decided to break into someone's home.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 27, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I would see it as a situation where a conviction is required*** but where the sentence might be lenient due to extenuating circumstances. The charge might be reduced to some kind of manslaughter rather than murder, even though I think murder is appropriate.
> 
> 
> It's a principle of justice that prior records are inadmissible in deciding guilt for a later offence. I'm surprised the media is allowed to publish this.
> ...



I agree that he should be charged with some lesser offense, then given probation. But as far as their prior criinal records are concerned, they may, in certain cases, be inadmissable as evidence against them in a trial, but outside of that, they are a matter of public record & thus, may be legally published by the media.

You can look up criminal records online, for that matter.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 27, 2014)

> You can look up criminal records online, for that matter.


In that case it should be tried before a judge rather than a jury.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jul 27, 2014)

rkunsaw said:


> Although they were running away you have to remember this all happened in a matter of seconds. By the time they saw that he had a gun they turned to run and he shot at them, hitting the woman. Whether or not to shoot is a decision that has to be made in an instant. The intruders had plenty of time to decide if they were going to break into the man's home and steal from him and attack him.
> 
> It was the thieves who made the decision that led to all this.
> 
> ...



I've never heard it put this way, but it surely makes sense to me.  That's what burns me on people that are victimized turning into the bad guys.  If I am "asking" for trouble, I should get it.  Going back to some discussion about people being punished rather than sent "home free", I think we'd have less crime if people actually have to pay for it when they break the law.

The thought also crossed my mind if the victim even "knew" he was shooting at a woman, but to me, male or female, do the crime, get the time.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 27, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> In that case it should be tried before a judge rather than a jury.



But that's not the way our legal system works. The Constitution guarantees all criminal defendants the right to a trial by a jury of their peers unless they voluntarily forgo that right.

The jury system tends to work in spite of mass media coverage, because there are usually enough people who haven't paid enough attention to a given crime, to have formed a biased opinion. In cases where the media coverage has been so prevalent that it can be assumed that there are too few people in the local area who have not been over exposed, the defense can file a motion for a change of venue & have the trial moved to another city where the level of media coverage has been much lower.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 27, 2014)

romfty said:


> They broke into his home and beat the old fellah.....end of, they had no right to be there and so suffer the consequences....why oh why is society turning to support theses scum bags who rob and beat old folk!!!



I agree Romfty, they had no right to break into that elderly man's home, physically assault him, and attempt to steal his savings and possessions.  They had already tried to scam another elderly man of his money in the past, so these scum bags did prey on the elderly, that is disgusting to me. 

Society is supporting all of these low lifes, because they no longer think logically with their brains, they all are guided by their ...feelings..., oh, poor thieves and attackers, well, maybe they had a problem, maybe we should help *them*....the home owner should have done his job by getting better locks on his home, it's all his fault....*really?*!!  :mad2:


----------



## Denise1952 (Jul 27, 2014)

Hopefully, this will at least make "scum bags" (dirt-bags my fave) think again about attacking older folks.  I know it was a tv show, but Frost was one of my faves when I actually got cable (I do have it again now that I'm at my sis's) but I digress, lol.  Ok, some guy broke in and beat an elderly gal, into a coma, and she finally died.  This wasn't robbery, but a sicko who hated his mother so he was killing other elderly women.  

I'm *not* going to get into a "right to own a gun" with anyone here, I am going to say the elderly need a way to protect themselves, especially those that seem to have no one to help them, or watch out for them  I'm glad this fellow had a gun.  I'm not glad the woman chose to go out looking for someone to rob, and beat up, bad choice imo.  I'll fight back as long as I can, and am with those that feel the same.


----------



## MrJim (Jul 27, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> Society is supporting all of these low lifes, because they no longer think logically with their brains, they all are guided by their ...feelings..., oh, poor thieves and attackers, well, maybe they had a problem, maybe we should help them....the home owner should have done his job by getting better locks on his home, it's all his fault....really?!!




Sorry, but I don't see how you could be more wrong about that.


What society is supporting, is the protection of the rights of ALL PEOPLE. It has to be assumed, (& correctly so), that any one of us could be accused of a crime. You cannot tailor a legal system in a society of 350 million people to fit the precise details of each case. In order for the law to protect the rights of everybody, it has to protect the rights of scumbags like those who break into people's homes, commit robberies, etc. If we stop protecting their rights, the protection of all of our rights ceases to exist.


I can't believe that there are still people out there who don't get that. It is they who are the ones who aren't thinking logically with their brains & are guided by their feelings. Those who understand why the legal system has to be applied uniformly across the board for everyone, regardless of how low they may be, are the ones who are thinking logically with their brains.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 27, 2014)

This statement alone shows this shooter is nuts and should be charged.

t Greer says he managed to get his .22 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver. He says when that unarmed couple saw his gun they took off out the back door and he followed.  "The lady didn't run as fast as the man so I shot her in the back twice. She's dead... but he got away"He said, "She says 'don't shoot me I am pregnant, I have a baby' and I shot her anyway."


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 27, 2014)

MrJim said:


> Sorry, but I don't see how you could be more wrong about that.
> 
> 
> What society is supporting, is the protection of the rights of ALL PEOPLE. It has to be assumed, (& correctly so), that any one of us could be accused of a crime. You cannot tailor a legal system in a society of 350 million people to fit the precise details of each case. In order for the law to protect the rights of everybody, it has to protect the rights of scumbags like those who break into people's homes, commit robberies, etc. If we stop protecting their rights, the protection of all of our rights ceases to exist.
> ...



I agree with MrJim and Davey. I am trying, admittedly with only some of the facts, to picture the events that took place and to decide whether the victim was justified in firing on one of his assailants when both were fleeing in fear of him. We don't know how close they were to him at the time. If they were still very close he is less culpable than if they were already 50 yards down the alley. NWLady, he knew his target was a woman and chose her because she ran more slowly than the man. Probably she was closer and from his TV interview he certainly knew that she was a woman.

I think there is a lot of emotional reasoning on the part of people who identify with the 80 year old but why do we take his version as gospel truth without testing it? MrJim is 100% correct when he says that the law must support the rights of all people because if it doesn't, all of us are at risk of losing our rights.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth means you cannot take a life for a broken collar bone but you can take one to save a life.


----------

