Elderly Man Shoots/Kills Pregnant Home Invader

I agree with you now that what he did was unjustified and he should face legal charges, but I still think he should get a very lenient sentence, because of the simple fact that the woman invaded his home and attacked him.

 

Ive read the article. He said he did it to send a message to her boyfriend-he didnt say it was revenge.

 

Is it justifiable to kill someone to "send a message" to someone else?

 

Anything that you do AFTER the fact (the crime) is revenge.

California Self-defence laws;

For purposes of the self-defense legal defense, “reasonable under the circumstances” means that you need to have:

Reasonably believed that you were in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully,
Reasonably believed that you needed to use force to prevent that from happening, and
Used no more force than was necessary to prevent that from happening.1

Moreover, thanks to California's so-called “stand your ground laws,” you are under no obligation to “retreat” – that is, to run away or try to escape – before you use self-defense to protect yourself. 2

Self-defense can be a useful legal defense to a number of California crimes, including:

Murder,
Assault with a deadly weapon,
Aggravated battery, and
Battery on a peace officer.

California self-defense law is a “stand your ground” law. In California, you may use reasonable force to defend yourself even if you also had the option of escaping the threat by running away. 3 You may even pursue your attacker until the danger has passed

BUT even under California's “stand your ground” law, you still can't claim the self-defense privilege once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer a threat 4

Sources -

1 - Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction (“CALCRIM&#8221 505 - https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/505.html
See also CALCRIM 3470 – Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another (Non-Homicide). - https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3470.html
2 - CALCRIM 505 – Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another See also CALCRIM 3470 – Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another (Non-Homicide)
3 - CALCRIM 505 – Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another.
4 - CALCRIM 3474 – Danger No Longer Exists or Attacker Disabled. - https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3474.html

]3474. Danger No Longer Exists or Attacker Disabled
The right to use force in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) continues only as long as the danger exists or reasonably appears to exist. [When the attacker (withdraws/ [or] no longer appears capable of inflicting any injury), then the right to use force ends.

 

Your arguements are very hypocritical and contradictory. You stick up for lowlives who commit robbery and invade innocent people's homes, but you couldnt care less about an innocent unborn child.

 

A "child" can't be unborn.

And I believe Fugazi was standing up for LAWS...something you don't seem to respect.

 

What laws was Fugazi sticking up for? He doesnt understand the fact that the old man innocent-the woman was the person who invaded his home and robbed him.

 

Too bad his post, which was clear to me, was too much for you to understand.....

 

first off, you haven't walked in the innocent's shoes, so you can only speculate.
These three criminals set this thing in motion, not him, and yet here you are screaming and thumping your chest over some self-absorbed sense of self-righteousness and personal indignation. For you, it is about the gun, not the man.

 

How bizarre to get "screaming and chest thumping" from the above post of mine.

The rest of your post is equally from another planet....have some coffee and try to wake up, you're dreaming...

 

well, I'll be. You stopped in on another thread just to say hi................. welcome to my planet

 

We are aware that she was not pregnant, right?
Oh, and plead all you want. Break into my home, you die.

 

Yes, it was established earlier in this thread after news reports that she wasn't pregnant.

And while it's true that you can shoot someone if they break into your house Fugazi has shown in his posts that under CA law you can't pursue and execute them.

 

Has be been charged?

 

As soon as he shot her in the back as she was running away, he was no longer "innocent." There is a reason vigilantism is illegal.

 

not as of today.............looks like the law agrees with him instead of the bleeding heart Liberals who want his head on a pike

 

What BS, my arguments are plain for anyone with a high school education.

NOWHERE have I stuck up for these people who have committed robbery etc, you need to re-read the comments here and stop lying about my position, and as to saying I "couldnt care less about an innocent unborn child." then that is just more BS.

Your standard responses whenever you don't have a rationale argument.

 

No, YOUR arguments are very hypocritical and contradictory.

YOU are defending a vigilante who shot and killed a woman knowing she could have been pregnant. WHO couldn't care less about an "innocent unborn child"?

 

The law doesn't agree with him, even though some law officials may.

 

How am I a hypocrite? Elaborate.

Read the news article story again. The man in California was a victim of thugs invading his home.

 

That's his story, and his side is all we know without a trial. He unnecessarily and illegally killed a woman who said she was pregnant. He had no way of knowing she wasn't, but he didn't care if she was, and you are defending that.

 

The news story says that his home was invaded.

 

Are you completely ignoring your own hypocrisy for defending a vigilante who didn't care if the woman was pregnant?

 

Is that a rhetorical questoin?

 

Ignore that question, and address my revised post. Are you completely ignoring your own hypocrisy for defending a vigilante who didn't care if the woman was pregnant?