Elderly Man Shoots/Kills Pregnant Home Invader

So I saw this thread in the Current Events forum and thought it had an interesting enough topic to be brought here since it involves the killing of a pregnant woman, who also happened to be a criminal.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...home-invader-shot-best-dead-article-1.1878188


So if you had just been robbed, a SECOND TIME, by the way, by the same people, and you had cornered one of the robbers, a female, and she pleaded with you saying she's pregnant, would you still have shot her?

This man clearly feels no remorse about shooting a pregnant woman. He even blatantly states that she pleaded for her life and said she was pregnant before he shot her twice and says “I shot her twice, she best be dead."

I think he had every right to shoot. The woman was committing a crime and he is not a trained police officer either, he had no idea if she was unarmed, she could have had a weapon hidden somewhere on her and posed a danger/threat to him. Plus you have to think about the fact that in situations like these it all happens so fast, adrenaline running, chaos, they'd already wounded him as well. Hard to really 'think clearly' in a situation like this. Also she could very well have been lying about being pregnant just to distract him, pulled out her own gun and shot at him.

The situation could have happened in multiple ways, but I still think he did the right thing.

Still I was wondering how pro-lifers would feel about a situation like this. A pregnant criminal. Is it ok to shoot a pregnant woman who just robbed and attacked you, but who is now pleading for her life knowing you may or probably will kill her 'innocent unborn baby' but who may also still be a threat to you?

And pro-choicers, do you think that what this man did was right or wrong as well?

Would anyone feel differently had this been a man pleading for his life?

 

Very interesting question especially for those conservative gun happy "pro-lifers"...

I don't think all the details of this incident have been disclosed but as a Pro-Choicer I have no qualms about shooting anyone who broke into my home...but would draw the line at chasing them out of the house and shooting them down(that's very unsafe and quite stupid)...and it wouldn't matter if they were male or female or 9 months pregnant.



I think Anti-Choicers would happily shoot anyone who caused them bodily harm but they don't give a damn what pregnancy can do to a woman....they insist SHE has no right to stop bodily harm to herself.

 

Yeah I probably wouldn't have chased after the criminals either. lol That's a bit much, but I am a woman too, so I am a little more careful and alert about who is around me and who I am in the vicinity of. I probably would have locked myself in my home and just called the police, keeping my weapon nearby in case they tried to come back.

But I am curious to see if other pro-lifers think this man is in the wrong, or if they would have done the same thing despite the fact that her fetus died in the process.

 

What the man did was wrong. After he shot her once, being injured and in pain, I don't think its logical assume that she was fast and strong enough that the only alternative he had was to shoot her twice. Just because she was a criminal, it doesn't mean she didnt deserve mercy. He should have called the cops on her and let the legal system deal with her. What he did was excessive force.

 

Begging for her life after trying to flee and he shoots her anyway? What a psychopath.

 

So breaking & entering and stealing equates to the death penalty?

 

I haven't heard yet but does anyone know if she was actually pregnant or just saying that?

 

I don't know. The news has declared that she was pregnant buuuuut, we know how wrong they get things. lol

 

He may have just fired the rounds one after the other, not really thinking, because in a situation like this it's hard to have a level head with adrenaline pumping, chaos happening, the only thing you can do is react.

Still I don't know if I'd have gone chasing after the criminals either, but I'm sure this guy was livid. This was the second time they targeted his home, perhaps he wanted to ensure they wouldn't come back or do this ever again?

 

When you're a pissed off, 80 year old man who's had enough of people breaking into his home it is...

 

According to the story, when he shot her, she wasn't even in his house, and she was begging for mercy. Dont you think he had other options?

 

Oh definitely I think he had others options, like the option to barricade himself in his home and call the police, something I would have done.

However anger can make a person do irrational things and I think that is what happened here.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that she was just saying that so he wouldn't shoot her but that still doesn't excuse what he did.

 

I guess so, but I can understand the feeling at least. Adrenaline running, not thinking clearly, this guy was probably livid and his anger took over, second time his home has been broken into, he's probably thinking to himself enough is enough and then decided to take the situation into his own hands.

I won't sit here and defend what he did, because it was wrong to chase after them when he should have stopped and called the police instead, but I am interested in seeing if the state decides to press charges against him or not for what happened.

 

California law contains castle doctrine - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199 - however ... Even though it’s not in the law, the California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) do allow a jury to acquit someone based on a stand-your-ground defense. The instruction appears in CALCRIM #505 and #506, both of which deal with justifiable homicide:

&#8220;A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/<insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.&#8221;

California&#8217;s stand-your-ground defense as part of the justifiable homicide rules has several conditions. Aggressors are not eligible for this &#8212; you must be defending, not striking first. You, as a reasonable person, would have to believe the danger is imminent and not a threat at some time in the future. Also, you had to have believed that deadly force was necessary, and you had to have used just enough force to defend yourself. However, a defendant does not have to be correct about having actually been in danger. A jury can acquit if they think the defendant reasonably believed that mortal danger was truly there.

The legal precedents that established this jury instruction are very old: cases like People v. Hecker in 1895 and People v. Newcomer in 1897. Hecker says you may stand your ground if it&#8217;s safer than retreating, but Newcomer changed that by removing the need to retreat (or &#8220;fly,&#8221; as the ruling said). These precedents have been cited over and over, but the state has never actually settled the question of whether stand your ground is legal in the modern era.

&#8220;Over a hundred years ago, the California Supreme Court said, &#8216;no duty to retreat if you&#8217;re in your home,&#8217;&#8221; says UC Hastings Law Professor Rory Little. &#8220;&#8216;We&#8217;re going to leave open whether there&#8217;s such a duty if you&#8217;re outside of the home.&#8217; That little leaving-open has never been firmly answered by the California Supreme Court. They simply repeat the same broad language over and over again.&#8221;

 

Thanks for presenting the legal jargon for this situation.

So it looks like he may actually not be charged because of California's stand-your-ground laws. Interesting.

If they did charge him with murder though, I wonder if they'd go for double homicide since she was pregnant? (But not yet confirmed to be).

 

I'm not saying that he wasn't angry or didn't have adrenaline pumping through him but he had enough presence of mind to listen to her beg and then still killed her. No she shouldn't have be doing what she was doing but that doesn't warrant an execution.

- - - Updated - - -

It may not apply though since he did chase her out of his house and down an alleyway. By that point the danger had already passed.

 

Personally I don't think they will especially as he suffered injury himself, had they not injured him then I reckon they probably would try to charge him with something ... would it be a double homicide, no idea on that one.

Oh BTW congrats on the future wedding

 

However, a defendant does not have to be correct about having actually been in danger. A jury can acquit if they think the defendant reasonably believed that mortal danger was truly there

80 year old man, injured .. I reckon a jury would give a not guilty verdict, though I could be wrong in that. I suppose it's going to be one of those "wait and see" issues.

 

The fact that he chased her down an alley should prove that by that point he was out of danger. But most likely you're right about the wait and see. Just got to wait for more information to come out now.

 

Thaaaaaaaaanks! I'm sooo excited! =D

Right? I wanna know if she was really pregnant or not.

 

Same here.

 

Just been doing some more searching on this and apparently he did not chase any of them down the alley, he shot the woman in the garage using .22LR bullets, she then stumbled into the alley and died . .so it would seem from some reports that the actual shooting took place within his property.

Too early to tell what is right and wrong on the reports .. It will be one I keep an eye on.

 

Apparently not;

UPDATE: Late Friday afternoon the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office, after conducting an autopsy, announced that Andrea Miller was not pregnant

http://www.gazettes.com/news/long-b...cle_5674346a-1393-11e4-86f2-0019bb2963f4.html

 

Okay, that one's a bit new to me. I haven't heard that yet. Thanks for the information.

Now I've also heard that she was shot twice. Do you know yet if this is true and if so, do you know if her being shot in the garage was the first or second time?