CNN: DA to decide whether to charge killer of intruder who yelled 'I'm pregnant'

[NYC_SKP]

Not surprisingly, a significant number of people seem to think that the woman in this case is the victim, and the physically beaten and terrorized old man is the mean bad guy in this mess.

(CNN) -- Tom Greer says he fought back when he was attacked by intruders at his Southern California home. Then he got his gun and fired at them and they ran.

The 80-year-old homeowner says one of the fleeing burglars, a woman, shouted, "I'm pregnant!" He shot her twice, killing her.

The woman was not pregnant, Ed Winter of the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office told CNN on Friday.

The district attorney will decide whether Greer will face criminal charges.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/25/justice/california-slain-burglar-pregnant/

-- Both burglars had extensive criminal histories consistent with this crime.

-- And, she wasn't pregnant. And, medical examiners haven't confirmed whether or not she was shot in the back.

-- And, I think one is still in mortal fear of one's life within the same time period that the crime in occurring.

-- That they were said to be leaving doesn't mean they weren't coming back, and they'd already proven themselves to be a deadly threat.

I feel bad for the old dude. I don't feel so bad for either of the criminals and I hope justice prevails.

---

The kicker is that people who think that the criminals are the victims and the media who similarly portray violent burglars as victims are, indirectly, perpetuating this type of crime by excusing it.

It's unbelievable.



Here's a CBS headline, for example: "Cops: Calif. man, 80, fatally shot pregnant home intruder"

Fuck. Really, CBS? How about The Young Turks?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

[randys1]

1. Absolutely, kill a running away pregnant woman...got it...

America, wake up.

You are broken, you have your priorities and your morals completely fucked up...

You are confusing things more and more, when you first learned of things like self defense and so on, you were taught that if someone is

RUNNING AWAY

you dont need to shoot them

[Duckhunter935]

2. well she was not pregnant

and has not been released where she was shot.

Large criminal history for these two, do not do the crime do not get shot. Very easy.

[randys1]

5. he didnt know she wasnt pregnant and so what, pregnant or not, you dont NEED

to shoot someone running away

Why do I have to say that out loud?

[Duckhunter935]

11. maybe she should not of beat up an old man with a gun

and broken his bones at that

[NYC_SKP]

4. She wasn't pregnant. And maybe she should have picked a different career.

The old dude had just been beaten by them, bones broken, and terrorized.

I'll cut him some slack, she shouldn't have been there.

Whatever sad things happened in her earlier life I'm all for addressing, but once she crosses the line into beating up old men, a different solution is in order.

Violent criminals need to be taken out of the community.

[randys1]

6. Of course they need to be taken out of the community, but not killed

only idiotic barbarians who want to make things worse would want that

[NYC_SKP]

15. No, but one should know that if you kick a dog it might bite you, and....

...if you break in to a home and beat a person up, you might terrorize traumatize them to the point that they will want to shoot you, and then you might die.

The shooting can't be justified as "an OK thing to do", but it's not criminal, it's a direct outcome of their crime.

Now there's a sort of Darwinian thing going on. Stupidity or amorality or sociopathic factors led to her death.

But I still feel the loss; something in her earlier life probably made her this way.

Maybe better early childhood nutrition or education, or prevention of negatives would have made a difference.

But we also have to wonder why, if she and the other one were past offenders, they were allowed to be out committing crimes.

[MADem]

7. I am not defending the elderly guy, but you need to read the material. She was NOT pregnant.

They'd also beaten the crap out of the old man, to the point of broken bones. It was the 4th time he'd been robbed.

Police say the couple beat and threw the elderly man to the ground, causing injuries, which included a broken collarbone, cuts and bruises.

[randys1]

10. again, whether she was or wasnt pregnant has nothing to do with this

running away

equals

no need to shoot and kill

[Duckhunter935]

12. you sir are the one that said she was pregnant

if it makes no difference, why did you lie and say in your response?

[randys1]

24. dont be RIDICULOUS the STORY said she was pregnant I was only REPEATINg

WHAT THE GOD DAMN STORY SAID

i said and will repeat, her being pregnant means nothing, you dont shoot people running away

DONT CALL ME A LIAR

[Duckhunter935]

25. here is your responce to the OP

"Absolutely, kill a running away pregnant woman...got it..."

Please show me where in the story this quote is from since you say you quoted the article. Since this is what you said I assume her being pregnant meant something as you as nowhere in that post did you say it was not relevant.
I did find this part that says she was not in the story linked too

The woman was not pregnant, Ed Winter of the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office told CNN on Friday.

[randys1]

26. i was responding to the well known report that she was pregnant, if the report in the thread q

Last edited Sat Jul 26, 2014, 05:05 PM - Edit history (1)

corrected that info, so be it

it is not relevant either way, the original story, which is all I had read, said she was pregnant

calling me a liar is an attempt to create shit when you know that is obviously what i was referring to

just dont respond to me again and we will be fine

i dont like being called a liar when i obviously was not lying but mistaken as having not read the most recent article

HUGE DIFFERENCE

[Lurks Often]

29. If you only read the original story

maybe you should have read the recent updates before commenting and proving your ignorance of the latest facts of the case.

[randys1]

31. The only ignorance is that any american still owns a gun

ignorant and childish

[Lurks Often]

32. To bad for you that the President, Congress and the Supreme Court all disagree

You are on the losing side, an overwhelming number of court decisions favor gun owners and the majority of state legislatures are passing more and more pro-gun laws.

[randys1]

33. Still an absolute and obvious fact that gun ownership is both unnecessary and immature

and the advanced societies on the planet agree with me

Guns are a childish way for grown men to try and prove they are real men...

Armies and navies are childish ways for powerful grown men to prove they have a bigger dick than the other guy with the other army...

basic stuff

pysch 101

[NYC_SKP]

34. So, to some, is pot-smoking. Yet, I won't deny anyone's right to smoke it.

Advanced societies? Oh bullshit, I'll admit we aren't as advanced as many, but I use healthcare and income disparity and education as my measure of them.

Meanwhile, you're fixating on guns, and it's a definite FAIL.

I'm sorry to read about your sexist opinion that guns are about men and your odd reference to penis sizes.

[randys1]

35. LOL oh my god, sexist...you are consistently amusing, to a point...

Yeah, you dont use gun deaths as a measure of a mature society...odd

[NYC_SKP]

36. OBTW, you left out "white" and "Christian" and "Southern" from your ethnocentric rant.

And, gun deaths are slice of the pie, but mature observers see then as a symptom of deeper problems and seek to solve those problems rather than seek to ban guns everywhere and then do a dance.

Maybe a colored ribbon campaign would help!

I gotta go now.

[randys1]

37. deeper problems?

deeper problems?

THE GUNS ARE THE FIRST PROBLEM, you eliminate them first, then treat the mental illness and poverty that causes the misuses of them...

this is common sense

[Jenoch]

41. What is your plan to eliminate guns and what have you done to

achieve your goal, other than posting on internet message boards?

[randys1]

42. i vote for people who like me understand guns are silly, problem is very few politicians

can get elected with that mature view as most americans are immature on many subjects, guns included


your question implies that i should be forcing people to give up guns somehow

[Jenoch]

56. "...your question implies that i should be forcing people to give up guns somehow..."

You have posted several times that you wish for guns to be eliminated. I simply asked what your plan was and what you were doing to implement your plan to 'eliminate guns'. It was a simple question and you have answered it...you are doing literally nothing other than voting and posting on an internet message board. That seems lazy to me.

[DonP]

43. Simple answer, not a damn thing

This "experienced" anti-gun poster disappeared when asked what they were actually doing in the real world.

They don't go to the town hall meetings in Illinois with the Mom's Demand Something orOother and don't seem to do much but whine online.

Very ineffective whining at that.

Here's just one example of them trying to bluff their way through a conversation, then vanishing when questioned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=149420

[Lurks Often]

48. You appear to not understand the definition of "fact"

You stated an opinion, one that is not being upheld in the real world as evidenced by gun control extremists repeated losses in court cases and legislative sessions.

You are of course entitled to believe in an imaginary world that bears no resemblance to reality, but that doesn't mean the rest of us are going to agree with uninformed opinions.

[randys1]

49. so because people want to play with guns and accidentally shoot each other

that fact makes the desire to have and use guns a mature decision?

are you confused by what a percentage of people believe vs what is the ultimate best case scenario of the human condition, which clearly includes no guns...? are you confused by what a bunch of yahoos want to play with vs a mature person's opinion?



have a nice day, I dont think you could ever understand what I have to say about guns and those who play with them


YES, gun ownership is immature, YES I even like to shoot guns and it is a toy, but i see the problems guns present so I am willing to give up the fun they offer to offset the harm

that, is what we call a mature position

the FACT that too many Of you gun folks dont get that, i cant change that...wish i could

[Lurks Often]

50. I understand you completely

You are someone who lives some naive fantasy land where the belief that some how making guns magically disappear will suddenly turn the world into a utopia, instead of the far more likely world where the young and strong have a free reign to victimize those weaker then them.

A fear of an object is hardly the act of mature person and having read numerous posts of yours, I don't think you understand the definition of "mature" any more then you understand the definition of "fact".

And unlike you, I am not so arrogant as to think that I should decide what "the ultimate best case scenario of the human condition, which clearly includes no guns". Anyone who believes that they should have the power to determine what other people can do and can own, should never, ever be put in a position of responsibility.

[NaturalHigh]

53. Cool story bro.

[MADem]

44. You didn't even read the OP--that's where you let down your side.

It's right there--how hard is it to read the OP, even if you skip clicking the link?

The woman was not pregnant, Ed Winter of the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office told CNN on Friday.

You did misstate the facts, in response to an OP that clearly said the opposite of what you claimed.

Rather than accuse others of calling you a liar (and all they are doing is correcting YOUR rather blatant error of fact), you should simply admit that you didn't even bother to read the OP, you posted based on the thread headline alone, and move on.

That would make a "huge difference" in how people regard your remarks.

And, FWIW, I am a fan of gun control.

[randys1]

45. THE motive of those calling me a liar are obvious, pro gun this pro gun that

the fact that someone RUNNING AWAY was shot is the point, period

and I am not in favor of gun control, I am in favor of gun elimination

i did admit at one point that i hadnt read the most recent article

someone who cares about guns as an issue would say

"you didnt read the latest report so you are technically wrong about her being pregnant but I am in total agreement with you that whether she was pregnant or not doesnt matter"

someone who really cared about the issue wouldnt be attacking me...not complicated

and if you dont think i am a credible poster, stop reading my posts and stop responding to them...pretty easy solution

if this forum i am posting in is pro gun and I am new here so I dont know, then all of this is my fault, i have zero interest speaking to anyone who is pro gun, so i will stay out of this forum from now on

i will stick to GD from now on and a few others, problem solved

no religion and no guns for me, no thanks

[MADem]

46. The fact of the matter is, you didn't read the OP--you're in a fix of your very own making.

Best bet in that instance is to acknowledge this and move on, instead of flailing about and trying to blame others for YOUR failure to read before replying.

Instead, you start telling me how you think I ought to feel about this issue. That's a non-starter, too. You've just lost an ally with that kind of approach.

Are you starting to get a sense that the criticism you're receiving is fair? Because if you're not, you really should.

If you really don't want me to read your posts, I'd suggest you stop replying to me--that will solve your problem entirely.

[randys1]

47. Making this shooting about me, is brilliant and a well known tactic

i said it once, yesterday i ADMITTED i had not read the latest report that did NOT change the fact that someone shot someone else RUNNING AWAY

your insistence on defending the gun folks who have made me the issue and not the shooting, tells me what i need to know about you and yes we should both stop responding to each other

have a great life...



you see, i am not here to justify my position on things, i am here to make a difference, I make mistakes all the time but I am almost always on the right side of the issue if not always....

mistakes? shit, i dont know about you but i make them everyday...

wait a minute, YES she WAS pregnant

or at least as far as the SHOOTER knew she was, which is all that matters, so he didnt care if she was or she wasnt

and again, it should NOT matter if she said she was, or was or wasnt pregnant, she was RUNNING AWAY ...

the fact that I have to DEFEND that position here at DU is troubling...

[MADem]

51. No, that's not accurate either. No one "made" this about you--you misstated the facts and got

angry when people noticed. Instead of acknowledging your error, you put your back up and lashed out at those who pointed this out. That's why you're in this corner; you painted YOURSELF into it.

It isn't about "the latest report"--it's about the doggone OP. The post that started the thread. It's RIGHT THERE. I even cut/pasted it for you.

I know people don't always click on the LINKS in a post that starts a thread, but it's a good idea to read the post, at least, and not just the headline. That's what you didn't do, apparently.

You won't "make a difference" here if you continue to do that sort of thing. You'll simply be marginalized, even if you are coming from a position that many here support.

And for all you know, perhaps the shooter ID'd her as a liar. He may have regarded her declaration with the same degree of veracity had she said "I'm the Queen of England."

You don't have a reputation for actually reading the reports--as you've demonstrated, here--so I'm not about to take your word on pretty much anything.

As for the "running away" business, church is out on that too. You aren't "defending" anything when you get the basic facts wrong, and that can be mitigated by reading before replying.

You'd do well to stop, take a minute, and read before commenting in the future. That's the point I am trying to make to you. You can take that advice onboard or you can ignore it. If you do the latter, don't be surprised if you have more conversations with other people that sound like this one.

[MADem]

17. You aren't the old guy. You have no idea what was in his mind when he pulled the

trigger. I imagine he was in tremendous pain as a consequence of the broken collarbone; and at the age of eighty, who knows if he's suffering from some age-related issues of mental acuity?

That's what the police and prosecutor will decide. I can wait until they figure it out. No sense in trying to pass judgment based on incomplete information.

I will say that a good way to not get shot, in the back or elsewhere, is to not rob some old guy's house and beat on him and break his collarbone.

[sarisataka]

3. Had the shooting happened inside

I would be more willing to accept self defense at face value.

Since it was in the alley, indicating that he pursued her, I can understand charges being filed.

I have no problem with Grand Jury review of a shooting but if indictment is not found, that should close the case criminally and civilly.

[CBGLuthier]

8. Used to be a back shooter was shamed out of town.

Shooting a woman in the back is the action of a coward.

[DonP]

18. "Used to be" violent criminals were hung in the public square ...

... And you didn't have people making public excuses for sociopathic behavior based on some twisted version of empathy for violent criminals.

Ah, for the "good old days" huh?

[HockeyMom]

9. Revenge killing

Whether she was pregnant or not, is irrelevant. If they were FEELING his home, and were shot in the back, he should be up on charges. Running away means they are no longer a threat to him. You cannot use FUTURE threat as justifiable homicide.

I know some states consider it legal to shoot a fleeing burglar, but California??? Probably not. Sorry, I don't have any sympathy for this man just because he is OLD. We hear far too much about old men thinking because of their age, they can do whatever they want with a gun.

[IronGate]

13. He wasn't just old,

they beat him up so badly that he had broken bones, including his collarbone.
But so what, the rights of the aggressors come first, according to you and a couple of others here.

[NYC_SKP]

16. Apparently so. Who knows that they weren't going out to their car to get a gun and come back.

It seems like some people just can't find a shred of empathy for the victim here, they automatically back the actual violent criminals.

Crazy shit, man.

[beevul]

19. I could have swore I read somewhere this duo robbed the fella previously...

I could have swore I read somewhere this duo robbed the fella previously, as in repeatedly.

If true, its no stretch that the old fella concluded they'd be back, and why.

[gejohnston]

22. Under California's SYG

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&gt has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”

[rocktivity]

20. "Greer managed to grab his gun and fire at the suspects, CAUSING them to flee

Last edited Sun Oct 5, 2014, 04:20 PM - Edit history (1)

through the garage and into the alley, police said."

He was able to retrieve his gun from another part of the house. They fled when they saw that he had a gun. And he pursued them.

I think the DA has to file charges against Greer. But since no jury would ever convict a white 80-year old victim of robbery and violence, maybe a plea deal can be worked out. Charge the surviving robber with felony murder and leave it at that.


rocktivity

[NYC_SKP]

21. It's difficult to imagine the state of mind of a person who's been beaten and terrorized.

.

I saw that, the first shots were in the home after which he pursued them outside. Defense might argue that, in his mind, the threat existed throughout the chase, I don't know.

I can picture a jury nullification event if this goes to trial, and I don't think his race makes a difference, though his age might work in his favor.

No winners in this one, again.

[gejohnston]

23. the defendants were white too

Also, the judicial system is sexist in favor of women. Under California's SYG, he can pursue if they still pose a threat.

[gejohnston]

27. Update

her accomplice has been charged with felony murder.

[Eleanors38]

38. Good. He needs... The Warehouse.

[rocktivity]

57. Well, that was going to happen, anyway

If anyone dies in the course of your committing a felony, you've also committed a murder. And if Mr. Greer is charged, I hope Mr. Adams is also charged as his accomplice.


rocktivity

[Starboard Tack]

28. Regardless of her being pregnant or not, or California law, it was not justifiable homicide.

You don't shoot people in the back as they are fleeing, period. Sure, I feel for the old guy, but he was wrong, even if he suffered broken bones and even if they had burglarized him ten times before. Three wrongs don't make a right.
That said, I'm sure he'll walk or get a very light sentence. He was definitely a victim.

He should be prosecuted, else shooting people in the back will become the norm.

[gejohnston]

30. California's stand your ground

“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&gt has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”

If I understand it correctly, if his lawyer can show that they still represented a threat, he might have a chance.
Her accomplice has been charged with felony murder, DA is still pondering manslaughter charges. Of course, all of this depends on minute but important details that won't get reported. You also can't depend on the media to honestly or competently report these stories accurately. History proves that. That being the case, I'm not going to base my opinion on one media account before the investigation is complete. Even then, I'm not counting on the media to do it correctly.
In general you, me, and Andrew Branca (who is probably the best self defense lawyer, certainly an expert on the subject):

Absent an imminent threat–and especially after aggressor withdraws from fight and communicates withdrawal–continued use of force is NOT justified.

His words, not mine.

[Eleanors38]

39. I see your point, and if the B&E was a one-time crime

there could be a problem with the Victim's actions. But the previous break-ins (robbers often come back and become emboldened to get a little more), and the demonstrated violence of the perpetrators surely weighed heavily on the victim, and will be a big factor in whether or not to pursue charges. Personally, I wouldn't pursue charges.

[Starboard Tack]

40. I would pursue charges.

I think a jury should decide. Regardless of the mitigating factors, of which there are several, what he did was wrong. The pregnant or not thing is irrelevant. All that matters is, did he have reason to believe his life was in danger when he fired? Period.

We can't apply personal sympathy when deciding whether to prosecute or not. If the law was clearly broken, then a prosecution is appropriate. This isn't a speeding ticket. It's a homicide.
As much as I sympathize with this guy, we can't give a green light to shooting fleeing criminals in the back, even if they are carrying off the family jewels.

[Politicalboi]

52. So this injured man shot and killed a fleeing criminal

I guess he wasn't too injured to shoot his gun. And what if this injured man shot his gun and because of his injuries, he shot an innocent person instead. He never should have shot them while they were running away. If they came back, then fire away. This old man belongs in jail, and the boyfriend should get a lighter sentence for the shooting, since it wasn't a legal shooting.

[NYC_SKP]

58. The boyfriend needs to go away forever, life sentence.

Repeat violent offender, that's all I need to know.

To make matters worse, his partner in crime died as a consequence of his and her action.

Had they fled when the man came home, it might be a different matter.

But that's not what they did when he came home, now is it?

Read the story.

[FarPoint]

55. I say charge all of them.

All parties were in the wrong.