What's new
By:
Filters

What Say You JazzFanz?

AlaskanAssassin said:
After being violently assaulted and receiving a broken collar-bone, I can't imagine it's easy to turn off that switch in your brain suggesting that you protect yourself at all costs. I would imagine while beating violently beaten he was worried they would kill him.

My thought would be that if you catch burglars in your home and they immediately run away, you can't shoot and kill them. They pose very little threat during the incident. Once they substantially attack you, you should have a right to retaliate during the incident regardless of their actions at that point.
Click to expand...

Yup.


£¥£
 
********. America's political correctness I used to find absurd.. even funny. Someone breaks in MY home and beats me down and breaks bones? ****'m. ... they need shot. I'm srs.
 
I'm def a shoot first ask questions later type'a dude if you break into my house and assault me.




£¥£
 
[size/HUGE] boobs [/size];879764 said:
How do you know he is out of danger? Maybe he will pass out soon they come back to finish job?
Click to expand...

Sorry I should have clarified.
I wouldn't convict him, but the law would say he was out of danger and by that he shouldn't have shot.
 
I could probably deal with a beat down, but whoopin on an 80 year old dude? Situational ethics FTJW (jury).

Besides, we talkin' low level manslaughter here. A younger man wouldn't get more than 5 for this, and the parole board would let ya *** off for good behavior, no matter what it actually was.
 
PKM said:
Someone breaks in MY home and beats me down
Click to expand...

Unpossible.
You were a wrestler back in da day.


Seriously doe, i agree. Put a cap in they ***
 
Usually I'd say he should be guilty of murder. There have been other instances like this where the guy was clearly out for revenge from being robbed and shot the robber in the back when it was clear the robee (I guess? Victim is another word too, though I would argue it applies to both parties) was out of danger. Normally agree that you can't just shoot someone in the back unless someone's life is in clear and immediate danger.

That being said, this guy was robbed repeatedly, they assaulted him pretty viciously, and he's 80. I'd probably acquit if I were on a jury, especially since society has a particular duty to protect the young and the elderly. I imagine the gunman just sped up what was an inevitable death for the lady due to her extremely poor life decisions.
 
Nate505 said:
Usually I'd say he should be guilty of murder. There have been other instances like this where the guy was clearly out for revenge from being robbed and shot the robber in the back when it was clear the robee (I guess? Victim is another word too, though I would argue it applies to both parties) was out of danger. Normally agree that you can't just shoot someone in the back unless someone's life is in clear and immediate danger.

That being said, this guy was robbed repeatedly, they assaulted him pretty viciously, and he's 80. I'd probably acquit if I were on a jury, especially since society has a particular duty to protect the young and the elderly. I imagine the gunman just sped up what was an inevitable death for the lady due to her extremely poor life decisions.
Click to expand...

But would you find the robber guilty of the murder though? That's the question. The 80 year old is not being charged, it's the robber who's being charged.
 
I think a little vigilante justice would go a long way in this country.
 
Both should be charged, it's up to the jury to see the difference and decide in accordance.
 
Were I the shooter, I would argue that the robbers were a danger to the community given the violence they had already shown in a home-invasion robbery.
 
When I first read the OP I thought to myself, "yes, the 80-yr old should be charged."
But seriously, an 80-yr old with a broken collarbone...how far can he chase a couple of 30-yr olds? In all likelihood he fired the shots from just outside his yard. Yes, the robbers were fleeing and he probably IS just outside the law. But I doubt a jury would convict.

AS for the murder charge against the male burglar, that's BS. Should be charged with burglary, assault and attempted murder of the victim. But I don't believe he should be charged with the murder of his accomplice. After all, if the 80-yr old is cleared or charges not filed, how can it be classified as a murder?
 
Core4 said:
When I first read the OP I thought to myself, "yes, the 80-yr old should be charged."
But seriously, an 80-yr old with a broken collarbone...how far can he chase a couple of 30-yr olds? In all likelihood he fired the shots from just outside his yard. Yes, the robbers were fleeing and he probably IS just outside the law. But I doubt a jury would convict.

AS for the murder charge against the male burglar, that's BS. Should be charged with burglary, assault and attempted murder of the victim. But I don't believe he should be charged with the murder of his accomplice. After all, if the 80-yr old is cleared or charges not filed, how can it be classified as a murder?
Click to expand...

I am very much in favor of charging the male robber with murder. He was in the act of commiting a felony when someone died. If he hadn't been commiting the felony then no one would have died.
 
Stoked said:
I am very much in favor of charging the male robber with murder. He was in the act of commiting a felony when someone died. If he hadn't been commiting the felony then no one would have died.
Click to expand...

You sound like the type who blame the slightly intoxicated driver for getting rammed into pedestrians by someone blowing through a red light 35 mph over the speed limit while texting and eating a hamburger.

Would not have happened if dat phelon wadn't drivin doe.
 
franklin said:
What kind of charges do you think the DA would push for? I mean in Utah, not CA.
Click to expand...

If they were in a mood to charge the homeowner? Maybe manslaughter. But I'd be surprised if he was. The thing to think on though is that home-invasion type robberies are usually very violent affairs, and it's not like the offenders do it once and quit. People who do home invasions are comfortable using violence. If you're talking about the surviving offender Aggravated Robbery at the least.
 
Stoked said:
I am very much in favor of charging the male robber with murder. He was in the act of commiting a felony when someone died. If he hadn't been commiting the felony then no one would have died.
Click to expand...

If the dude who shot someone didn't shoot someone, no one would have died.

The guy who beat someone up and robbed someone should be charged for beating someone up and robbing someone.
 
Core4 said:
When I first read the OP I thought to myself, "yes, the 80-yr old should be charged."
But seriously, an 80-yr old with a broken collarbone...how far can he chase a couple of 30-yr olds? In all likelihood he fired the shots from just outside his yard. Yes, the robbers were fleeing and he probably IS just outside the law. But I doubt a jury would convict.

AS for the murder charge against the male burglar, that's BS. Should be charged with burglary, assault and attempted murder of the victim. But I don't believe he should be charged with the murder of his accomplice. After all, if the 80-yr old is cleared or charges not filed, how can it be classified as a murder?
Click to expand...

Let's say the guy was robbing a pharmacy and a cop shot at him and missed. What if that bullet hits an innocent bystander. Does the guy bear responsibility for the innocent bystander?


Just asking cuz I'm pretty sure the innocent bystander is why laws like this exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top