• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Elderly man kills home invaders, drops best one liner ever.

That is not going to end well for him.

He shot her while she was fleeing, then shot her again while she pleaded.

This is not going to end well.


Edit: Spelling
 
Last edited:
California...admission to shooting woman after she was clearly not a threat...Mr. Greer can cross "become a convicted felon" off his bucket list..
 
Yeah, he gave them way too much information in the interview. "He was fast enough but she wasn't, so I shot her in the back."
 
Talking to other LE folks about this today, unfortunately he is screwed. Let this be advice to others out there, you fire a weapon for fear of your life and anything after that needs to be addressed by your attorney. This 80 year old man will spend the rest of his days behind bars. Here is his response in another article:

"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. She says “don’t shoot me, I’m pregnant, I’m gonna have a baby” and I shot her anyway. I shot her so that’s going to leave a message on his mind for the rest of his life".
 
In our concealed class we learned what to do if this happens......... Talk to no one but your attorney...... not even police.....he got himself in a mess........
 
"I shot her twice, she best be dead.

Good for him, he stopped 2 generations of scum and didn't even have to reload. Too bad he didn't get the Guy too.

The fetus, Cletus, was just along for the ride. I wouldn't rejoice in its death, and it isn't a dead-lock certainty that it was going to grow up to be a felon.

Mr. Magoo, unfortunately for him, has done it to himself again, and probably for the last time. Gunfire in defense of property, even removed from the premises, might work in some place like TX (where I think it's actually part of the law), but it's gonna fly like a vulture turd in SoCal, and even more so after admitting that she had revealed her pregnancy to him.
 
I'm really torn on how I feel about this. On one hand the dead woman represents two types of people I truly despise. A thief and someone who tries to take advantage of the elderly. But on the other hand this is NOT a state where you can shoot at fleeing people who are no longer a threat. Sounds to me this man let his anger get the better of him and cloud his already clouded judgment. Either way, he's screwed in this state.
 
In our concealed class we learned what to do if this happens......... Talk to no one but your attorney...... not even police.....he got himself in a mess........



same here, if im not mistaken you are NOT required to give your statement immediately to the detective. Tell them youd like to calm down before speaking, call an attorney and dont give any statement until then.
 
The fetus, Cletus, was just along for the ride. I wouldn't rejoice in its death, and it isn't a dead-lock certainty that it was going to grow up to be a felon.

Mr. Magoo, unfortunately for him, has done it to himself again, and probably for the last time. Gunfire in defense of property, even removed from the premises, might work in some place like TX (where I think it's actually part of the law), but it's gonna fly like a vulture turd in SoCal, and even more so after admitting that she had revealed her pregnancy to him.

And its a damn shame he will. I have zero tears for her and in my experience the apple doth not falleth far from the tree. I have had so much of my stuff stolen in the last ten years, I don't blame him one bit for his actions.
 
This will end up in an indictment...some kinda plea to one degree of manslaughter or another...noncustodial sentence, relinquishment of firearms rights....and everything his heirs would have received going to the guy who got away! (Assuming marriage)...or her other kin.
 
Texas Law about deadly force to protect property
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 (PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY); and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I agree he should have just kept quiet and talked with a lawyer. I wasn't there I don't know what was going through his head when he made his decisions. All we know is the aftermath.
 
same here, if im not mistaken you are NOT required to give your statement immediately to the detective. Tell them youd like to calm down before speaking, call an attorney and dont give any statement until then.
I'd go so far as letting the attorney do all the talking on my behalf.

No need to fake chest pains or say you need to calm down. Just tell them that you will not give any statement until consulting with legal counsel. That is all they need to know.
 
While legally it may not have been a good shoot, morally it was 100% clean.
 
poor guy, and of course the reporter who knew he was spilling his guts, just continued to press and press
 
You assume we bother with superstition to tell us right and wrong.

We don't have to assume anything about your willingness to offend someone else for cleaving to a code of morality intertwined with a belief system.
 
We don't have to assume anything about your willingness to offend someone else for cleaving to a code of morality intertwined with a belief system.

I have zero problems with a person believing in something and basing their life off that.
Its when you assume my morality and your morality must match because of your beliefs, that I draw the line.
 
Because they were leaving means absolutely fuck all. I have a nice scar on my forehead after I backed off from someone who, after starting a fight, cried mercy. I relaxed and then he came back. My mistake. One Friday night in 1999 I got a call to let me know one of my childhood friends was dead after confronting an intruder with a pistol. He let the guy leave, but the intruder returned just minutes later, after the police had been called, and shot my friend in the head. In life and death situations you finish them.
 
You assume we bother with superstition to tell us right and wrong.

I didn't ask for a religious text. I asked for any text. Federalist papers, writings from constitutional conventions, fore fathers letters, or Mills, hell anything work for me.

Sent from my Sega Dreamcast using Tapatalk
 
I didn't ask for a religious text. I asked for any text. Federalist papers, writings from constitutional conventions, fore fathers letters, or Mills, hell anything work for me.

Sent from my Sega Dreamcast using Tapatalk

Ask the native Americans how the united states government feels about killing women and children.
 
I didn't ask for a religious text. I asked for any text. Federalist papers, writings from constitutional conventions, fore fathers letters, or Mills, hell anything work for me.

Sent from my Sega Dreamcast using Tapatalk

Ask the native Americans how the united states government feels about killing women and children.

He asked for you to provide a textual justification for committing an execution after the fact of a felonious assault, not to throw stones at the sins of some of our forefathers.
 
The man was 80 and this has happened to him before, not saying it was the right thing to do, however I can understand his frustration.
 
If this elderly honest hard working man gets convicted then Commiefornia is just saying to every scum bag out there that its ok to attack, rob, rape, pillage the elderly. I for one will be disgusted. I think they should give him a medal and 500 dollars cash and put it on every news station that whoever shoots any criminals while they are committing a crime will be rewarded. Bet the crime rate drops 80% fast.
 
Judgement is a gift not given to many and poorly executed by most.
 
I would much rather have the 80 yr old guy as a neighbor than the bitch or her dead fetus.
 
We disagree on that. I'm have trouble finding it in Christ's teachings also. Maybe you could point me to any text that says it's OK...

Sent from my Sega Dreamcast using Tapatalk

I don't feel the need to justify myself.
 
While legally it may not have been a good shoot, morally it was 100% clean.

NO it´s not morally 100 procent clean, quite the opposite I should say.

However when the couple as in them both, jumped the elderly gentleman, the broke his collarbone and hurt him pretty darn good, had I been his counsel I would have pressed that there "propensity" can not spell that word for violence had the old man in a stat where he felt that he was under imminent danger of more violence even though the criminals appeared to be leaving.

One just can not go around gunning down people and then set a second round in them to make sure there dead just beacause they have commited a robbery, and especially not in the back and even more so the finishing off shot. /Chris
 
Im with MTT, whether theyre begging or not doesnt mean theyre not a threat, especially if youre 80 years old. She got exactly what she asked for. If she didnt want to be shot, she should not have invaded the man`s home.

Before everyone says "PROTECT THE WOMAN", they can be just as deceptive and dangerous as a man.
 
I believe the old man is doing a good job of making certain his kids don't force him into a rest home with a bunch of old senile grumps. Not to mention the cost savings.
 
I'm really torn on how I feel about this.


Not me. This guy was dead-ass WRONG and his actions have put each and every one of us in the spotlight, like it or not.

I'm a strong believer that we don't need more gun laws (actually we could do with a lot less) but when some wet-brain like this comes along you can rest assured that we're going to see more clamor for added laws. Let this idiot feel the full impact of the law on his wrinkled ass.

Perhaps he should have been a little more prepared to deal with the intruders while they were still "intruding".

Anyone want to put money on whether or not his Attorney claims "diminished capacity" due to his age?
 
I think this thread is a good study in human nature. The reactions to the event and his words here are telling. The problem this event highlights is much deeper than whether or not his actions were legal, and the heart of the issue has far reaching consequences for our society. This man will be prosecuted because the law criminalizes his behavior as he described it. But if we look at this case and all we take from it is "you can't do that" and don't look deeper then we are doomed to see much more of this and worse.

The issue is, we are living in a time of the destruction of the rule of law. That is the real cause of this event. Human nature being what it is means we will always have criminals. But men here agreed with each other to form laws, a government to administer those laws, and to delegate power to those authorities to ensure certain people, like the two criminals in this case, cannot use force to take what they want from others. That happy state, where men interact with each other according to mutually agreed rules rather than force, is the rule of law, and exists only as long as men have the perception that it exists.

The rule of law functions and remains as long as the authorities do what they have been delegated power from the people to do. But when that government uses that power to its own ends, to enrich and take more power from the people than they intended, to further their own selfish aims rather than the work of the people, people begin to lose faith in the rule of law and feel they must take matters into their own hands.

Consider this man. While it is possible he is just a man with no more regard for human life than the low life he shot, I doubt it. I suspect rather that he is a man that is tired of the system continually working against him rather than for him. A man embittered by the complete failure of government at large to uphold their end of the social contract. A man who watches lawlessness abound while he does his part paying taxes that are used against him as much as for him. A man who has followed the law and appealed to the authorities for help before to no effect.

When men perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the rule of law no longer exists they will invariably resort to their own measures to protect their rights and property. That leads to what we have here, a man who used his own judgment to solve the problem with no further regard to the social contract. This is a problem, whether or not his actions are morally justified, because even if this man chooses wisely the next may not, and we are right back to the anarchy and the rule of force that rule of law is intended to prevent.

When confidence in our elected representatives hovers in the single digits, a third of the country believes the president should be impeached, the majority of people believe even the judiciary is hyper partisan, and there is DAILY outrage at the behavior of the police then it is easy to conclude that the perception of the rule of law is eroding before our eyes. The only thing remarkable about this story is that it doesn't happen more often, and my prediction is that it certainly will happen more often. Anarchy, like a vacuum, will not naturally persist. People will have order, whether in contract with their neighbors through government, or through the force of their own will with weapon in hand.
 
Last edited:
I think this thread is a good study in human nature. The reactions to the event and his words here are telling. The problem this event highlights is much deeper than whether or not his actions were legal, and the heart of the issue has far reaching consequences for our society. This man will be prosecuted because the law criminalizes his behavior as he described it. But if we look at this case and all we take from it is "you can't do that" and don't look deeper then we are doomed to see much more of this and worse.

The issue is, we are living in a time of the destruction of the rule of law. That is the real cause of this event. Human nature being what it is means we will always have criminals. But men here agreed with each other to form laws, a government to administer those laws, and to delegate power to those authorities to ensure certain people, like the two criminals in this case, cannot use force to take what they want from others. That happy state, where men interact with each other according to mutually agreed rules rather than force, is the rule of law, and exists only as long as men have the perception that it exists.

The rule of law functions and remains as long as the authorities do what they have been delegated power from the people to do. But when that government uses that power to its own ends, to enrich and take more power from the people than they intended, to further their own selfish aims rather than the work of the people, people begin to lose faith in the rule of law and feel they must take matters into their own hands.

Consider this man. While it is possible he is just a man with no more regard for human life than the low life he shot, I doubt it. I suspect rather that he is a man that is tired of the system continually working against him rather than for him. A man embittered by the complete failure of government at large to uphold their end of the social contract. A man who watches lawlessness abound while he does his part paying taxes that are used against him as much as for him. A man who has followed the law and appealed to the authorities for help before to no effect.

When men perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the rule of law no longer exists they will invariably resort to their own measures to protect their rights and property. That leads to what we have here, a man who used his own judgment to solve the problem with no further regard to the social contract. This is a problem, whether or not his actions are morally justified, because even if this man chooses wisely the next may not, and we are right back to the anarchy and the rule of force that rule of law is intended to prevent.

When confidence in our elected representatives hovering in the single digits, a third of the country believes the president should be impeached, the majority of people believe even the judiciary is hyper partisan, and there is DAILY outrage at the behavior of the police then it is easy to conclude that the perception of the rule of law is eroding before our eyes. The only thing remarkable about this story is that it doesn't happen more often, and my prediction is that it certainly will happen more often. Anarchy, like a vacuum, will not naturally persist. People will have order, whether in contract with their neighbors through government, or through the force of their own will with weapon in hand.

Excellent, high-level view of the underlying problem.
 
Because when you start talking religion everything goes south and people get on soap boxes.

Yeah it is a tough one. Some people are just itching to drag their soap box into the conversation.

It isn't so much that we want to stand on soap boxes, as it is that we want to wedge them into the latrine trench that some of you have dug for yourselves and from which you're preaching this "Death Wish" sermon.
 
I think this thread is a good study in human nature. The reactions to the event and his words here are telling. The problem this event highlights is much deeper than whether or not his actions were legal, and the heart of the issue has far reaching consequences for our society. This man will be prosecuted because the law criminalizes his behavior as he described it. But if we look at this case and all we take from it is "you can't do that" and don't look deeper then we are doomed to see much more of this and worse.

The issue is, we are living in a time of the destruction of the rule of law. That is the real cause of this event. Human nature being what it is means we will always have criminals. But men here agreed with each other to form laws, a government to administer those laws, and to delegate power to those authorities to ensure certain people, like the two criminals in this case, cannot use force to take what they want from others. That happy state, where men interact with each other according to mutually agreed rules rather than force, is the rule of law, and exists only as long as men have the perception that it exists.

The rule of law functions and remains as long as the authorities do what they have been delegated power from the people to do. But when that government uses that power to its own ends, to enrich and take more power from the people than they intended, to further their own selfish aims rather than the work of the people, people begin to lose faith in the rule of law and feel they must take matters into their own hands.

Consider this man. While it is possible he is just a man with no more regard for human life than the low life he shot, I doubt it. I suspect rather that he is a man that is tired of the system continually working against him rather than for him. A man embittered by the complete failure of government at large to uphold their end of the social contract. A man who watches lawlessness abound while he does his part paying taxes that are used against him as much as for him. A man who has followed the law and appealed to the authorities for help before to no effect.

When men perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the rule of law no longer exists they will invariably resort to their own measures to protect their rights and property. That leads to what we have here, a man who used his own judgment to solve the problem with no further regard to the social contract. This is a problem, whether or not his actions are morally justified, because even if this man chooses wisely the next may not, and we are right back to the anarchy and the rule of force that rule of law is intended to prevent.

When confidence in our elected representatives hovers in the single digits, a third of the country believes the president should be impeached, the majority of people believe even the judiciary is hyper partisan, and there is DAILY outrage at the behavior of the police then it is easy to conclude that the perception of the rule of law is eroding before our eyes. The only thing remarkable about this story is that it doesn't happen more often, and my prediction is that it certainly will happen more often. Anarchy, like a vacuum, will not naturally persist. People will have order, whether in contract with their neighbors through government, or through the force of their own will with weapon in hand.

If he ends up with a smart attorney the attorney should use your comment as his closing arguments to the Jury. Then just ask the question "how many of you have the same feelings?"

His only hope would be for "Jury Nullification" and you make a great argument for it.
 
Anyone want to put money on whether or not his Attorney claims "diminished capacity" due to his age?

My thoughts exactly.. Not just on age but his interview will tend to support that he doesnt fully understand the impact of his actions or comments.
 
So someone is being charged with murder. And its her husband.

Yup, in California you can be charged with murder if your accomplice is killed while comitting a crime (holy shit they got something right.)

Police don't know if the old man will be charged yet.
 
I think this thread is a good study in human nature. The reactions to the event and his words here are telling. The problem this event highlights is much deeper than whether or not his actions were legal, and the heart of the issue has far reaching consequences for our society. This man will be prosecuted because the law criminalizes his behavior as he described it. But if we look at this case and all we take from it is "you can't do that" and don't look deeper then we are doomed to see much more of this and worse.

The issue is, we are living in a time of the destruction of the rule of law. That is the real cause of this event. Human nature being what it is means we will always have criminals. But men here agreed with each other to form laws, a government to administer those laws, and to delegate power to those authorities to ensure certain people, like the two criminals in this case, cannot use force to take what they want from others. That happy state, where men interact with each other according to mutually agreed rules rather than force, is the rule of law, and exists only as long as men have the perception that it exists.

The rule of law functions and remains as long as the authorities do what they have been delegated power from the people to do. But when that government uses that power to its own ends, to enrich and take more power from the people than they intended, to further their own selfish aims rather than the work of the people, people begin to lose faith in the rule of law and feel they must take matters into their own hands.

Consider this man. While it is possible he is just a man with no more regard for human life than the low life he shot, I doubt it. I suspect rather that he is a man that is tired of the system continually working against him rather than for him. A man embittered by the complete failure of government at large to uphold their end of the social contract. A man who watches lawlessness abound while he does his part paying taxes that are used against him as much as for him. A man who has followed the law and appealed to the authorities for help before to no effect.

When men perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the rule of law no longer exists they will invariably resort to their own measures to protect their rights and property. That leads to what we have here, a man who used his own judgment to solve the problem with no further regard to the social contract. This is a problem, whether or not his actions are morally justified, because even if this man chooses wisely the next may not, and we are right back to the anarchy and the rule of force that rule of law is intended to prevent.

When confidence in our elected representatives hovers in the single digits, a third of the country believes the president should be impeached, the majority of people believe even the judiciary is hyper partisan, and there is DAILY outrage at the behavior of the police then it is easy to conclude that the perception of the rule of law is eroding before our eyes. The only thing remarkable about this story is that it doesn't happen more often, and my prediction is that it certainly will happen more often. Anarchy, like a vacuum, will not naturally persist. People will have order, whether in contract with their neighbors through government, or through the force of their own will with weapon in hand.

I think there's a lot of people who feel this way, yet still feel guilty that they are committing thought crimes against what they have been indoctrinated with since birth, and are afraid to bring up the subject and even more afraid to entertain thoughts of what it implies for the future.

You have the backbone of society stuck between the criminally compulsive on one end and the criminally corrupt or criminally incompetent on the other.