California man - 80 - shoots and kills pregnant woman during home invasion

[charl_huntress]

I have no words.

 

[ban768]

Executions are not self defence. She was no threat to him once he shot her the first time.

Probably because of his age nothing will happen to him. But they should take his weapons away.

Wrong. My father who served in the military till he retired was always taught if you shoot, shoot to kill. One in the heart and one in the head. Otherwise the danger of the person attacking you is still there.

 

[Marvolo]

Wrong. My father who served in the military till he retired was always taught if you shoot, shoot to kill. One in the heart and one in the head. Otherwise the danger of the person attacking you is still there.

Well she was in the act of fleeing so there was no need to do the double tap.

 

[terry78]

These topics really show just how different our mindsets are on here. The **** can't be swept under the rug though.

 

[KevanG]

These also let us yell at each other over these differences.

 

[Feenix]

Wrong. My father who served in the military till he retired was always taught if you shoot, shoot to kill. One in the heart and one in the head. Otherwise the danger of the person attacking you is still there.

Maybe if you're in a combat situation and the person you're shooting at is shooting back at you.

This woman was unarmed and on the ground pleading for her life. This was an execution. It doesn't matter if the law states the conditions for self defence, the man admitted that he did it to teach the other guy a lesson. By his own account, his life was not in danger and he did not shoot the woman in self defence, it was for revenge. A prosecutor would bring this up in court and the man would have no leg to stand on.

 

[Schlosser85]

It didn't say she was on the ground, she was running away.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Wrong. My father who served in the military till he retired was always taught if you shoot, shoot to kill. One in the heart and one in the head. Otherwise the danger of the person attacking you is still there.

This has nothing to do with this situation. This person was no longer attacking, they were fleeing. so the "IF" in the "if you shoot." does not apply since he should not have shot at all since he was no longer being attacked and was not in danger.

 

[Feenix]

It didn't say she was on the ground, she was running away.

Fair enough. Either way, she begged for her life and he shot an unarmed woman who was running away from him. My point still stands and this goes well beyond self defence. The papers said the prosecution will have to determine if the man's life was in imminent danger. When he was in his home and thrown to the ground, I would say his life was in danger (and had he shot the duo during this time, it would have been justified). But once they fled, his life was not threatened and self defence does not cover someone who shoots someone else so they won't commit a future crime. He had to fear for his life in that moment and by his own accounts, he did not. So self defence is out.

 

[charl_huntress]

Ahh....I see some people never learn.

 

[charl_huntress]

Then inform a mod and they will handle it.

Done

 

[KevanG]

Ahh....I see some people never learn.

Like I keep telling people, if you go by the idea that everyone in the world is an idiot then almost everything anyone does makes sense.

 

[charl_huntress]

Like I keep telling people, if you go by the idea that everyone in the world is an idiot then almost everything anyone does makes sense.

I might have to join you in that outlook.

 

[Feenix]

Ahh....I see some people never learn.

That's rich

The law is clear on self defence. Imminent danger needs to be there. Fleeing, unarmed, pleading suspects are not a threat. No reasonable person would have feared for their life in this situation. It's not that hard to understand. Whether or not you think he's justified is beside the point. He shot someone in the back. That's not self defence. I really can't make it any clearer than that. It has to be reasonable force. Shooting someone in the back is not reasonable.

From http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html#3.1

Defense of property California self-defense law also encompasses the right to use force to defend your property from harm. This right covers both real property (like a house or land) and personal property (money, cars, jewelry, etc.). 32

In order to use the “defense of property” version of self-defense as a legal defense, you must be able to show that:

1. The threat of harm to your property was imminent (that is, immediate), and
2. You used only reasonable force to defend your property. 33

Reasonable force. I'll repeat. Reasonable force.

Like I keep telling people, if you go by the idea that everyone in the world is an idiot then almost everything anyone does makes sense.

That applies to a couple people in this thread.

 

[charl_huntress]

You guys need to read the penal code. If you can't understand it..... Well I tried.

 

[Feenix]

You guys need to read the penal code. If you can't understand it..... Well I tried.

And you're not a lawyer. Reasonable force needs to be used.

 

[charl_huntress]

Here is CA's penal code. This is the law. Notice it makes no mention of fleeing. It only specifies that the homeowner has the right to be afraid and the right to use deadly force.


• Penal Code Section 198.5 – “Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.” __________________

The imminent peril IS the home invasion. Notice it doesn't mention if the intruder has a weapon, or if they are running away. The threat to life is the invasion itself. You can try to parse that how you like, but the law is clear and it has a few precedents that can be easily found on the internet.

But the law says if they were still on the property, then deadly force is an option. That's why where she was at the time of the shooting is important.

Read the penal code again and again.

All this...lol

 

[Figs]

It didn't say she was on the ground, she was running away.

I haven't kept up on this story since it first hit but have they made a statement as to if she was really pregnant or not?

According to the report she said "i'm pregnant" while running away. I just find it a weird thing to say when you're not facing the guy and you're in the motion of running. It would seem to make more sense if you're standing there or on your knees with the gun in your face. I'm just curious as to if she was really pregnant because I think she might have been saying that just to try to save her ass.

 

[charl_huntress]

I think he probably did confront them with the gun. I can only imagine that's when she said it. Right at the outset. As for rather she was preggers, they are going to perform an autopsy.

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,

2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,

3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, ...

[3] So in order to establish that shooting the guy in your home was justified you will have to demonstrate that the requirements of Penal Code 197 were satisfied. Penal Code 198.5, California's Castle Doctrine, creates a presumption that can make it easier for you to establish, as your affirmative defense, that your act of violence was justified. Section 198.5 reads as follows:
Quote
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.

[4] A presumption is a rule that affects evidence and burden of proof in court. Ordinarily, one who asserts something in court will have the burden of proving, by presenting good evidence, that certain facts supporting that assertion are true. But sometimes the law might allow one of those facts to be accepted as true without specific evidence of that fact if the party with the burden of proof shows that certain other facts are true. So the party might be entitled under a rule of law to have fact A presumed to be true if facts B, C, and D are shown to be true, even if the party produces no direct evidence that fact A is true.

[5] So with the presumption of Penal Code 198.5, you would not have to show specifically that you, "...held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household..." if you can show both that (1) the person you shot "...unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence...."; and (2) you "...knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred...."

[6] But if you can't establish both that the guy you shot "unlawfully and forcibly entered...", and that you had reason to believe it, you don't get the presumption and must establish justification the harder way. (Suppose the guy you shot was your daughters boyfriend who she let in?)

[7] But note that any legally available presumption is rebuttable. That means that even though one may be entitled to the benefit of a presumption as to a certain fact, the other side may try to prove that fact is not actually true. So, for example, even if you might have been entitled to a presumption that you were reasonably in fear for your life, the prosecutor could put on evidence and try to show that under the particular circumstances, a reasonable person could not have been reasonably in fear for his life.

Pretty much all Castle Doctrine laws from other States that I've read are substantially the same. They provide a presumption of reasonable fear of great bodily harm in a number of situations, such as someone breaking into your home; and all require that the actor know or have reason to believe that the guy against whom the force is used did the thing that creates the presumption. The main difference is that some extend beyond the home, e. g., an occupied vehicle.

 

[Feenix]

All this...lol

Read my post again. Reasonable force is a requirement. Just because you are reading only the penal code and nothing else, doesn't mean that there are no other circumstances.

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/506.html

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of violence to (himself/ herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant's belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, then the [attempted] killing was not justified.

This is from another legal website. I trust the lawyers who actually witness these cases in court over you. If the lawyers say a person must use reasonable force to defend against an attack/robbery, then I believe them.

As the duo was running away from the man and the woman was begging him to not shoot, the man used unreasonable force.

 

[charl_huntress]

See above.

 

[Feenix]

See above.

From that article you posted:

[7] But note that any legally available presumption is rebuttable. That means that even though one may be entitled to the benefit of a presumption as to a certain fact, the other side may try to prove that fact is not actually true. So, for example, even if you might have been entitled to a presumption that you were reasonably in fear for your life, the prosecutor could put on evidence and try to show that under the particular circumstances, a reasonable person could not have been reasonably in fear for his life

No reasonable person would have feared for their life in the midst of CHASING two people down an alley. The man was NOT in danger, there was no imminent danger to himself or his property. The duo was fleeing and the woman was pleading for her life. He says she pleaded for her life and he shot her anyways. Not once did he say he was scared for his life.

Under these circumstances, he would not be able to claim self defence.

 

[Feenix]

We're going around in circles on this one. It's giving me a headache. I'm out of here until there are new developments in the story.

 

[charl_huntress]

From that article you posted:



No reasonable person would have feared for their life in the midst of CHASING two people down an alley. The man was NOT in danger, there was no imminent danger to himself or his property. The duo was fleeing and the woman was pleading for her life. He says she pleaded for her life and he shot her anyways. Not once did he say he was scared for his life.

Under these circumstances, he would not be able to claim self defence.

I don't think an 80 year old man chased them down in an alley. Also, the OP article does not mention that the first shots were in the house. He didn't chase her down

 

[Hal_Jordan]

The home invasion was over and they were no longer on the property, so the laws you're citing are invalid.

And it doesn't matter what you THINK happened. He shot her dead in the alley. He said it himself.