80 Year old Man attacked by burglars, One shot.

[44 AMP]

Frank, I understand, and agree completely. That is what one should do.

However the ornery corner of my mind can't help but picture an old codger (me? if I make it another 20 years), deliberately sending the media on a wild goose chase, and being proud of it.

If I had the guts to do something like that (not likely) I would happily swear in court that I did it to screw with them, while telling the police the truth. And pointing out that I told the police the truth FIRST, and was consistent talking to them.

The media reporting a story when they don't bother to check the facts isn't my problem. I was once involved in an accidental shooting (I saw it happen), at a ranch. The media ran a story, got several details wrong. They never spoke to anyone who was there!

While I fully agree it would probably be more trouble that it was worth to spin the media and expose them for what they really are, I can see the temptation to do so, as a "last Hurrah", particularly if one were in a life situation where you figured you didn't have all that much to lose.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Frank Ettin:

The best way to handle the media is a firm, and consistent, "no comment."

Yes indeed. That advice has no practical expiration date, and it also applies to friends, neighbors, co-workers, and everyone else except one's own attorney.

[campingnights]

Glad to see it turned out well for the homeowner, it could have turned out bad indeed. If I had been on the jury, the jury would have been educated on "Jury Nullification". Very few folks know that the jury actually can nullify the law in specific cases. The Judges and Prosecuter generally won't tell them about it either.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by campingnights:

If I had been on the jury, the jury would have been educated on "Jury Nullification". Very few folks know that the jury actually can nullify the law in specific cases. The Judges and Prosecuter generally won't tell them about it either.

There has been no jury on which you might have served, and unless something new arises, there will not be one.

The reports of evidence reportedly available to the charging authority would seen to indicate that conviction would not have been likely.

BUT: had this bluster, as reported in the Huffington Post, described the shooting correctly

"Greer told KNBC-TV he shot Miller twice in the back as she ran away."

" She says, 'Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant — I'm going to have a baby,' and I shot her anyway," Greer said in the interview Wednesday."

"The homeowner was able to get to another room where he grabbed a gun and returned to open fire on the suspects. "

"They fled through the garage and into an alley, and Greer gave chase, firing at them again outside, McDonnell said."

"Miller was hit, collapsed in the alley and died at the scene, McDonnell said."

" "The lady didn't run as fast as the man, so I shot her in the back twice," Greer told the TV station. "She's dead ... but he got away."

...it would have been crystal clear to just about any thinking person that, under the laws of virtually any jurisdiction on Earth, that the shooting had been a criminal act.

I cannot imagine why any reasonable person would suggest the nullification of long-standing laws that prevent individual citizens and mobs from deciding guilt, passing sentence, and executing said sentence. We charge prosecutors, judges, and fair and impartial juries with those duties.

[TimSr]

Assuming that the media account is correct, even when supposedly "quoting" the man, is the first mistake in trying to make sense of any court decision.

For some reason, the testimony in the Daryl Wilson case did not even remotely sound like the media accounts that we all heard. People protested nationally because the grand jury made a decision on the evidence rather than the media reports. Look at the media accounts of any other high profile case, and compare it to what the courts based their decisions on. Personally, I would not second guess a jury's decision, without reviewing the evidence and testimony they heard.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TimSr:

Personally, I would not second guess a jury's decision, without reviewing the evidence and testimony they heard.

Wise counsel.

Of course, in Greer's case, no evidence has been presented to a jury, and unless something happens to reverse the decision to not charge, none ever will.

[FireForged]

I would certainly give someone the benefit of the doubt if this occurred inside the home but if he shot the girl outside.. I think that may be very problematic for him.

[JungleBoogey]

A 'Battle Buddy' once confided to me "I used to dream of being a soldier and killing the enemy... now I have nightmares about it". Taking a human life ain't what it's all about and most of those who have done so will attest to that! By all means be prepared to DEFEND yourself when and if necessary but please don't look forward to it...

[gman3]

^^^AMEN!

[SHR970]

Ironically enough, I found through the Am. Rflmn this month that "no chartges filed". I was on travel in Dec. when the bird cage liners may have butried this story in sec. E pg. 30.

Read it...justice is being served. schadenfreude.

[zach_]

I didn't read the entire thread. I think he would not have had any red tape to deal with had he been living in Texas. California is different. Gotta obey the law even if you don't agree with it, or pay the price. It looks like they let him off. I doubt they would have let him slide if he were 25 years old.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zach_:

I didn't read the entire thread.

It is usually a good idea to do that.

I think he would not have had any red tape to deal with had he been living in Texas.

I do not know what you mean by "red tape", but all homicides in Texas a referred to a Grand Jury.

California is different.

Yep. No Grand Jury for this case.

Gotta obey the law even if you don't agree with it, or pay the price.

Yep.

It looks like they let him off. I doubt they would have let him slide if he were 25 years old.

I'll summarize it very briefly.

What the man said happened---bragging about it, no less--described a clear cut case of murder.

BUT--when the police investigated the facts, the forensic evidence showed that for some reason he had not told the truth, and that his use of deadly force had been lawfully justified.

A bizarre case....

[44 AMP]

I'll summarize it very briefly.

What the man said happened---bragging about it, no less--described a clear cut case of murder.

BUT--when the police investigated the facts, the forensic evidence showed that for some reason he had not told the truth, and that his use of deadly force had been lawfully justified.

A bizarre case....

It certainly didn't follow the general run of things today. Can't say with certainty, but I think I covered a plausible reason in my earlier post.

Sure, it could have backfired on him, the press really hates it when you show them to be fools. I think what they hate most is that you cannot do it without their active help. Which shows them to be twice the fool.

I've been watching reporters lie to us for a long time. I think it only fair that someone return the favor once in a while.

[bandaid1]

Now, some may say what this 80y/o did was wrong, others may say that he was justified. There is one fact that is irrefutable thou, which is; if you don't want to get shot dead burglarizing someone's home, don't burglarize homes.
My 0.02 cents.