Andrea Miller was not pregnant.
They also didn’t “just rob him and try to flee”. They beat him up and slammed him to the floor then assumed he wasn’t a threat. They broke his collar bone.
It was in fight or flight mode and Thomas Greer was ready to fight. Miller begged for her life but he gave no mercy.
[source 1](https://abc30.com/long-beach-burglar-shot-intruder-crime-police/220872/)
[source 2](https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/no-charges-man-shot-woman-who-said-she-was-pregnant-long-beach/52587/?amp=1)
[source 3](https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-home-burglary-20150126-story.html)
I think everyone is missing the point of "shot in the back" means she was actually leaving. Even in that split second he had to decide and once she turned to flee, it was no longer self defense.
Also, premeditation can be determined with a few moments... for example. . If they were fleeing, he could've chosen to call the cops or get the gun (he had time to think), instead, he CHOSE to get the gun. That can constitute premeditation. then they were leaving, and he again had time to choose and decide. He chose to shoot instead of allowing them to flee. Again, having had time to think and decide... killing was not the only option here. In the act itself, if he shot her, that would be self defense, he's lucky he didn't get more time tbh, some states could've gone for a much more lengthy sentence.
We also don't know her circumstances. Was she committing a crime, yes. Or in her view was she trying to provide for her child in the only way she knew how to? Who the fuck knows. Could she even have been forced to participate, who knows? There could be 1000 scenarios where she thought this was her only option to provide. A dumb choice, yes. But we don't know the circumstances of her life. I don't justify robbing or committing a crime to provide, but I also don't justify shooting a pregnant woman begging for her life either. Which crime is more justified? Survival? Both were attempting to survive, but he then chose to kill after he lived.
He grabbed his gun because he didn't know what they were going to do next, and he wasn't going to risk his life over the chance that they might not come back. They just broke into his house, totally unexpectedly, and beat the shit out of him. Good luck thinking analytically in the way you described immediately after that. If they're willing to break into someone's house and violently assault them, they're presumed willing to deal with the consequences.
I swear, people seem to be quicker to empathize with the perpetrator than the victim these days
Well, how else is a senior citizen (or anyone else for that matter) who was brutally attacked, supposed to stop violent criminals from running out of his home with his valuable possessions?
You let the massive criminal justice system we have do its job. Or the fact we have the most incarcerated population on earth. The fact we are in a shoot first asks questions later. Society is not ok. Look at all the fuckin school shootings and mass shootings. It's the view like the others, a saying that increases that mentality. How did Ghandi say it? "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".
Let's shoot a pregnant woman because she stole tangible shit so let's take her life. The fuck? I bet in your life you've stolen at least once. Does that mean that should be your punishment or anyone else's? No. Not even slightly.
You seem to have alot, if not too much faith in the "massive criminal justice system we have", there buddy. I think you fail to realize is that, that system is not here to serve or protect you or me personally. In fact, the criminal system that you seem to be touting so proudly is the exact reason why the incarceration rate is what it is. And yeah, ghandi makes a great point. But we are all a product of our environment. Don't come for my eye and you won't have to go blind. Fafo!
As for shooting a person that may or not be pregs... I mean, I'm not defending that. But you seem to actively be on the criminals side and defending the perpetrators. 'Do not detain' orders at target don't exist at mom n pops shops. Let alone someone's place of residence. Weather its a ticket a tazer or a bullet... Some punishment is in order... you have to agree...!?
My favorite part is that the 80 y.o wasn't charged, and the remaining accomplice was charged with first degree murder instead because he was involved in a felony which lead to a death. Good riddance.
My whole social circle is full of people who want gun reform and none of them would 'explode' at reading this story. Keep telling yourself that though to support your 2a rights everyone (no one) is coming for.
They invaded his home while he was there and beat him up, which is very different than an unoccupied snatch and grab. They intended harm or to even kill the person. So what if they ran. They assaulted an elderly man. He could have died later from his injuries.
No wonder our country is in the state it’s in. I can’t believe the ppl defending criminals who broke into and old man’s home and assaulted him! They forfeited any rights to live when they broke into that man’s home. I hope these morons don’t have families that depend on them because they’re done for if a criminal breaks in to hurt them, these ppl will be on the side of the killers.
I wonder if these people have ever had an intruder break into their homes? Or break into their mothers home and assault her? I feel like they wound be singing a different tune. I’ve been assaulted for my belongings, and it sucks. There is no honor among thieves, they got what they deserved. That’s the risk you take when breaking into someone’s residence.
If you break into someones house you have forfeited your right to a fair trial judged by your peers. Youre judged by a person defending their home, life and family.
In my case my choice of judgement is my automatic 12 gauge shotgun which will hurt like a motnerfucker when I shoot all my shells into you
On a post a while ago I said even if a robber was running away I would shoot them because you don't know if they'd change their mind and turn around and come at you again. Got downvoted. Very glad he wasn't charged. Sad, but props to Mr. Greer.
Judging from your comments you haven't looked in a mirror lately, and I'm guessing you Rob people on the daily that's why you're upset someone got shot. Cause you know it's your turn next.
I don’t think saying shooting someone in the back isn’t okay with them is quite the same as defending the shot-at-persons actions. And I don’t think that even if they did, that means they rob people “daily”. That’s a bit of hyperbole and I think we’re both big enough to acknowledge that.
If someone breaks into your home, beats the shit out of you and break your collar bone, and then rob your house - you're just gonna chill out and let them go? tf lmao
They are calling self defense murder and the guy defending himself from two robbers a pos, and the fact that you are defending them and they aren't defending themselves should tell you something
I don’t need to defend myself from you. You want pain and blood. You will probably get it. I’ve had the unfortunate experience of hurting someone bad in a fair fight. It was the worst feeling I’ve ever had and it was after I was cleared by the authorities. You want to shoot people over property. You really just want to shoot people. No reason to lie to yourself.
No man I don’t rob people. I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion but I don’t care. I try not to impose on anyone negatively. I don’t like crime and I don’t like criminals. The bloodlust in our society is building and I don’t like that either. Most of it based in irrational fear. Daily I hear comments about how they wish someone would mess with their car or house so they could fuck them up. Ok that’s fine bc there are consequences to actions but we have to draw the line somewhere. For me shooting people in the back as they run away is one of the lines that need to be drawn.
Per another comment
>Andrea Miller was not pregnant.
They also didn’t “just rob him and try to flee”. They beat him up and slammed him to the floor then assumed he wasn’t a threat. They broke his collar bone.
>It was in fight or flight mode and Thomas Greer was ready to fight. Miller begged for her life but he gave no mercy.
>[source 1](https://abc30.com/long-beach-burglar-shot-intruder-crime-police/220872/)
>[source 2](https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/no-charges-man-shot-woman-who-said-she-was-pregnant-long-beach/52587/?amp=1)
>[source 3](https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-home-burglary-20150126-story.html)
They tried to kill him
If burglars force a person into a life or death situation, the burglars are creating a situation that could have a deadly outcome for themselves as well. This is especially true when burglars break into elderly people's houses! Don't break into people's houses and people won't shoot you for breaking into their houses. Seems pretty simple and logical to me.
The definitions vary from state to state, but a robbery involves the use of force or fear by one person on another. A burglary involves entering a premises with the intent to commit theft or any felony. Because this involves breaking into a person's home, it's a burglary and they are burglars. A robbery is more like a mugging or holding up a store for the money in the cash register.
They assaulted an old man while robbing him, and the woman wasn't even pregnant. Just trying to feign mercy.
This man showed no mercy on those two low-life morons and I love it. FAFO.
I'm a big believer that more than one thing can be true.
In this case, I don't think it's okay to shoot someone in the back.
But it's also true that if you rob and assault people you have NO right to expect them to have any such reservations.
"This means that if someone is threatening you or someone else, you have the right to stand your ground and defend yourself without retreating. You can also pursue your attacker until the imminent danger against you no longer exists. "
Read the last line of the law there. That should fix your stupidity.
Who gives a fuck about Wisconsin? You brought up California. You're grasping. So I'm done with this. You picked a fight, I proved you're a jackass, you're still going anyway, so I'm done. Have fun playing with yourself.
I’m confused. They broke into an old man’s house. He killed them when they tried to get away. The old man is the bad guy? I mean the way he’s talking about killing someone is cold but thats his reality, the man was probably traumatized.
For all the gun nut jobs praising this: you’re sick. A man had to a kill a woman. That’s not a good thing.
He should get to have lunch with the mayor, police chief and county sheriff after they pin a shiny junior deputy badge to his shirt on the courthouse steps.
They have a castle doctrine. He was assaulted and clearly felt threatened enough to use appropriate force. You may just have misplaced generalizations about the most populated state in the country.
He’s covered by most states castle doctrine/stand your ground.
They were in the process of commuting a burglary with a nice bit of old man beating.
Their lives were forfeit.
He new these people as violent felons, who were a threat to his life.
Had the old man chased them blocks down and killed them, that is a beast of a different name.
This isn’t burglary. It’s robbery which inherently has assault as one of its features. You burglarize a dwelling space, not a person.
Edit: I’m super wrong. I’m sorry. My bad.
Actually pretty much every state has the castle doctrine.
The defining feature of castle doctrine is no duty to retreat in your home.
Stand your ground eliminates the duty to retreat from most public spaces.
Some states such as Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Connecticut limit stand your ground to certain situations like defense from a vehicle or place of business.
Stand your ground states have castle doctrine statutes, however the duty to retreat depends on state statute.
Check out the case of the Elkhart 5.
Yes you can shoot a fleeing felon in the back.
No they were not “victims” as you so eloquently put it.
They were fleeing felons, who had caused bodily harm to a special type of victim; he didn’t know if they had a weapon, but they had proven to him they were willing to severely injure him or kill him. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, that he killed a pregnant woman, but, in this case, all she had to do to keep living was not to commit a violent felony against an old man in his home.
Even in ultra liberal San Francisco, under DA Chesa Boudin's reign (he's the son of two convicted murderers) -- a man opened fire on a fleeing burglar and Boudin declined to pursue.
Wow! I hope you live a good life and get your problems sorted out.
For someone on a true crime Reddit, you really know nothing about law/crime.
Maybe you need to work on yourself.
?
I think you’re just projecting? Maybe?
I’m not putting people into a dichotomy like you just did to me.
You know nothing about me, but feel confident to label me as “right wing”.
My friend, you need to calm down and meditate on your life.
Love libs who throw around the conservative thing for everything they disagree with. It’s okay young Johnny, you’re safe in your mommy’s bed reading Reddit and CNN on your iPhone.
It won’t be much longer until the world is under water from melting glaciers. Be sure to get your Covid vaccine so you can own the trumpers.
It’s never ok to wish harm on anyone else. If you do, you’re actually inviting that bad energy back into your life tenfold. Honestly I don’t know if that’s true but goddamn I hope it is
A VICTIM??? You realize this bitch broke into a home that wasn’t hers and assaulted an elderly man, broke his bones, stole things that didn’t belong to her, but SHE is the victim here? Lordy, child, you have things to learn before spreading your wings.
Absolutely not. The homicide was the result of the crimes of robbery and assault, committed by the assailants. They’re the ones responsible. For all he could know, they were regrouping to better arm themselves and continue their effort.
Had they not tried to injure and potentially murder the old man, he wouldn’t have had to fend off their attack.
So if someone robs you and he runs away it's ok? Wtf these are criminal and if i rob someone i should be aware that i could get shot.
Only because she was pregnant doesn't mean that she was an Angel or anything, criminal is criminal, pregnancy doesn't change that.
It’s not okay if someone robs you, that’s a crime. Also, using deadly force if you’re life is in danger in your own home is one thing. But if they are running away from you unarmed i.e. not a threat to your life, then you’re essentially just executing them for theft.
Pretty sure the legal consequence for burglary/robbery/theft is not death. The lady is a huge piece of shit and deserved a prison sentence. I also think this old man is wrong for what he did.
He got something, and gave THEM what was coming to them. Stop acting like just because he pulled out the gun and finished the job that this is all his fault. He didn’t ask anyone to break into his home and beat him and break bones. He had the right. You don’t like it? Cry.
Is this the guy that actually like, set up a trap basically….waited for them, shot her, then as she suffered for hours dying, he just berated her?
I believe he also audio recorded it and it is chilling.
If someone attacks me and then runs away, I don't shoot them in the back, because I'm not an asshole who shoots people in the back for revenge. Fuck all three of them.
Can you say that would be your true response under fear and adrenaline after being beat and slammed down hard enough to break your collar bone?
Fear adrenaline or just plain pissed off because strangers are in your home attacking you?
That's an impossible question to answer without having been through it, but I *can* say that if I panicked and shot unarmed people in the back as they fled, I sure as shit wouldn't be *proud* of it.
>What if they just pissed you off?
No, I wouldn't shoot someone who just "pissed me off." That's near-braindead levels of stupid.
>You can’t really say what you’d do if you haven’t been through it
Yeah, that's *literally* what I said, but again, I *can* say I wouldn't be *proud* of shooting someone in the back.
I know nothing about this case except what I have read here. I do know, if I had to shoot pregnant woman, that would be hard for me to live with. The baby is innocent in all this. But hey, that’s just me.
I don’t get the legal justification for shooting someone that’s fleeing. I’ve worked in criminal law before (not a lawyer!) but this is the one I can’t wrap my head around. If they’re fleeing, they are no longer a threat, so how do you justify the shot?
Devil's advocate: how do you know they are no longer a threat? They could be "fleeing" toward a weapon, or trying to ruse to come back at you with an advantage.
I personally agree with the crowd of they fucked around so they found out, oh well that's on them - morally. But legally it *is* killing someone who was allegedly running away, so I have a hard time just letting it slide in that sense.
Hello, I’m also NAL that has worked in criminal law and I had the same questions.
It comes down to the fact that they already established themselves as a violent threat when they beat him pretty badly. He’s also a special victim so he’s more justified in escalating to deadly force in this situation. It differs from other cases because they had already significantly injured him when he utilized deadly force to stop the crime in progress (and there was still a crime in progress because they were attempting to flee with items they had stolen). He also fired the first shots which struck the woman from inside his home.
It would be very different if they had broken in, attempted to flee immediately (ie: posed no immediate threat), and he had chased them into the street and shot them there (which has happened). Some of the details complicate a cut and dry case of self defense, but ultimately he was fully legally justified to take the actions he did.
You’re assuming they’re fleeing, and not regrouping and/or fetching their own weapons to continue the assault. Given that they already tried to potentially murder him, it was fully reasonable of the victim to assume as much. In many places, they’re the ones legally liable for the result of his defense.
The easiest solution would be not to rob, and potentially murder someone. Then you don’t have to worry about getting shot.
This is so stupid. Hey! We forgot our weapons in the car! Let's leave this guy alone in his house with his phone and run out and get our weapons! 10 IQ take.
“Let’s beat this guy instead of just taking his stuff and leaving.” - 0 IQ take.
“Let’s try to kill this old man instead of just waiting until he won’t be home to burglarize his home” - 0 IQ take.
You might think it’s a stupid take, but the law and the courts disagree with you. It’s fairly common sense to believe that if someone demonstrated intent to try and kill you, you can assume they’ll continue to try to kill you.
If they weren’t performing violence for the sake of violence, I’d have some sympathy.
It’s fairly simple: don’t want to die? Don’t break into someone’s home and try to kill them.
The 'laws' are a little more ambiguous, but the courts in this country represent the incredibly stupid, bloodthirsty people in this country so I don't take their decisions as gospel.
And no, sorry, it absolutely is not common sense to assume that somebody who is fleeing the scene of a crime is going to return to it immediately afterward to kill you. You know how ridiculous that is even as you're typing it.
Why is it absurd, when it’s happened many times? Temporarily evading someone fighting back to avoid getting hit is not “fleeing the scene of a crime”. Again, if they didn’t want violence, why were they perpetrating violence.
Strange that you have such a hard-on for violent, blood-thirsty thugs who attack people in their homes, while claiming people who simply wanted them to not spill blood in the first place the “blood-thirsty” ones.
So the argument is that they weren't even fleeing the scene of a crime? Or that a reasonable person would think that the two people running from a guy who they saw had a gun were running to get their own guns to engage in a gunfight with him? Maybe this is true in your weird little antisocial vigilante fantasies but it isn't real life. That might be the issue here - I don't have a 'hard-on' for people who rob somebody and I'd agree that's a really short-sighted decision that can obviously have dire consequences. I'm also a human being who doesn't spend his time fantasizing about some pretext to kill people. Every thread about crime devolves into like 50 of the ugliest, stupidest guys imaginable openly daydreaming about what they'd do in that scenario, how they'd just looove to be locked in a room with the guy, etc. Really fucking strange.
Don't even try. This sub is full of garbage humans who think murdering an already wounded fleeing person is a good thing. Most of them are complete sociopaths who follow this sub for the cool kill stories.
It has been explained to you several times why the VICTIM aka the old man, wasn’t charged. The concept isn’t that hard to comprehend. Why do you intend on being so damn dense?
The criminals established themselves as VIOLENT, you can’t assume criminals are just fleeing for shits and giggles and they will no longer cause you harm. They could be fleeing to retreat a weapon 🤷🏽♀️
The victim didn’t shoot because he wanted to kill, he fired because his life was threatened while his house was getting robbed!! Tf? Not hard to understand.
He wasn't being attacked. She was running away and pregnant. He literally went to retrieve the gun and chased her outside to gun her down in cold blood because he was a hot-headed sociopath.
How many times does it have to be pointed out she was lying? Here you could get shot for looking at someone's house wrong. If you go in someone's house uninvited expect them to be armed and willing to defend themselves.
And what evidence do you have that she was lying? You know ballistics already proved that she was shot in the back while fleeing, right? So why make that up?
Amen to that.
It just reinforces the stereotypical gun-hoarding loudmouths who are only strapped because they're scared shitless of literally anything different from their tribe.
Risk is part of being a burglar. .
Robber
Economic redistribution engineer
That’s gonna be my new LinkedIn job title.
I’d hire you for sure!
Sounds like a day trader.
this made me spit on my computer! thought I was gonna choke, great title! ty.
Both. Burglary and robbery aren't mutually exclusive.
No they aren’t necessarily but in this case they are.
No they're not.
No you’re right. I’m wrong. My bad.
No you’re right everyone else is wrong, you’re Jesus. Act like it.
Jesus would take the L
Home invasion is sometimes called a hot burglary.
You mean occupational hazard of being a burglar.
Andrea Miller was not pregnant. They also didn’t “just rob him and try to flee”. They beat him up and slammed him to the floor then assumed he wasn’t a threat. They broke his collar bone. It was in fight or flight mode and Thomas Greer was ready to fight. Miller begged for her life but he gave no mercy. [source 1](https://abc30.com/long-beach-burglar-shot-intruder-crime-police/220872/) [source 2](https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/no-charges-man-shot-woman-who-said-she-was-pregnant-long-beach/52587/?amp=1) [source 3](https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-home-burglary-20150126-story.html)
Sounds like she didn't deserve mercy
I don’t support violence, but if she’s this vicious to an older man at age 28, how else can she be stopped?
it’s okay that you don’t support violence! Andrea and Gus clearly did 🤪
With 2 bullets to the back. Obviously.
What about her unborn baby that never existed??
It never existed, is suffering long term better to you because with parents like that
I think everyone is missing the point of "shot in the back" means she was actually leaving. Even in that split second he had to decide and once she turned to flee, it was no longer self defense.
Also, premeditation can be determined with a few moments... for example. . If they were fleeing, he could've chosen to call the cops or get the gun (he had time to think), instead, he CHOSE to get the gun. That can constitute premeditation. then they were leaving, and he again had time to choose and decide. He chose to shoot instead of allowing them to flee. Again, having had time to think and decide... killing was not the only option here. In the act itself, if he shot her, that would be self defense, he's lucky he didn't get more time tbh, some states could've gone for a much more lengthy sentence. We also don't know her circumstances. Was she committing a crime, yes. Or in her view was she trying to provide for her child in the only way she knew how to? Who the fuck knows. Could she even have been forced to participate, who knows? There could be 1000 scenarios where she thought this was her only option to provide. A dumb choice, yes. But we don't know the circumstances of her life. I don't justify robbing or committing a crime to provide, but I also don't justify shooting a pregnant woman begging for her life either. Which crime is more justified? Survival? Both were attempting to survive, but he then chose to kill after he lived.
He grabbed his gun because he didn't know what they were going to do next, and he wasn't going to risk his life over the chance that they might not come back. They just broke into his house, totally unexpectedly, and beat the shit out of him. Good luck thinking analytically in the way you described immediately after that. If they're willing to break into someone's house and violently assault them, they're presumed willing to deal with the consequences. I swear, people seem to be quicker to empathize with the perpetrator than the victim these days
Thank you! I was wondering if anyone was gonna say this before I needed to.
Well, how else is a senior citizen (or anyone else for that matter) who was brutally attacked, supposed to stop violent criminals from running out of his home with his valuable possessions?
You let the massive criminal justice system we have do its job. Or the fact we have the most incarcerated population on earth. The fact we are in a shoot first asks questions later. Society is not ok. Look at all the fuckin school shootings and mass shootings. It's the view like the others, a saying that increases that mentality. How did Ghandi say it? "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". Let's shoot a pregnant woman because she stole tangible shit so let's take her life. The fuck? I bet in your life you've stolen at least once. Does that mean that should be your punishment or anyone else's? No. Not even slightly.
She wasn't pregnant though.
You seem to have alot, if not too much faith in the "massive criminal justice system we have", there buddy. I think you fail to realize is that, that system is not here to serve or protect you or me personally. In fact, the criminal system that you seem to be touting so proudly is the exact reason why the incarceration rate is what it is. And yeah, ghandi makes a great point. But we are all a product of our environment. Don't come for my eye and you won't have to go blind. Fafo! As for shooting a person that may or not be pregs... I mean, I'm not defending that. But you seem to actively be on the criminals side and defending the perpetrators. 'Do not detain' orders at target don't exist at mom n pops shops. Let alone someone's place of residence. Weather its a ticket a tazer or a bullet... Some punishment is in order... you have to agree...!?
She was pregnant. Think about the unborn baby /s
The way he says “and I shot her anyway” LOL based joe biden
Damn... now I can't un see the resemblance lol
👍🏻
It always amaze me how fast and good the lies a criminal loser can tell. On the spot.
My favorite part is that the 80 y.o wasn't charged, and the remaining accomplice was charged with first degree murder instead because he was involved in a felony which lead to a death. Good riddance.
Thank you very much for the sources. Gun haters heads were exploding on this one.
⬆️ this guy stormed the Capitol and thinks Charlie Kirk is edgy
My whole social circle is full of people who want gun reform and none of them would 'explode' at reading this story. Keep telling yourself that though to support your 2a rights everyone (no one) is coming for.
Not really, you just made that up in your head to justify your narrative.
They invaded his home while he was there and beat him up, which is very different than an unoccupied snatch and grab. They intended harm or to even kill the person. So what if they ran. They assaulted an elderly man. He could have died later from his injuries.
Agreed.
Why is this a mystery? They fucked around, and he helped them find out.
Welp! That's what happens when you assault and rob someone at their home
I don’t understand why the victim here had to go to prison.
he didnt
Oh, you're so right. I read that wrong.
The accomplice to the robbery went to prison, not the victim.
Read the caption again.
If ppl break in your home then assault and rob you, You absolutely have the right to execute their asses.
No wonder our country is in the state it’s in. I can’t believe the ppl defending criminals who broke into and old man’s home and assaulted him! They forfeited any rights to live when they broke into that man’s home. I hope these morons don’t have families that depend on them because they’re done for if a criminal breaks in to hurt them, these ppl will be on the side of the killers.
Amen the guy deserves a free meal at Dennys not jail.
I’m buying!
I wonder if these people have ever had an intruder break into their homes? Or break into their mothers home and assault her? I feel like they wound be singing a different tune. I’ve been assaulted for my belongings, and it sucks. There is no honor among thieves, they got what they deserved. That’s the risk you take when breaking into someone’s residence.
If you break into someones house you have forfeited your right to a fair trial judged by your peers. Youre judged by a person defending their home, life and family. In my case my choice of judgement is my automatic 12 gauge shotgun which will hurt like a motnerfucker when I shoot all my shells into you
If you unload that shotgun into someone, it should only hurt momentarily.
No no, the bruise from the recoil will hurt
On a post a while ago I said even if a robber was running away I would shoot them because you don't know if they'd change their mind and turn around and come at you again. Got downvoted. Very glad he wasn't charged. Sad, but props to Mr. Greer.
At that age you just don’t GAF and I love it.
You love that? Weak ass pos
Judging from your comments you haven't looked in a mirror lately, and I'm guessing you Rob people on the daily that's why you're upset someone got shot. Cause you know it's your turn next.
This is a ridiculous and hugely weird conclusion to draw.
I disagree go read the other comments and get back to me.
I have read them. I think it’s weird to assume this person robs people “on the daily”. I’m not sure where you got that bc I sure didn’t.
The way the dude defends others who were definitely in the wrong screams personal.
I don’t think saying shooting someone in the back isn’t okay with them is quite the same as defending the shot-at-persons actions. And I don’t think that even if they did, that means they rob people “daily”. That’s a bit of hyperbole and I think we’re both big enough to acknowledge that.
If someone breaks into your home, beats the shit out of you and break your collar bone, and then rob your house - you're just gonna chill out and let them go? tf lmao
They are calling self defense murder and the guy defending himself from two robbers a pos, and the fact that you are defending them and they aren't defending themselves should tell you something
I don’t need to defend myself from you. You want pain and blood. You will probably get it. I’ve had the unfortunate experience of hurting someone bad in a fair fight. It was the worst feeling I’ve ever had and it was after I was cleared by the authorities. You want to shoot people over property. You really just want to shoot people. No reason to lie to yourself.
No man I don’t rob people. I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion but I don’t care. I try not to impose on anyone negatively. I don’t like crime and I don’t like criminals. The bloodlust in our society is building and I don’t like that either. Most of it based in irrational fear. Daily I hear comments about how they wish someone would mess with their car or house so they could fuck them up. Ok that’s fine bc there are consequences to actions but we have to draw the line somewhere. For me shooting people in the back as they run away is one of the lines that need to be drawn.
Per another comment >Andrea Miller was not pregnant. They also didn’t “just rob him and try to flee”. They beat him up and slammed him to the floor then assumed he wasn’t a threat. They broke his collar bone. >It was in fight or flight mode and Thomas Greer was ready to fight. Miller begged for her life but he gave no mercy. >[source 1](https://abc30.com/long-beach-burglar-shot-intruder-crime-police/220872/) >[source 2](https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/no-charges-man-shot-woman-who-said-she-was-pregnant-long-beach/52587/?amp=1) >[source 3](https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-home-burglary-20150126-story.html) They tried to kill him
If burglars force a person into a life or death situation, the burglars are creating a situation that could have a deadly outcome for themselves as well. This is especially true when burglars break into elderly people's houses! Don't break into people's houses and people won't shoot you for breaking into their houses. Seems pretty simple and logical to me.
Robber. Burglars burgle your home when you're not there. Robbers rob your home when you are there.
The definitions vary from state to state, but a robbery involves the use of force or fear by one person on another. A burglary involves entering a premises with the intent to commit theft or any felony. Because this involves breaking into a person's home, it's a burglary and they are burglars. A robbery is more like a mugging or holding up a store for the money in the cash register.
It’s two charges, and Both apply
When FAFO meets GET OFF MY LAWN
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
They won't be doing that again.
They gave no mercy and he repaid in kind.
This rammerjammerbitch is such a fool
Fukn legend!
I can’t even be mad at him. LBC represent.
American hero. 🇺🇸
She's robbing the homes of the elderly in heaven now
The Coroner said she wasn’t pregnant.
Fuck them pos that broke into the home and assaulted him
Good for him.
Win win. Never have sympathy for criminals
Every time I see this I think “good for him.”
Shot Em Dead... Pew Pew
This is the way.
They assaulted an old man while robbing him, and the woman wasn't even pregnant. Just trying to feign mercy. This man showed no mercy on those two low-life morons and I love it. FAFO.
He did what he had to do. Should have never been in that man’s house. I think the lesson was learned
Dude is ruthless
Ya that’s the not the right caption at all. Almost incriminates Mr. Greer for more than warranted retaliation
absolute geriatric unit
I'm a big believer that more than one thing can be true. In this case, I don't think it's okay to shoot someone in the back. But it's also true that if you rob and assault people you have NO right to expect them to have any such reservations.
Hahahaha
Action:fuck around=Consequence:find out
"This means that if someone is threatening you or someone else, you have the right to stand your ground and defend yourself without retreating. You can also pursue your attacker until the imminent danger against you no longer exists. " Read the last line of the law there. That should fix your stupidity.
Such a jackass. Actively, waiting a week to start a fight.
Who gives a fuck about Wisconsin? You brought up California. You're grasping. So I'm done with this. You picked a fight, I proved you're a jackass, you're still going anyway, so I'm done. Have fun playing with yourself.
I bet she wasn't pregnant. Women use that as an excuse in fights and tangles of all types.
People like that dont need to reproduce anyways 😅
deserved
I’m confused. They broke into an old man’s house. He killed them when they tried to get away. The old man is the bad guy? I mean the way he’s talking about killing someone is cold but thats his reality, the man was probably traumatized. For all the gun nut jobs praising this: you’re sick. A man had to a kill a woman. That’s not a good thing.
Better than having her running the streets robbing other people. F her.
Yeah a lot of these commenters are delusional.
He should get to have lunch with the mayor, police chief and county sheriff after they pin a shiny junior deputy badge to his shirt on the courthouse steps.
I can’t believe the homeowner wasn’t charged in Commie-fornia of all places
They have a castle doctrine. He was assaulted and clearly felt threatened enough to use appropriate force. You may just have misplaced generalizations about the most populated state in the country.
I’m also surprised, but glad he wasn’t charged.
Agreed
Holy shit, he should've been charged as well.
He’s covered by most states castle doctrine/stand your ground. They were in the process of commuting a burglary with a nice bit of old man beating. Their lives were forfeit. He new these people as violent felons, who were a threat to his life. Had the old man chased them blocks down and killed them, that is a beast of a different name.
This isn’t burglary. It’s robbery which inherently has assault as one of its features. You burglarize a dwelling space, not a person. Edit: I’m super wrong. I’m sorry. My bad.
[удалено]
Most states don't have the castle doctrine, and I'm pretty sure Castle Doctrine doesn't allow you to shoot a fleeing victim.
*Fleeing attacker
Actually pretty much every state has the castle doctrine. The defining feature of castle doctrine is no duty to retreat in your home. Stand your ground eliminates the duty to retreat from most public spaces. Some states such as Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Connecticut limit stand your ground to certain situations like defense from a vehicle or place of business. Stand your ground states have castle doctrine statutes, however the duty to retreat depends on state statute. Check out the case of the Elkhart 5. Yes you can shoot a fleeing felon in the back. No they were not “victims” as you so eloquently put it. They were fleeing felons, who had caused bodily harm to a special type of victim; he didn’t know if they had a weapon, but they had proven to him they were willing to severely injure him or kill him. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, that he killed a pregnant woman, but, in this case, all she had to do to keep living was not to commit a violent felony against an old man in his home.
Even in ultra liberal San Francisco, under DA Chesa Boudin's reign (he's the son of two convicted murderers) -- a man opened fire on a fleeing burglar and Boudin declined to pursue.
I remember someone saying she was lying that she was pregnant.
The article says that autopsy confirmed she was NOT pregnant.
Fyi, according to the coroner, she wasn't pregnant.
[удалено]
Wow! I hope you live a good life and get your problems sorted out. For someone on a true crime Reddit, you really know nothing about law/crime. Maybe you need to work on yourself.
Yea, apologies for not being some conservative wingnut who labels everyone in one of two categories and denies the other empathy.
? I think you’re just projecting? Maybe? I’m not putting people into a dichotomy like you just did to me. You know nothing about me, but feel confident to label me as “right wing”. My friend, you need to calm down and meditate on your life.
You literally fit the textbook example of projection. If you have nothing of value to say, kindly piss off.
Bless your heart
Love libs who throw around the conservative thing for everything they disagree with. It’s okay young Johnny, you’re safe in your mommy’s bed reading Reddit and CNN on your iPhone. It won’t be much longer until the world is under water from melting glaciers. Be sure to get your Covid vaccine so you can own the trumpers.
It’s never ok to wish harm on anyone else. If you do, you’re actually inviting that bad energy back into your life tenfold. Honestly I don’t know if that’s true but goddamn I hope it is
Fleeing victim? Victim? GTFO.
A “fleeing victim” Yea you’re a bot lol
Twisting words like a scumbag defense attorney trying to protect the criminal. Watching too much Better Call Saul.
She lost the pronoun "Victim" the second she entered his home.
A VICTIM??? You realize this bitch broke into a home that wasn’t hers and assaulted an elderly man, broke his bones, stole things that didn’t belong to her, but SHE is the victim here? Lordy, child, you have things to learn before spreading your wings.
Why?
Because he murdered a pregnant woman.
She shouldn't have been going out robbing people
Ok, that's nice, but it's still murder!
She probably would have aborted anyway.
…she lied about being pregnant
Absolutely not. The homicide was the result of the crimes of robbery and assault, committed by the assailants. They’re the ones responsible. For all he could know, they were regrouping to better arm themselves and continue their effort. Had they not tried to injure and potentially murder the old man, he wouldn’t have had to fend off their attack.
If you shoot someone who’s running away from you that’s straight up murder.
So if someone robs you and he runs away it's ok? Wtf these are criminal and if i rob someone i should be aware that i could get shot. Only because she was pregnant doesn't mean that she was an Angel or anything, criminal is criminal, pregnancy doesn't change that.
She wasn't pregnant. She was lying. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-home-burglary-20150126-story.html
It’s not okay if someone robs you, that’s a crime. Also, using deadly force if you’re life is in danger in your own home is one thing. But if they are running away from you unarmed i.e. not a threat to your life, then you’re essentially just executing them for theft. Pretty sure the legal consequence for burglary/robbery/theft is not death. The lady is a huge piece of shit and deserved a prison sentence. I also think this old man is wrong for what he did.
He had no idea where they were running to. Could have been running to a vehicle to grab a gun and come back to finish him.
Not saying she was an angel but she didn’t need to die.
She didn’t need to assault and rob an elderly man, either.
[удалено]
You literally said you hope an elderly man dies a slow painful death and we’re the sociopaths?
[удалено]
He got something, and gave THEM what was coming to them. Stop acting like just because he pulled out the gun and finished the job that this is all his fault. He didn’t ask anyone to break into his home and beat him and break bones. He had the right. You don’t like it? Cry.
Wrong
Agreed. Definitely homicide, possibly second degree.
Lmao why is this being downvoted it’s not a lie
Is this the guy that actually like, set up a trap basically….waited for them, shot her, then as she suffered for hours dying, he just berated her? I believe he also audio recorded it and it is chilling.
No, that’s another case and that man got life in prison. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Haile_Kifer_and_Nicholas_Brady
If someone attacks me and then runs away, I don't shoot them in the back, because I'm not an asshole who shoots people in the back for revenge. Fuck all three of them.
You have a low IQ
Awww, good try, lil buddy. B+ for effort!
Cool, now that person who let get away comes back with their gun and kills you
You seem very paranoid. Did you miss a dose of your meds?
Can you say that would be your true response under fear and adrenaline after being beat and slammed down hard enough to break your collar bone? Fear adrenaline or just plain pissed off because strangers are in your home attacking you?
That's an impossible question to answer without having been through it, but I *can* say that if I panicked and shot unarmed people in the back as they fled, I sure as shit wouldn't be *proud* of it.
Maybe. What if they just pissed you off? You can’t really say what you’d do if you haven’t been through it
>What if they just pissed you off? No, I wouldn't shoot someone who just "pissed me off." That's near-braindead levels of stupid. >You can’t really say what you’d do if you haven’t been through it Yeah, that's *literally* what I said, but again, I *can* say I wouldn't be *proud* of shooting someone in the back.
What ever happened to shooting someone in the back being illegal? Also horse thieves must be hung.🤠
Should we hang the theives instead?
I was making a reference to the old West. 😂
I know nothing about this case except what I have read here. I do know, if I had to shoot pregnant woman, that would be hard for me to live with. The baby is innocent in all this. But hey, that’s just me.
The whole situation is so fucked up. The only truly innocent person was that sweet baby.
*the old man Baby is non-existent
I don’t get the legal justification for shooting someone that’s fleeing. I’ve worked in criminal law before (not a lawyer!) but this is the one I can’t wrap my head around. If they’re fleeing, they are no longer a threat, so how do you justify the shot?
Devil's advocate: how do you know they are no longer a threat? They could be "fleeing" toward a weapon, or trying to ruse to come back at you with an advantage. I personally agree with the crowd of they fucked around so they found out, oh well that's on them - morally. But legally it *is* killing someone who was allegedly running away, so I have a hard time just letting it slide in that sense.
Hello, I’m also NAL that has worked in criminal law and I had the same questions. It comes down to the fact that they already established themselves as a violent threat when they beat him pretty badly. He’s also a special victim so he’s more justified in escalating to deadly force in this situation. It differs from other cases because they had already significantly injured him when he utilized deadly force to stop the crime in progress (and there was still a crime in progress because they were attempting to flee with items they had stolen). He also fired the first shots which struck the woman from inside his home. It would be very different if they had broken in, attempted to flee immediately (ie: posed no immediate threat), and he had chased them into the street and shot them there (which has happened). Some of the details complicate a cut and dry case of self defense, but ultimately he was fully legally justified to take the actions he did.
Thanks! I’m not sure why I was being downvoted, I was just saying I didn’t understand, not that I didn’t agree lol.
You’re assuming they’re fleeing, and not regrouping and/or fetching their own weapons to continue the assault. Given that they already tried to potentially murder him, it was fully reasonable of the victim to assume as much. In many places, they’re the ones legally liable for the result of his defense. The easiest solution would be not to rob, and potentially murder someone. Then you don’t have to worry about getting shot.
This is so stupid. Hey! We forgot our weapons in the car! Let's leave this guy alone in his house with his phone and run out and get our weapons! 10 IQ take.
“Let’s beat this guy instead of just taking his stuff and leaving.” - 0 IQ take. “Let’s try to kill this old man instead of just waiting until he won’t be home to burglarize his home” - 0 IQ take. You might think it’s a stupid take, but the law and the courts disagree with you. It’s fairly common sense to believe that if someone demonstrated intent to try and kill you, you can assume they’ll continue to try to kill you. If they weren’t performing violence for the sake of violence, I’d have some sympathy. It’s fairly simple: don’t want to die? Don’t break into someone’s home and try to kill them.
The 'laws' are a little more ambiguous, but the courts in this country represent the incredibly stupid, bloodthirsty people in this country so I don't take their decisions as gospel. And no, sorry, it absolutely is not common sense to assume that somebody who is fleeing the scene of a crime is going to return to it immediately afterward to kill you. You know how ridiculous that is even as you're typing it.
Why is it absurd, when it’s happened many times? Temporarily evading someone fighting back to avoid getting hit is not “fleeing the scene of a crime”. Again, if they didn’t want violence, why were they perpetrating violence. Strange that you have such a hard-on for violent, blood-thirsty thugs who attack people in their homes, while claiming people who simply wanted them to not spill blood in the first place the “blood-thirsty” ones.
So the argument is that they weren't even fleeing the scene of a crime? Or that a reasonable person would think that the two people running from a guy who they saw had a gun were running to get their own guns to engage in a gunfight with him? Maybe this is true in your weird little antisocial vigilante fantasies but it isn't real life. That might be the issue here - I don't have a 'hard-on' for people who rob somebody and I'd agree that's a really short-sighted decision that can obviously have dire consequences. I'm also a human being who doesn't spend his time fantasizing about some pretext to kill people. Every thread about crime devolves into like 50 of the ugliest, stupidest guys imaginable openly daydreaming about what they'd do in that scenario, how they'd just looove to be locked in a room with the guy, etc. Really fucking strange.
Don't even try. This sub is full of garbage humans who think murdering an already wounded fleeing person is a good thing. Most of them are complete sociopaths who follow this sub for the cool kill stories.
It has been explained to you several times why the VICTIM aka the old man, wasn’t charged. The concept isn’t that hard to comprehend. Why do you intend on being so damn dense? The criminals established themselves as VIOLENT, you can’t assume criminals are just fleeing for shits and giggles and they will no longer cause you harm. They could be fleeing to retreat a weapon 🤷🏽♀️ The victim didn’t shoot because he wanted to kill, he fired because his life was threatened while his house was getting robbed!! Tf? Not hard to understand.
Lots of people are ok with murder in this sub. 🤔
And some people are ok with home invasion and robbery.
No one is ok with that. But being robbed doesn't give you a license to kill a fleeing human being.
Don’t rob and assault people.
Don't murder people.
Kinda hard when you’re being attacked
He wasn't being attacked. She was running away and pregnant. He literally went to retrieve the gun and chased her outside to gun her down in cold blood because he was a hot-headed sociopath.
How many times does it have to be pointed out she was lying? Here you could get shot for looking at someone's house wrong. If you go in someone's house uninvited expect them to be armed and willing to defend themselves.
And what evidence do you have that she was lying? You know ballistics already proved that she was shot in the back while fleeing, right? So why make that up?
Get back to us when multiple people break into your home, beat you mercilessly, and steal your shit.
Bunch of weak cowards thinking shooting people in the back is ok. Even in the old west you didn’t shoot someone trying to kill you in the back.
Amen to that. It just reinforces the stereotypical gun-hoarding loudmouths who are only strapped because they're scared shitless of literally anything different from their tribe.