Skip to comments.Autopsy Finds Slain Robbery Suspect Who Allegedly Begged For Her Life Wasn’t Pregnant
Posted on 07/25/2014 5:32:20 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Long Beach homeowner Tom Greer, 80, told a TV station he began firing after his collarbone was broken during an assault by the woman and a man that Greer discovered in his home.
Greer said he fired at the burglars inside and outside his home, even though the female burglar told him not to shoot because she was pregnant.
An autopsy has confirmed Miller wasnt pregnant, Los Angeles County coroners spokesman Ed Winter said Friday.
Under California law, homeowners have a right to protect themselves with deadly force inside their homes and in the immediate vicinity such as a patio if they feel they are in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death, said Lawrence Rosenthal, a former federal prosecutor and who teaches law at Chapman University.
But this case enters a gray area because Greer, by his own account, chased the burglars and fired at them outside his home as they were fleeing, Rosenthal said.
Prosecutors will have to decide if the evidence shows the immediate threat had subsided by the time Greer fired again, or if he still could reasonably fear for his life.
As a technical matter, this would be a homicide, possibly second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter, but that doesnt mean that you should charge everything thats technically an offense, Rosenthal said.
(Excerpt) Read more at losangeles.cbslocal.com ...
u mean she lied?
Gee, I’m stunned that a lying sack of garbage burglar who willingly beats up an old man would lie to try and save her pathetic existence. Good on Gramps for taking her out with a double tap. Next time, get a higher caliber.
I cannot believe a burglar would lie!
He should get a commendation, an award, a medal and a cash prize.
Obviously, not her first rodeo. But it was her last.
The female who took the unusual step of burglary also took the totally usual female step of fibbing about pregnancy?
And behold the homeowner fool who self-incriminates even for stuff he DID NOT do —just wow.
It’s like he HATES owning stuff, soon to be rectified in court.
Not illegal in Texas.
The goblins may have been running to the car to get a gun.
This isn't Texas. It's California.
Wait how can this be..you mean a THIEF actually LIED..nah can’t be they are such honest folks
“Wait how can this be..you mean a THIEF actually LIED..nah cant be they are such honest folks.”
Thiefs are so honest if we had more laws against stealing they would certainly stop stealing and become pillars of the community...
Meth heads. Can’t say I think the world is worse off without her.
This is not a self-defense case and we diminish our fight for rightful self-defense by applauding vengence here.
I thought the guy was in the wrong initially, but now it is sounding more and more like a good shoot.
I still don’t think he going to get away with shooting her in the back, though.
Is that what he did? I didn't read anything about him shooting her while she was on the ground.
Late life abortion.
Stupidity doesn’t seem to have antidote and always follows Darwins Law.
Career criminals 50+ years younger than the real victim, the man’s property had been burglarized three times prior (he now thinks by these two), they assault him & break his collarbone, adrenaline rush, he acts in seconds to stop them.
If the stupid DAs charge him instead of giving him a medal, there is no justice.
I would have no problem with a just and rational justice system handling this perp severely. But this was not personal self-defense unless she still had a weapon and posed a threat. It is questionable self-defense in a lot of states to shoot at someone fleeing your property after an offense. I am not objecting to that aspect of this case. But killing someone on the ground who poses no risk to you because you have wounded them? That is not in the realm of the self-defense rights I fight for.
The man got away, but as they were both running in an alley behind the house. Greer fired his weapon at them and the woman fell after being hit by a bullet.
Greer said the woman pleaded, ‘Don’t shoot me, I’m pregnant! I’m going to have a baby!’ And I shot her anyway,” he said.
Whether or not the shoot was legal at least he hit what he was aiming at.
If she’s in my house uninvited at 9 months it just means a bigger Center Mass to aim at.
He is 80 years old and just had just been beaten to the point that his bones were broken. He didn’t know if she had a weapon. Once a person gets in a fight or flight situation and decides to fight they can’t turn it off like flipping a light switch.
If this goes to trial and I was on the jury I can assure you there would be at least 1 not guilty.
Just my opinion.
I disagree. He had control of the situation. She was incapacitated. Unless I see evidence that either she had a weapon or made a move on him, the final shooting was not self-defense.
I was referring to the ability to pursue a burglar outside the home.
Also, I saw nothing indicating that she was on the ground presenting no threat in any of the coverage to date, only that he pursued her and shot her as she attempted to flee. Which is legal in Texas.
Here is the Texas penal code cite:
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
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; 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.
Just pointing out that the laws everywhere are not as insane as they are in CA. And that intelligent people that want to be able to defend themselves *and their property* need to not live in CA.
She lied and she died
See post 22. She was wounded and unable to flee further when he killed her.
You watch. This poor son of a gun is going to get charged with something. Poor goy. He needs to lawyer up.
“She was incapacitated.”
Not at all certain. Early reports are often wrong. Plenty of physical evidence to analyse.
We will see what the investigation reveals. Clearly, she was not pregnant.
Still doesn’t mean she wasn’t presenting a threat. Just ask any cop about how fast someone who seems to be surrendering can pull a gun. Did she just sit there and beg? Or was she hiding her hands? Did she make a sudden furtive move? Keep in mind, this guy was significantly disabled and his ability to respond was severely degraded. Where was she hit?
I’ll wait for forensics to come back, thanks.
they could have just been retreating to regroup and attack again. he’s 80 and injured.
women thugs will get zero preferential treatment.
and why would someone trust an attacker that they are done attacking you?
Not in a million years could I imagine myself shooting someone that was begging for their life — especially one that claimed to be pregnant, lie or no.
“Not in a million years could I imagine myself shooting someone that was begging for their life especially one that claimed to be pregnant, lie or no.”
Even as they are reaching around in their pockets to find some thing to kill you with, as they refuse to get down on the ground and edge closer to you, all the while begging for their life?
You have a better imagination than that. Criminals tend to be very good at manipulating people. Many good people have been badly hurt or killed because of this.
[eyeroll] A home invader so pro-life she wants the victim to assume responsibility for the child she endangered (even if she were telling the truth). If I were the fetus, I think I'd take getting shot over growing up with that ho for a mother.
Well...as they lower me into the grave — everyone please remove your hats and say:
“There goes Ben. He was such a sweet guy. Too bad it got him killed.”
That's clearly a brain trust, right there.
Anybody that breaks into a house and beats up a feeble old person ought to be shot! Good riddance to trash.
This woman was a liar, a thief and a criminal. There's no doubt about that.
But what you said makes you no better. That comment was pure evil.
He puts the gun down, and she pulls out a razor and slices him like a sausage (at least that may have been what she was thinking). Did they find any knives on her?
Well then if we were both on the jury I guess it would result in a mistrial.
If it had been a couple of kids stealing his hubcaps in his driveway and he chased them down I would agree with you. And if they hadn’t beat the crap out of him first I would agree too. But she initiated a violent unprovoked confrontation with this guy after breaking into his home and it ended very badly for her.
I just hope I am never put into a situation like that.
Meanwhile, cops in California shot up an occupied vehicle just because they thought Dorner might have been in it, even though it didn’t match the description, and they aren’t charged. I think the same rules should apply to citizens as to police in matters of deadly force: Either cops have to be in grave and imminent fear for their lives, or citizens can shoot fleeing criminals in the back. I detest caste systems in which there are two sets of laws that apply differently to two classes of people.
Spot on. Cops are shooting and killing way too many "suspects" who have done nothing wrong but perceived by the cops as being a threat. Not too long ago a young boy carrying a toy gun blasted repeatedly and killed by a trigger-happy cop. The Oscar Grant situation, guy handcuffed and face down surrounded by cops is shot by the BART cop in the back and killed; there was no imminent danger to the cops. So apply the same rules to citizens and cops; or dismantle the justice system because it's broken.
She robbed him before, robbed him again and broke his collar bone, she might have come back a third time, armed and with a vendetta....but now she won't be bothering him again.
California has good self defense laws. But shooting someone who is down and was running away isn't likely to fly anywhere.
Say you've been robbed a couple of times and got the guy on camera. Later you are walking down the street and you bump into him. Do you get to shoot him, because he might come back again?
For valid self defense the threat has to be imminent, not hypothetical or in the future.