Question for the sub.

bufedad · 2017-05-01T19:35:01+00:00

I would not convict on the fact that he was beaten within his own home (the ultimate violation) by people who had (possibly) been there twice before (and would likely be there again), and he feared for his life at that moment, and the next time they broke into his home.

William__F0ster · 2017-05-01T20:42:03+00:00

What relevance has this ...

I wouldn't convict him because he made the same argument supposedly abused women make and they get off even when they kill a sleeping man.

... to this?

... the pair tackled him, threw him to the ground and jumped on top of him. Miller beat him while Adams opened his safe and retrieved $5,000 in cash. Miller stopped beating Greer long enough for him to pull out his .22-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver [ ... ]

"She was dead. I shot her twice, she best be dead ... (The man) had run off and left her." He added, "I shot her so that's going to leave a message on his mind for the rest of his life."

It's not even remotely the same argument.

Spousal abuse is a dreadful thing and can and does lead to fatalities in the very worst cases, but I don't see how you can compare two people in a usually quite long-term relationship - however terrible that relationship is - with a vulnerable old man being beaten during a home invasion.

It's a tragedy that Miller died and a tragedy that Miller lived a life in which burglary and assault were an option, but ultimately she would have known being shot at was a risk.

She apparently thought the benefits outweighed the risks of what she was doing - she was wrong.

That said, there are too many gaps in the details in that report for me to say what I would do if I were on the jury.

vhmPook · 2017-05-01T21:13:02+00:00

Come into my home uninvited and I won't feel any regret killing you. Add in the fact they were assaulting him, fuck 'em. A man's home is his castle.

the_unseen_one · 2017-05-03T16:09:39+00:00

I say good, and I would absolutely rule not guilty. The man had reason to suspect that these two had robbed him before, they assaulted him, and they didn't seem intent to stop until they took everything he had. I just wish he'd killed the man too. Castle doctrine laws are a very good thing for this exact reason, fuck people second guessing you defending your home, property, and body.

grasshopa · 2017-05-01T19:58:07+00:00

Hard case.

The fact that she was begging implies there was no immediate threat to his person, so given only that I would have prosecuted or found him guilty.

However, there are mitigating circumstances. First, her accomplice was still free. From a tactical perspective, that's two threats to handle; one controlled, the other uncontrolled. He may have feared Mr Adams would come back. Eliminating a threat vector, in this case, makes good sense.

Further, and more importantly, he had just been beaten. Allowances must be made for the altered state of mind due to his injuries and adrenaline brought on by Ms Miller and Mr Adams.

Taken all together I would find him not guilty, but as a prosecutor I might have still pushed for prosecution.

Title	Question for the sub.
Author	andejoh
Upvotes	0
Comments	16
Date	May 1, 2017 7:22 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/68o3fc/question_for_the_sub/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/question-for-the-sub.923627 https://theredarchive.com/post/923627

Comments