i just wish there was blanket immunity for any homeowner when they are robbed and attacked. i have no problem with all thieves being shot until morale improves.
80 yr old man shoots fleeing, unarmed pregnant burglar
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
Funny you say that, our yard was in the process of getting rolled last night and I came out with a gun (pellet gun) and let the dog out in the back yard. I have a lot of unrolled TP if you need some.
I know this probably isn't what he was thinking, but could he say he was scared she might come back, like in a matter of minutes, and harm him?
Hey, I just got a government contract housing Central American children. 40 to a room.$200 per head per day. Get with the times Bodhi!!
I am not sure that is accurate. Fleeing combatants, in uniform, are fair game. Surrendering combatants in uniform cannot be shot legally.
There was a court martial at Bragg of a soldier from the 82 who shot a Somali kids in the back with his 40mm grenade launcher with a beehive round). Large angry threatening crowd surrounded his HMMWV, Somali kid saw the guy's sunglasses, reached into the HMMWV, ripped the sunglasses form the soldier's face and ran off into the crowd. Soldier shot the skinny in the back. At his Court Martial, he said, "I felt threatened." The jury did not buy it because the skinny kid had all his wounds on his back. The prosecution said, "You felt threatened by a 80 pound kid running away from you?" He was convicted of manslaughter.
The Somali kid was not a combatant, however. He was just a civilian thief.
It is completely dependent on the Rules of Engagement for the specific operation in question.
True. ROE could restrict engaging enemy soldiers fleeing, but the Law of Armed Conflict does not prohibit engaging fleeing enemies.
Jmho, but no US service person who is worthy of their uniforms would dare shoot an enemy soldier who has already given up the fight, turned and is fleeing. Not to say it doesn't happen, of course, because I'm sure it has, and does. But only a coward with a yellow streak running the entire length of his/her back would do so.
Not sure what you base this opinion on, but it is not the Law of Armed Conflict.
It depends, I guess on how you define "given up the fight," but most soldiers define that as the enemy dropping their weapons and raising their hands. "Fleeing," by its very nature is trying to move out of a position of disadvantage in order to resume fighting in more favorable conditions. Thus, you cannot general "give up the fight" and "flee" at the same time. You can do one or the other.
To give you an example, at the Falaise Gap in July 1944, the Germans were fleeing from Allied encirclement so they could make a stand somewhere else and resume the fight. And the US Army Air Force and the US Army's VII Corps and XV Corps were killing Germans by the bushel (10,000 German KIA, to be exact). Completely legitimate.
Now, if the Germans had disabled or dropped their weapons, they would have been taken prisoner, no problem. They were fleeing, in order to rejoin the fight elsewhere and fight from a position less disadvantageous.
At the lower tactical level, the same thing applies. In the film Saving Private Ryan, once the US Army Rangers get to the top of the bluff overlooking Omaha, and are knocking out bunkers from the rear, the Rangers see some German soldiers attempting to run to the German rear across the open ground behind the bunkers. The Germans are carrying their weapons openly, and are fleeing from the bunkers, because the Americans have a positional advantage over them. The Rangers gun down the Germans. Fair game. No Law of Armed Conflict problem.
If they had dropped their weapons, raised their hands, and stopped fleeing, they would have been taken prisoner.
Last edited:
Pure BS.
If an enemy has "given up" he surrenders. I'm not gonna let one "flee" back to cover so hecan more safely try to shoot me (or you), or flee back to regroup, get to more ammo, or whatever. Fleeing is NOT surrendering. If you're not surrendering you're a target, I don't care if you're going forward, sideways, or backward.
Would you not shoot an enemy unless he is aiming at you? You gonna get his attention and tell him to turn around if he's not facing you?
It's weird that some think that shooting retreating (not surrendering) soldiers is somehow 'wrong'. As someone who studies WWII, this was commonplace then - you either walk towards the victor unarmed with your arms raised (a universal sign of 'I surrender') or you take your chances running.
Were I a warrior, I'd not think twice about shooting at someone retreating for the opportunity to kill me again. Surrender is different.
That said, none of this is relevant to the subject at hand, imo. Professional solders ≠ average civilians.
Were I a warrior, I'd not think twice about shooting at someone retreating for the opportunity to kill me again. Surrender is different.
That said, none of this is relevant to the subject at hand, imo. Professional solders ≠ average civilians.
Unless a retreating soldier is like a baseball player and can't return if he leaves the battle, I see no problem putting a bullet in his back.
What is common in cases such as these is that the judicial system completely fails until it is time to act upon an upstanding citizen that was forced into the situation. I look at it this way: if I am on the jury of a career criminal vs upstanding citizen, I'm going to go with the upstanding citizen every time. I figure the career criminal probably had it coming anyway.
He shouldn't spend one day behind bars. Adrenaline, and all other kinds of emotions were more than likely at their peak and just because the criminals were exiting the house doesn't mean this guy just automatically came back to his senses. He'd just been body slammed and beaten by two strangers in his own home. NO WAY I could put this guy behind bars and lay my head down at night. Unfortunately laws like this are attempted to be applied as a one size fits all and assume all situations are the same. Me walking out to my garage to find a thief running off with my tackle box is much different than someone breaking into my house and physically assaulting my family and me then trying to escape. But the same law applies to both situations. Context has to be taken into consideration to ensure true justice is administered.
Last edited:
And I think, BB, this is why they are still contemplating whether or not to press charges against Greer.
Even if he is charged - I don't see it going anywhere. A plea agreement with probation - that's if he is charged.
Couple things mentioned in the story that I keep thinking may factor into how it plays out is the part where she claims to be pregnant and he said he shot her anyway - and something about dragging her body back onto his property. Those may work against him if indeed it gets that far.
Your comment about his mental state at the time - that's huge in working in his favor.
Latest threads
-
Political Meme - Cartoon/Joke Thread...Part XX
- Started by Bazza
- Replies: 9
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry
- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 6
-
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 32
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0