Update [Pic+]

Submitted by: skypirate 2 years ago in

CLICKY CLICKY

ORIGINAL STORY HERE


Yyou might want to sit down for this on, but she wasn"""t pregnant
There are 44 comments:
Male 239
That was quite an exchange and I can say the this subject has been discussed. "It was not only merely discussed, it was really most sincerely discussed" a Munchkin coroner might say.
0
Reply
Male 9,503
elkingo

I think a reasonable person could read it either way.

"Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, and other felony involving the use of force."

I take it as "involving the use of force" clarifying the kind burglary or robbery that counts.

If not then there is no sense for two separate sections for force and deadly force. The deadly force section covers it alone the way you interpret it.
0
Reply
Male 9,503
elkingo

"However, if I said, "I allow cigarettes, cigars, and pipes that only contain cloves instead of tobacco on my porch." I would expect your cigarette to be a Djarum (clove cigarette)."

Ahhh. Yes. But you can allow lots of thing simultaneouly. This is in reference to a crime and or is used because any one of them can be commiteed. If "and" was used it would imply you had to commit all three.

"Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, and other felony involving the use of force..."

Right?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
To me, "or" is a distinguishing word.

If I said, "I allow cigarettes, cigars, or pipes that only contain cloves instead of tobacco on my porch."

I sure wouldn`t be pissed when you whipped out a Marlboro.

However, if I said, "I allow cigarettes, cigars, and pipes that only contain cloves instead of tobacco on my porch." I would expect your cigarette to be a Djarum (clove cigarette).
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Would you read that as I like ham sandwiches? Or just sandwiches with peanut butter?"

Then you should have used the conjunction "and" for it to be inclusive.

I would read that as you enjoy all sammiches, including ham.
0
Reply
Male 9,503
elkingo

"You didn`t read the law... "

I read it. I read it differently than you. To me that says any one of those three things where force is used.

For example:

I like sandwiches, cookies, or other food with peanut butter in them.

Would you read that as I like ham sandwiches? Or just sandwiches with peanut butter?

0
Reply
Male 5,620
You didn`t read the law... it says "The use of deadly physical force by a defendant is justifiable under subsection 1 only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used:

(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force..."

So, the criminal can commit a robbery or something else. Key word in the law "or".

It doesn`t have to be "and".

In other words, just committing or attempting to commit a robbery justifies the use of deadly physical force.
0
Reply
Male 9,503
elkingo

"I meant to say that KRS 503.080 includes deadly force"

Gotcha. But deadly force does not just list theft. Force does. Deadly force says it has to include force. So stealing without the use of force is NOT grounds to kill someone. At least how I`m reading the law.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
0
Reply
Male 5,620
That is to say my mother and father protect their home with an AR-17. My mom uses an .22 rifle.

They don`t live with me. They have their own home.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
But yea... try and rob a house in Kentucky.. you may end up dead.

Even trespassing (felony trespass involving force), you might end up dead.

I personally protect my home with a bush-axe first (my wife swings that), and a 12 gauge shot-gun second. My dad uses an AR-17.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Physical force in Kentucky includes deadly force."

I see the confusion.. I meant to say that KRS 503.080 includes deadly force. Lol.. sorry its late. I am only wake to monitor my sick baby. =)
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Then why even have the second set of more strict circumstances?"

It covers the same things... theft, burglary,etc... section 2.b.

It is worded that way so that one can`t argue that the law doesn`t state that deadly force is covered.
0
Reply
Male 9,503
elkingo

"Physical force in Kentucky includes deadly force."

Then why even have the second set of more strict circumstances?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Read the law I linked.. section two covers it.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Physical force in Kentucky includes deadly force.

I asked two state troopers and a lawyer to be sure.
0
Reply
Male 9,503
elkingo

"The use of physical force"

Ahhhh. Yes. But the law has different circumstances for DEADLY physical force, which obviously a gun would be.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
We thought that was bullpoo, so we worded it like this instead:

The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent: criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony ...

Here is that actual law: KRS 503.080
0
Reply
Male 9,503
elkingo

"Basically, if they are on the county road with your belongings, and you are armed, you have the right to shoot to kill, without warning them."

I can`t possibly believe that. Can you shoot me a link? Google isn`t helping.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
The law used to read if someone was breaking into your home, once inside you had to warn them three times before using lethal force that you felt in danger.

For example:
1. "I am loading my shot gun with shells because I feel threatened."

2. "I am pumping my shot gun to load the chamber because I feel threatened."

3. "I am now pointing my loaded shot gun at you because you are threatening me. Please leave my house."

Under the old laws, you would be allowed to shoot to kill after saying those three things *IF* the intruder was inside your home.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
Basically, if they are on the county road with your belongings, and you are armed, you have the right to shoot to kill, without warning them.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"If someone steals a plastic flamingo out of your yard you can run out and shoot them to death in the street?"

Yup.
0
Reply
Male 9,503
elkingo

"Not in Kentucky. We changed it so that if you see someone in the road with your stuff, you can legally shoot to kill."

Seriously? What`s the line? Is there one?

If someone steals a plastic flamingo out of your yard you can run out and shoot them to death in the street?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"That`s the law right?"

Not in Kentucky. We changed it so that if you see someone in the road with your stuff, you can legally shoot to kill.
0
Reply
Male 9,503
"the woman fell after being struck by Greer`s gunfire in an alley behind the house."

Did that change?

Nobody has the right to shoot someone fleeing, outside of their house. You cannot use deadly force for vengeance or defense of property.

That`s the law right?
0
Reply
Male 2,675
"Adams, who initially fled the scene, was later arrested and was formally charged in connection with the incident, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s announced on Friday.

The charges included murder,"

Wait ... who did the robbers murder?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"it bugs the poo out of me that no one talks about the fact that he shot her in the back."

I know, right? He should have shot her in the head. There was a chance she could have survived being shot in the back.

"Her life was worth an attempted robbery?"

She set it at that value when she broke in to an elderly man`s home, beat him, and tried to rob him. No one else is to blame for her decision.
0
Reply
Male 40,302
@Mr_Bear: I think it varies by State? But in some places it`s: if anyone gets killed during the crime, intentional, accidental, anything.

And I agree, it`s doubtful SHE would even BE charged. It`s also doubtful there will be a conviction, IDK how well those things work.

@drawman61: If he didn`t have his gun? The headline would be "Old Man Beaten To Death" but it wouldn`t even make the news, it`s too common.

@SmagBoy1: Where ELSE could he have shot her? She was fleeing. But how did Greer know the two weren`t going to get THEIR guns and come back?

He`s 80 and has a broken bone, there`s 2 crooks in their 20s, I think it`s reasonable he was afraid for his life.

He (or she) was -literally- a step or 2 "over the boundary" where it wouldn`t even BE a question, it would be "open and shut" his right.

You want an 80 year old to go to jail? For THAT?
0
Reply
Male 2,436
@SmagBoy: Any person who enters my home without permission is a threat. I don`t give a rats ass which side of their body the bullets hit.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
I live here and it bugs the poo out of me that no one talks about the fact that he shot her in the back. I understand shooting someone coming at you. I mean, I`d try to get away if possible, but, if I couldn`t and had a gun, okay, I get that. But someone running away? Her life was worth an attempted robbery? I`m not defending the woman`s actions. I`m not calling her a saint or a good person, but, if you`re shooting someone in the back, they`re not a threat.

So, while I`m not saying the man should be charged with murder, I can get behind some charges for him, and certainly I can get behind not celebrating her death as if her life was worthless. That`s pretty pooty.
0
Reply
Male 191
Haha, FAQ her! Glad he blew her away. POS scum.
0
Reply
Male 997
@drawman61 I really do hope one day you`ll end up living in a nice country. You know one of the west`s "enemies" where it`s a paradise and I think we`ll all be much much happier :) You get the promised land and we get to stop hearing how pooty oue lives are being ruled by the lizard people who can flip a switch and kill us.
0
Reply
Male 997
@lordJim and 5cats principle is coming from accessory to the crime. i.e 3 of you go rob someone, 1 of you stab and kills them you`re all guilty. I have no issue with that. But don`t think it should be counting when they were all committing the crime together and one of themselves gets killed/injured.

And I do suspect if this was the reverse the prosecutor would not be pushing this additional charge on the woman. But that`s just my opinion.
0
Reply
Male 7,774
I give in. You win amurica. I hope each and every one of you get your own gun. As many guns as you can carry in fact. Let`s close all the airports and borders for a year and let you shoot drat out of each other. Then if there are still more than half of you left add another year while you cheerfully play cowboys and shoot each other as is your right. Keep going until there are, lets say 10% left then anyone not wanting to join civilisation should be nuked.
Some fine real estate there for the rest of us to spread out in.
0
Reply
Male 250
It really isn`t about whether she was. It`s the IF.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Mr Pedo Bear,

Well, he initiated a crime in which someone died so I can see that as a standard holding charge. Calling it sexist is ridiculous. (Yes, I know you were trying o be funny).

Once the details are established we may or may not find out what happened. Probably not.
0
Reply
Male 7,802
I agree Pedo Bear. They were both adults making adult decision each should be charged independently. He should definitely be charged for attempted burglary and battery but murder? I can`t agree with that at all. From the sound of it the guy (based on what the shooter said) seemed like he killed her out of spite.
0
Reply
Male 40,302
It`s not @SkyPirate`s fault, just so everyone knows! @The_Mods have to pick a "flashy image" and avatar to promote the post, eh?
They might have gotten the image mixed up by mistake?

@Mr_Pedo_Bear: It`s not the gender, it`s the crime.
(depending on the State laws, iirc)
If you`re involved with a felony and someone dies? Even if YOU didn`t kill that person directly, you can be charged with "Felony Murder".

In theory? If he had died and she lived, she would have been charged.
0
Reply
Male 3,147
SHE???

You mean that`s not really Mickey Rourke?
0
Reply
Male 997
Don`t think the guy should be getting a murder rap. The women was committing the crime with him it seems awfully sexist to say the man is responsible for her death.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Totally irrelevant. As has been generally agreed, no? And why use the photo of someone who was not the person in question (thanks, 5Cats) if not to imply, hey ugly so who cares.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
I think she may have been holding the emergency Sack of Ugly...
0
Reply
Male 40,302
Yup, she lied about being pregnant...

THAT PICTURE is of Ruby Adams, the mother of Gus Adams who is charged with the Felony Murder of Andrea Miller, the woman who died.
Ruby was, apparently, involved in the crime as well. Probably driving the "get-away car" eh?

Both Gus and Andrea are (were) career criminals...
0
Reply
2,767
Link: Update [Pic+] [Rate Link] - Yyou might want to sit down for this on, but she wasn```t pregnant
0
Reply