Image 01 Image 03

VIDEO: Police Chief Provides More Detail on Case of CA Woman Shot in Back

VIDEO: Police Chief Provides More Detail on Case of CA Woman Shot in Back

Claiming self defense when shooting woman running away in the back — good luck with that even in California.

I just came across some brief TV news coverage with additional details on the case of 80-year-old CA native Tom Greer pursuing and shooting in the back 28-year-old Andrea Miller. We covered the case the other day, Pro-Tip: Shooting Fleeing Women in the Back is NOT Self-Defense.

Miller and 26-year-old Gus Adams had invaded Greer’s home and began to ransack the residence. When confronted by Greer, they attacked him, breaking his collar bone.

Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell reports in a television interview (video embedded after break) that at that point Adams went to try to break into Greer’s safe, while Miller continued to assault Greer. They both Miller and Adams believed Greer to no longer be a threat and left him alone to continue to ransack his home.

Greer, however, managed to retrieve a pistol and confront them in turn. As he began to fire at them inside the house, Miller and Adams flee with items stolen from Greer. Greer pursued them down an alley and fired at them again. Miller was struck, fell to the ground, and died at the scene.

Greer  told local media that he shot Miller twice in the back as she pleaded for her life, and as she claimed (it turned out falsely) that she was pregnant.

Adams made good his escape, but was captured by police a few days later. Both Miller and Adams had an extensive history of burglary, and police believe they may have previously broken into Greer’s home on three prior occasions, stealing cash and items.

The police will, as is the norm, be submitting their investigate report to prosecutors, who will in turn make the decision whether to criminally charge Greer for Miller’s death.

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

P.S. The newest Law of Self Defense University Video/Podcast has just been released:  “#004: The Intersection of Tactics and Law.” Enjoy!

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and (paperback and Kindle). He holds many state-specific Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and produces free online self-defense law educational video- and podcasts at the Law of Self Defense University.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Greer told local media that he shot Miller twice in the back as she pleaded for her life, and as she claimed (it turned out falsely) that she was pregnant.

Both Miller and Adams had an extensive history of burglary, and police believe they may have previously broken into Greer’s home on three prior occasions, stealing cash and items.”

This whole story just plain sucks.

A couple of low-life leeches break into an old guy’s home, beat on him so bad that they literally break his bones, and try to steal his stuff.

This 80 year old guy, now with a broken collar bone from them, in great pain because of it, does what he has to do, what they forced on him, to protect himself.

End result – one dead career scumbag, one scumbag in jail where he belongs, and one innocent old guy who was attacked in his own home is about to lose everything he has and spend the rest of his life in prison because he defended himself.

I wonder if the live scumbag gets off, or gets a lighter sentence than the old guy he beat and tried to rob.

The law is clear, and probably even right. No, you and I probably should not be allowed to chase people down the street and shoot them in the back. Well, *I* should, but not you or anyone else. So I can’t either.

And the whole thing just plain sucks.

    MarkS in reply to pjm. | July 27, 2014 at 8:39 am

    If this pair did break into Greer’s home a three prior occasions could there be a battered spouse type of defense?

      creeper in reply to MarkS. | July 28, 2014 at 7:57 am

      This was the point I was trying to make yesterday. Posters here are contending that the threat had passed. I believe in Greer’s mind it would never be over until the perps were dead or in jail.

        pjm in reply to creeper. | July 28, 2014 at 10:44 am

        If I were on the jury, I’d sure be inclined to consider that strongly.

        He is an old guy. He just got the shit beat out out him by two young people, right in his own living room. He is in pain from the broken collar bone they gave him. He is helpless, defenceless, laying on the floor beaten and in pain.

        They are still there. Does a ‘reasonable man’ think they may decide to ‘finish the job’ on him before they go ? Sure. Or hurt him some more just for giggles, like the first time ? Sure.

        Is he terrified out of his mind ? Sure. Is his mental state justified by the actions of the criminals ? Sure.

        Does anyone ‘mentally recover’ from that state of mind in mere seconds ? Or a minute / No.

        All of this can be proven in court, I believe.

        It is purely too damn bad he had to go shoot his mouth off later, especially on camera. It may well be his doom.

    jakee308 in reply to pjm. | July 27, 2014 at 9:39 am

    Mr. Greer is a poster boy for “Never talk to the police” or the Media.

    What inspired him to tell the cops or the media the part about her saying she was pregnant? What possible help did he think was going to do him?

    They are not your friend, they are looking to put someone away so they look good on their evals. You are handier than anyone else because you stuck around the crime scene or were identified (read: snitched on).

      pfg in reply to jakee308. | July 27, 2014 at 10:34 am

      Never, ever.

      And do the cops ever exploited the situation. They too know that a suspect should never talk with them, but in their roles as cops they want everyone to open up. After an incident like this – a dead body on your property from just being shot is not an every day sort of thing – everyone but everyone is excited. Many look for a release and do it by talking. And the cops are right there with recorders and notepads.

      It’s hard to keep your bearings afterwards, but that rule – keeping your mouth shut – is the best to follow. If you can control yourself.

        The Drill SGT in reply to pfg. | July 27, 2014 at 12:32 pm

        The advice I would give is:

        “They said they were going to kill me.

        I was afraid for my life.

        I’m so upset. Can we continue this later?

        I’d like to speak with an attorney first.”

    tencz65 in reply to pjm. | July 27, 2014 at 9:40 am

    I see it almost the same. As he shot her in the alley the story becomes vague. Running with stolen stuff ? Greer for all we know (again vague)may have known she had a pouch of cash worth many thousands. I also would have fired too and i own and have read Andrew’s book. They have No rights imo . Sorry Andrews but Attorneys have written ‘A lot’ of anti-citizen laws where you must have an attorney to ‘Defend’ yourself. I will always defend myself ,Family and my ‘Stuff.’
    Smoke Crack on your on dime . Not mine !
    btw:Your book sitting on the coffee table never fails to draw interest from guests .

      Thanks for the kind words re: “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” it’s much appreciated.

      Having read the book, of course, you know that the circumstances in which you can actually use deadly force purely in defense of property are (but for Texas PC 9.42 and it’s numerous hoops) pretty much zero.

      Not telling you what to do–I never tell people what to do–just want to make sure you’re aware of the legal consequences.

      Being in the moral right is nice, but maybe not as nice as not spending the rest of one’s life in prison.

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Andrew Branca. | July 27, 2014 at 5:58 pm

        The laws need to be changed to reflect the public ethic, not the gun-grabber’s and general Leftist’s wishes.

        Since the Left hasn’t succeeded in demolishing the Second Amendment through the courts, they are eviscerating it legislatively.

        We’re ahead in the SCOTUS now. It’s time to take the fight to state legislatures and repeal all laws that would allow charges to be considered in cases where a criminal perpetrator is shot during the commission of a felony or serious misdemeanor, whether by a cop or a private citizen defending his person or property ANYWHERE he is.

        That’s how we get a polite, low-crime society. I know it might mean less work for criminal defense lawyers, but they can still defend burglars, vandals and drunk drivers, etc., or choose a more worthy area of law, like tax defense or anything that strikes at the heart of government overreach. 🙂

    Gremlin1974 in reply to pjm. | July 27, 2014 at 5:23 pm

    I read that the guy, Adams I believe his name is, is also charged with Murder for the death of the girl, since her death happened during the commission of a felony in which he was involved. So at least he will go away for murder as well.

PersonFromPorlock | July 27, 2014 at 8:35 am

How about this: anyone committing a felony (or maybe just a violent one) is hors d’loi, and remains so for five minutes after.

    I agree they’re all hors. The rest of that Frenchy shit I don’t understand.

    Ming the Merciless in reply to PersonFromPorlock. | July 28, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    “How about this: anyone committing a felony (or maybe just a violent one) is hors d’loi, and remains so for five minutes after.”
    It’s “hors LA loi”(outlaw)…could be worse as it is usually working the other way… Effectively, most of Europe’s suburbs are outlaw, the actual term: “Zones sans lois” or sharia law. Spelled LWAH…lovely, innit!
    It is enforced with kalashnikovs, RPG and microwaves from the tenth story…There, no policemen, ambulances or firemen ever venture…And you thought your homies’ ghettos and beaners’ barrios were bad!

    She is certainly hors de combat. LOL. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

Andrew, I previously sent you a link to an article about a shooting in Durham, NC, several years ago. (1990’s?)Several teens broke into a home during daylight hours they thought was unoccupied in order to steal the guy’s motorcycle. Well, the homeowner was there with a sick child and took his 22 rifle to the garage to investigate some noise. The teens started to scramble to leave, but one teen went the wrong way, was trapped, and had to reverse course to exit the garage. As he was coming toward the homeowner, the homeowner began to shoot, continuing until the teen was outside, and running away. The fatal would was in the back.

The homeowner was tried by a jury in Durham and found not guilty of murder or manslaughter. Unlike the Michael Dunn case in GA, there was no pause in the firing of shots.

I’ll search again for some link. It’s been a long time since this happened, but he essentially shot a kid in the back as he was running away.

    Here is the initial newspaper story (from 1993) on the Seagrove case in Durham.

    He wasn’t found “not guilty” – the jury deadlocked in the case, and charges were later dropped.

    There are many, many cases in which the defender acts outside the law of self-defense, and yet is not convicted, or even prosecuted, or sometimes even arrested. Just read those “Armed Citizen” pieces in any NRA magazine, you’ll see tons of such cases.

    That’s simply because the prosecutors or law enforcement used their discretion not to allocated limited resources to that particular case. To put it another way, the defender was not convicted or prosecuted or arrested NOT because they COULDN’T have been, but because those who had the power to decide CHOSE not to.

    So, when you come across a story that looks like sketchy self-defense but the person nevertheless escaped legal sanction–that DOESN’T necessarily mean he did it right, and in compliance with the law of self-defense. It may well mean he just got lucky.

    (I take the approach that it’s better to prepare for what the other guy CAN do as opposed to what he MIGHT do if he’s feeling kindly disposed. Both for when dealing with a physical fight and for when dealing with people who have the power to imprison me for the rest of my life.)

    Shooting fleeing, unarmed people in the back is rarely going to look like self-defense.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Andrew Branca. | July 27, 2014 at 5:18 pm

      In this case, it all depends on how well snake-in-the-grass ‘rat DA Lacey calculates her political options. She’s black, so she has the black vote. She will only concern herself with the white vote and any how heavily the gun-grabbing come down on her. The circumstances in this case, a white robber who participated in beating an old man, has no ‘victim appeal’ to the white electorate except the druggie vote who are usually too tweaked to go to the polls, if they even know there’s an election. The gun-grabbers don’t want Andrea Miller for their poster child because she’s not a sympathetic ‘victim’ and Trademark hasn’t become passé for them yet. I’m thinking she’s going to take a pass and let it die down.

CA law does allow private citizens to make arrests for felonies. I can’t find a description of what force is permissable to effect such arrest. Offhand, do you suppose Mr Greer would be justified if making an arrest of the pair (rather than claiming SD), and the shooting a requisite and last resort part of completing that arrest, given he was not likely to be able to chase them down. I’m assuming that the home invasion/burglary with assault is likely a serious felony, and that under simiar circumstances, a LEO would have been justified in shooting if he/she claimed it was a last resort in preventing escape of a suspect likely to represent a threat to the community.

Just a thought.

    There are few activities more hazardous and less likely to have either a personal or societal upside than a civilian attempting to make a citizen’s arrest.

    Unless one is actually a policeman–with all the associated benefits, including an array of defensive tools, nearby long guns, radio, back-up, helicopters, vests, dogs, and perhaps most important qualified immunity–I strongly discourage acting like a policeman.

    What’s the BEST possible outcome? The bad guy you arrest gets prosecuted, convicted, and sent to prison for a long time. Which diminishes the pool of bad guys by 0.00001%.

    What’s the WORST possible outcome? You die in the attempt, or end up–surprise!–deemed to have acted unlawfully and sent to prison yourself for a long time.

    No thanks. My person goal in any defensive encounter is to stay alive. Period. There is no other goal. None.

    But that’s just me. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      Or option 1 variant A

      Bad guy goes to prison for 10 years. From prison, he files a civil suit against you for about $ 10,000,000 because he scrapped his elbow when you arrested him (or at least claims he did).

      Seeing as the suit is totally ridiculous, it gets dismissed after a while. And after you spend about $ 20,000 on a lawyer to represent you, fill out forms for you etc.

      Nice system there.

      I wasn’t suggesting a citizen’s arrest as, generally, a viable course of conduct. I was suggesting it as a strategy in this specific instance, given the circumstances. The deed is already done.

      It would be articulated not as retribution or revenge, but as preventing the escape into the community of an obviously dangerous and violent felon, having demonstrated herself willing to assault a helpless, elderly person within the confines of his own home for financial gain and this likely to have few restraints on committing other acts of violence.

(NC) Self-defense law to get trial run 02-22-04


1993 law to get trial run in Durham

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
[email protected]
Feb 22, 2004 : 9:43 pm ET

DURHAM — Eleven years ago, the highly publicized Durham trial of Michael Seagroves underscored the need for greater clarity about how far homeowners might legally go to protect their property.

Seagroves was charged with fatally shooting one teen and wounding another after they broke into his Woodcroft garage to steal a motorcycle. He said he was defending not only his home, but also the physical wellbeing of himself and his infant son.

As it turned out, jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict in four days of deliberations.

Eight of 12 panelists, it was revealed, believed that Seagroves acted in self-defense and did not use excessive force when confronted by the teens.

“Mr. Seagroves had no idea where the men were going,” one juror later told The Herald-Sun. “If I were in that position, I would have [interpreted] it as a physical assault. They may not have touched him, but the threat was there. … My belief is that the threat really wasn’t
gone until [the intruders] were out of the garage.”

Four jurors disagreed, however.

Because of the lack of unanimity, a mistrial was declared. Manslaughter and assault charges against Seagroves ultimately were dismissed.

Then the Legislature went to work, attempting to provide better guidance for homeowners and juries in such cases.

General Statute 14-51.1 on the “use of deadly physical force against an intruder” was enacted not long after the Seagroves mistrial. It holds that a homeowner or tenant may use “any degree of force,” including deadly force, to prevent forcible entry into a residence or oust an
– See more at:

    Keep in mind that NC statute covers preventing a breach into the home or terminating a breach into the home.

    Once the bad guy is OUT of the home, the statute no longer applies.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Redneck Law. | July 27, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    Sounds like another example of the common man having more common sense than the elitist ruling class of lawmakers and their functionary enforcers.

    Sounds like a good shooting of somebody who needed to get shot.

    Once again, here is a case of charges that should never have been filed. Heh. With an 8-4 jury against the prosecutor, he most likely decided not to re-file with those odds. But I doubt it dawned on him that maybe the common sense and ethics of the common man were wiser than his own and most likely, as a career decision, he didn’t want a high-profile case loss chit on his record.

    If the threatening wild stays out of and away from other people’s homes, the threatening wild will live to continue their low-lifing elsewhere.

    I’m glad Seagroves walked. If Nifong had been the ADA in this case, Lord only knows what would have happened. His handling of the Darryl Howard case from the mid-90s just got tossed for more gross prosecutorial misconduct by Mike Nifong (occurring long prior to the Duke lacrosse legal atrocities) again involving failure to turn over exculpatory evidence and material facts. Howard has served 19 years. He will get a new trial which of course the Durham DA’s office will have an impossible time prosecuting. It seems possible they won’t even proceed, although at the moment they’re filing this and that appeal, posturing, etc..

    But I digress. This case sounds like good shooting from an 80 yr. old with a broken collar bone. You go, Mr. Greer! 🙂

no jury will convict him

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Frank G. | July 27, 2014 at 5:24 pm

    A mostly white jury won’t convict him, a mostly Hispanic jury won’t convict him, and a mostly black jury won’t convict him because the dead perp is white.

Humphrey's Executor | July 27, 2014 at 9:34 am

This is a case of the homeowner taking out the trash. He shouldn’t get more than a slap on the wrist. PS: Here’s hoping we see more of that Channel 5 news reporter.

Did they claim the officer followed the rules and protocols and that it was clean shoot?

Ever notice that very, very, very few officers ever disobey the rules and are punished (I mean really punished, not sent home on a paid vacation)?

That and the rise of obvious police error leading to injury or death will eventually erode the ability of law enforcement to do anything but be thugs and murderers.

Just like all third world countries.

    jakee308 in reply to jakee308. | July 27, 2014 at 9:42 am

    My bad, I thought it was the one recently about the cop shooting someone in the back during an arrest.

As always, interesting commentary, Mr. Branca. This is one of those cases that demonstrates that, even though certain legal concepts can appear to be quite clear and neat in theory or in a textbook, in real-world application, things can become murkier when applied to the facts of a case.

For example, I understand and I agree with — in principle — the concept that once an initial aggressor ceases his attack and clearly withdraws from the attack, the victim is not justified in using deadly force as a strictly retaliatory measure that is not rooted in defense of one’s person, because, theoretically-speaking, the victim’s life is no longer being threatened. That said, I think (from the defense perspective) that there is a good argument to be made that the elderly victim in this case, having just suffered a traumatic and shocking violent attack in his own home, was put into a mindset of rage and fear that affected his actions and his judgment. In other words, yes, there might have been a retaliatory, vindictive element to the man’s killing of the woman, but, one has to take into consideration how the preceding attack affected his mindset and his reasoning.

I don’t think that the man will be convicted of anything, because, a jury is going to be sympathetic to the underlying circumstances of the case, to wit, that, if the criminals hadn’t broken into the man’s house and attacked him in the first place, the woman would still be alive. Plus, the defense can argue that the man’s attack was provoked by the preceding attack. If the man gets convicted of anything (unlikely), I see the charge being manslaughter, not murder.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to guyjones. | July 27, 2014 at 4:34 pm

    Here’s my problem. Instead of charges even being considered, Mr. Greer should be up for a Citizen-of-the-Year award.

Miller and Adams flee with items stolen from Greer.

So they weren’t just trying to escape, they were still intent on robbery.

Must have been a pretty substantial bag of swag if it slowed them down so much that an injured 80 year old could catch them.

Mr. Branca, any thoughts about Mr. Greer’s comments to the cops post-incident (really ill-advised, I think) to the effect of, “I chased her and she told me she was pregnant and I shot her.” Plus, I think he added words to the effect of, that he would do it again, given the same choice? I think it it pretty apparent that his statements are incredibly unhelpful in the context of mounting a successful claim of self-defense. Besides making admissible statements about the course of events, they could be interpreted by some observers as somewhat callous and vindictive. I think it goes without saying that the only thing he should have been saying was “No comment.” If he had to say anything, something to the effect of, “I’m sorry that the woman is dead, but, I was defending myself,” obviously would have been better.

The police will, as is the norm, be submitting their investigate report to prosecutors, who will in turn make the decision whether to criminally charge Greer

At least in this case – unlike, say, Zimmerman in Florida or Ersland in Oklahoma – the professional race-hustlers won’t be involved.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to tom swift. | July 27, 2014 at 4:43 pm

    Right. Miller and Adams are both white, so Greer really has a major bonus going for him in that respect. If the thugs were black, we’d have another political prosecution debacle.

    I looked at Miller and Adams on google images. Typical CA lowlife druggies. I’ve seen a million of them. One fewer is a very good thing.

TrooperJohnSmith | July 27, 2014 at 11:06 am

So, does he get any Crime Stoppers money?

I’d say that Miller and Adams were literally hoisted upon their own petard.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | July 27, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    I doubt that CA will give Greer any $ from their Victim-Witness political $ slush fund, but he certainly deserves it, along with a parade and his own fully blinged-out float tricked-out with the necessary cervical collar.

It’s always frustrating to read “no comment” in the media when someone is asked about why they took any particular course of action, but as is evident here, the victim would have a much easier defense had he held his tongue. He may still get off from having killed this woman — and I have a hard time generating any sympathy towards her considering the injuries inflicted on the victim, a deep abiding hatred for those who commit robbery and burglary, and the fact they may have preyed upon this person more than once — but I’m sure his defense lawyer will have to really earn his keep surmounting those statements to the media.

Even without an axe to grind, the media, of necessity, can only provide snippets of information, and tends to use those that are most salacious. That’s why, whenever you’re asked about something by the media, it’s best to utter those words, no comment.

I made a comment on the earlier post that this was not self-defense, but anger and revenge. To hear that they weren’t merely fleeing, but running off while carrying his stuff (i.e. still in the midst of committing a felony when he shot at them) makes me want to come up with some kind of justification for this scenario that wouldn’t risk unintended effects. It’s frustrating.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to janitor. | July 27, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    Just say what your heart knows is true. Miller deserved what she got and it’s too bad Adams didn’t get some, too. That there are charges even available to be considered simply proves once again that the law is an ass.

    If the prosecutor doesn’t want to file, he has to make a political calculation: 1). Let it die down and hope, since the dead perp is white, the media will let it go, too. 2). Get out front and clearly state that the circumstances of the case are such that the filing of charges is unwarranted. If he wants to file, his political choices are 1). Suck it up and let it die down hoping, since the dead perp is white, the media will let it go, too 2). Enrage the electorate and hope like hell he can find a jury dumb enough to convict this old man so he can, in essence, be saying to the electorate, “See, I was right to file.”

    In either case, choice #1 is the best way to go. In either case, choice #2 is a big roll of the dice.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to janitor. | July 27, 2014 at 5:34 pm

    I should add that the fact that the cops are now stating Miller was running off with his property and she and her low-life buddy may have robbed him a few times previously SEEMS to be paving the way for no charges being filed. The Los Angeles law enforcement political cabal drop these appetizers to prepare the public for the final decision in order to prevent any backlash, although I don’t see any backlash except for a whimper from gun grabbers.

    It would be good for society and a good lesson to druggie thieves to know that LE is not going to prosecute those who defend themselves and their property under this or similar circumstances. It would be a real good step in the right direction.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | July 27, 2014 at 5:39 pm

      I would love to see Greer walk, but I am afraid in Crazyfornia, to but it in my southern tongue, it just ain’t gonna happen.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Gremlin1974. | July 27, 2014 at 8:42 pm

        I just moved from there, having spent 57 years there.

        It all depends on the jurisdiction. LA Co. is a ‘rat county, but it’s actually not as far left as the Bay Area counties. The DA there is a Chicago style ‘rat (with a checkered past). I don’t see any political advantage in her filing the charges. The dead perp is white and not a sympathetic figure. Middle class taxpayers in LA Co. of any stripe will for the most part be on Greer’s side. If she doesn’t know that the likelihood of getting a conviction would approach nil, then she has no political savvy at all, but that isn’t the case. Besides, for the most part, LA folks like guns. 🙂

Lawrence Rosenthal, Professor of Law at nearby Chapman University, a former Federal Prosecutor and Clerk for Justice Stevens said the following to Foxnews

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 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.

“The problem here is that all this happens very fast and his legal right to use force probably ended just a few seconds before he did use deadly force,” Rosenthal said. “So the question is should you charge somebody on the basis of what really was a series of split-second decisions when he’s just been robbed and physically assaulted?”

He might have some insight into how prosecutors are thinking.

    MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to sequester. | July 27, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    You can bet that all the prosecutors are all running off trying to find someone to palm this one off of.

    It’s career poison. First off all, while theoretically a jury should convict, it is going to be very tough to find such a jury. It’s more likely you will find a jury that wants a pin a medal on hiom and send him home. Most probably is a hung jury where the numbers don’t favor you.

    Second if you do get a conviction you are going to wind up with a large chunk of the population hating you. You may not nr planning a political career, but a judgeship?

Go for a jury of female liberal arts college professors and explain that the theft and beating were “triggering incidents”.

Who knows, maybe the guy wasn’t in his right mind when he shot her in the back. Nothing like a beating to make one lose their moral bearings. Maybe he felt actual remorse once the stress passed, so confessed to something worse than what actually transpired.

I suspect the state will go for second, if not first degree murder, but settle for something lesser – not like he needs a long sentence for it to equal life.

Seems to me the surviving perp needs to face at least as severe a charge as the victim, if only on the basis of equity. But he’ll have a hard time pleading diminished capacity or heat of the moment.

    “Seems to me the surviving perp needs to face at least as severe a charge as the victim, if only on the basis of equity. But he’ll have a hard time pleading diminished capacity or heat of the moment.”

    Easy-peasy felony murder case.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    Gremlin1974 in reply to ThomasD. | July 27, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    I am fairly certain that Adams will go down for the murder charge, which gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

At what point in their questioning of Greer are the police required to tell him he has the right to remain silent, etc?

    When they place him under arrest, or any time they’re afraid what he might say would be excluded in court because they hadn’t yet Mirandized him.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    JCC in reply to MarkS. | July 28, 2014 at 6:24 pm

    @ Mark
    Specifically, Miranda applies when the interview/questioning becomes a “custodial interrogation”, which means the person being questioned is not free to leave, regardless of whether anyone has said the magic words “You’re under arrest.” This would include the opinion of the person being interviewed, so if that person felt he/she was not free to go, no matter what he/she had or had not been told, then Miranda applies. If the person being questioned can get up and walk out, then Miranda is generally not required. It can be a grey area, depending on what’s in the mind of the parties, and sometimes, it becomes a kind of second-guessing game later on, when the statements become an issue.

      pjm in reply to JCC. | July 28, 2014 at 7:19 pm

      And the key, of course, is that Miranda is a REMINDER or rights you already had, you were born with them (, well, since the Miranda decision clarified that fact, anyway).

      It is NOT an instantiation of any rights you didn’t have yesterday, or last year. And you can claim your rights at ANY TIME, whether they reminded you or not.

It appears to be a clear case of pest control.

MouseTheLuckyDog | July 27, 2014 at 11:58 pm

Which will be especially delicious of Greer gets off or isn’t charged.

Richard Aubrey | July 28, 2014 at 9:19 am

Many years ago in Detroit, a guy looked out his window and saw somebody trying to steal his, iirc,$500 beater which he had just purchased to get him to his new job. He’d been unemployed for some time. He fired out the window, killing the thief.
Jury acquitted, presumably because, as citizens of Detroit they were, as well, burdened by such $$%%%^^&^ all day long. Depriving a man of his chance to help himself made the whole thing not about the law.
Thing about criminals is, it’s not their job. They’re not following orders. They’re not acting out of innocent ignorance. They have decided that despoiling others is their right and F anybody who complains. Anybody who forgets that in laying out a case is making a mistake. Because the jury knows.

The police can shoot fleeing felons if they fear death or GBI will result. I think their rap sheets are evidence of that, especially given the battery involved. Wasn’t there a case in California in the 70s where a black woman tracked down and shot her rapist?

In any event, I would never vote to convict if I was no the jury. Serves them right.

She deserved to die -. Plain and simple.
And right! She was running away IE escaping Justice.
The old man did civilization a favour and he has every right to brag about it adn openly talk about it. He sets a positive example for the civilized community.

Anyone that wants to prosecute him is on the side of criminals and should be prosecuted themselves for abetting criminals.

We need some kind of “fair game ” law for citizens dealing with crooks when we catch them in the act. That will help serve as a deterrent.
Or that “hors de whatever”.
The current laws protect the crooks and make the citizens their victims.