What really steams me is the guy's attitude. While I can understand (sort of) the use of a gun as self-defense, that was clearly not the case here as they were, by that point, fleeing the scene. And his comments were (and I may be paraphrasing, but I think I'm close) were, "she said, 'don't shoot me, I'm pregnant', but I shot her anyway", and "the woman wasn't running as fast as the guy was, so I shot her twice, and she's dead". It's as though he is bragging about it.
Interesting. I must have missed those quotes. While her pregnancy (actual or fake) should not have provided her any shield from taking a bullet during her burglary of a home, knowing that he could shoot her anyway
is immoral and illegal. The slower runner will always get hit first, but I digress.
And now they are trying to charge her accomplice with her murder ...
As a legal precept, it is quite probable that her accomplice would be charged with her murder, but to a lesser degree. He didn't actually pull the trigger but his actions led to the act being completed. Whenever a crime is committed and someone is injured or dies the perpetrators of the crime are usually held responsible (in addition to anyone else who may be responsible). Their basic actions (committing a crime) were done with intent to harm and when harm occurs they must pay the price even when the victim of the harm was not the intended target.
... while the guy who actually shot her is lauded as some sort of hero...
Yes, everybody with a fully erect cock has gone online to channel their best Dirty Harry persona to defend a man shooting someone in the back just because the person he shot intended to rob him or physically harm him. I have said that it's too bad he didn't shoot them while they were still in his house. There would be little to investigate at that point. However, when the threat of harm has ceased (the perps are running away and/or off your property), the actions you take must reduce in tandem with the threat level. If you are not likely to be killed, then you shan't kill either.
Don't know how that is going to play out yet, from what I understand they are still reviewing the case, but while they were both clearly in the wrong for burglarizing the house and knocking the old man around, it doesn't make any sort of sense to me to totally exonerate him while pinning an actual murder on the accomplice.
I agree. I figure they will find him guilty of manslaughter and either greatly reduce the penalty or commute the sentence.
I am providing him with a lot of leeway by saying that at his age his thought processes and reactions may not have been as sharp as someone half his age. I also have considered that his statements may have been fostered by nervous hyperbole. Yeah, I got 'em! Finally! Yeah, I don't care if she was pregnant!
True. I don't, either. She chose to do the crime she was doing but being shot in the back while running away borders on barbarism. The victim becomes the perpetrator.
I was taken aback, as well, by reading the comments (this was yesterday, and I don't know whether it was the same source, or whether the reactions are any more balanced now), but probably at least 95% of what I was reading was along the lines of "Yay for the old guy, and good riddance for taking one scumbag out of the gene pool; too bad he didn't kill them both". It was like a frenzy of congratulation for the guy, and no thought whatsoever that he might have done anything but a favor to the world. I guess the autopsy will show whether or not she was actually pregnant, but even if she was lying (as most of the comments seem to believe) doesn't make shooting her in the back any more right.
Nothing has changed, but I would say that about 80% were comments from the Thunderdome crowd. The 20% who were trying to make some sense of it were being drowned out by those beating sticks on rocks.