That conflicts with the reports from other sources namely the guy himself. I wouldn't put too much stock in an article from the LA Times. They are the original anti-gun organization and they will spin a story however they believe necessary to further their own agenda.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

*
I'm not going to say I would do what he did, because I don't think I would based on what I know now. However, FWIW, any use of force on someone is a way of seizing them; arrests are seizures, as are Terry stops. The SCOTUS case law on this topic makes this clear. While of course the 4th amendment issues that apply to government action don't apply to private citizens, the analysis of use of force to seize someone relies on the same basic analysis.

As for fleeing felons, while the Garner case cannot apply to private citizens, many states amended their statutes to look more like that ruling in the period thereafter. Garner came down while I was in law school, and by the time I was a prosecutor just a couple years later, the Illinois statutes relevant to use of force had been amended as I recall. The California statute quoted looks like pre-Garner language, and would be pretty loose on the use of deadly force. Even if one applies a Garner analysis, given the nature of his injuries, the immediate risk presented by the continued freedom of the offenders, and their apparent (my recollection of the article is poor and I may be wrong, not to mention the media simply has no clue what it is saying in most such cases) attempt to escape by applying force likely to cause death or GBH (broken bone), the argument can be made it was lawful. I don't concur with all of his acts; just saying the argument can be made.

One also has to remember that a prosecutor's decision to charge or not charge is discretionary and almost completely unfettered by any oversight other than the electoral process. If the DA's Office in that county decided that this was an NHI situation and not even a good littering case (and I would be so inclined), no one on the planet can do anything about it. (The judiciary and legislature cannot do jack because of separation of powers.)

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

My opinion. Shooting fleeing perps after they beat him is not good and usually will get you in legal bind. Could say short term mental effects from beating. Talking to the press was way stupid. But, the prosecutor had a huge problem. No matter what the law might say this guy is almost impossible to convict. Finding 12 jurors to say guilty would be like finding a big money lottery ticket. Lawyers hate to lose and it was a loser and he knew it. Nobody famous came and hollered for the perps so it had no push and DA just wants it to go away.

We no longer have tp speculate on why no charges were filed.
CA Man Who Shot & Killed ?Pregnant? Home Invader Apparently Lied to the Media

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

That's a really interesting article ProtectedOne. It is contradictory with the current feelings on the court system here in CA. Fortunately, it gives me hope that there can be real justice. If they had just run with Greer's story, he'd be in prison because his story describes actions that are clearly outside the law.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

The story in the article fully aligns with Oklahoma self defense law. I wonder how it contradicts California law.

Which article are you referring to?

Let me sum up...

The part that would have sent him to prison was the initial story he told the reporters. He said that he chased the two outside and shot the girl in the back as she was fleeing from him.

The evidence didn't support that story. It showed that he indeed defended himself while still being threatened by the two criminals.

The story does not contradict the law, it is contrary to the normal anti-gun culture prevalent in CA today.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Glad it turned out like it did for the old guy, and that the physical evidence actually helped him, but I can't fathom his motive for telling the media the untrue version that made him look much worse. Obviously better not to talk to the media at all, but if you do talk, why give an account that could have been so damaging??

__________________
Brad