15 Year Old Dies In Prank Gone Wrong

[Hal_Jordan]

I wonder why it was imperative to shoot a 15 year old....

It wasn't imperative to shoot anyone in this situation since they clearly posed no threat because they were already fleeing the scene.

But somehow it's probably at least a little bit their fault.

 

[jmc]

What steps are being made in the US to sort out the trigger happy approach people have to their guns? Ok, Yanks aren't going to give up their guns, but what about campaigns about safe gunner ownership at least? Every time I read one of these stories it's like the person just shoots first and assumes they have the right to do so because it's in the constitution. Is there any education about being a responsible gun owner? Is there any information about the dangers of making the wrong decision?

 

[Motown Marvel]

Those aren't the questions I ask because I don't want answers to those questions. Sorry if that offends you.

yes, that is offensive that you are not concerned with those answers. if more people were concerned with irrational abuse of 2nd amendment rights, i bet we'd have less of these situations.

You don't really know all the circumstances or facts in either of these cases, but you're quick to pass judgment without. I am not like that. Again, sorry if that offends you.

I don't condemn people without knowing all the facts. I just don't do that. Also, I expressed sympathy for the victim(s), but you missed that to jump to conclusions about me too... It seems to bother you and others that I question the victims motives (not in this case, but in general) because doing so means I'm blaming them some how.... Again, I believe you see it this way because you like to easily jump to conclusions.

I'm all for knowing the circumstances and not jumping to conclusions. but we are talking about kids withs eggs being shot and killed by a man with a gun. guns vs. eggs...what missing piece of the puzzle do you think is going to come to light to justify this? i cant even fabricate a reasonable enough explanation for that.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

What steps are being made in the US to sort out the trigger happy approach people have to their guns?

None. Actually the NRA and the gun lobby fight pretty much any new legislation pertaining to gun regulation. They want fewer restrictions and precautions, not more.

Ok, Yanks aren't going to give up their guns, but what about campaigns about safe gunner ownership at least?

You'd think at the very least they'd be required to take a safety class, or have insurance, and register their weapons, but nope.

Every time I read one of these stories it's like the person just shoots first and assumes they have the right to do so because it's in the constitution. Is there any education about being a responsible gun owner? Is there any information about the dangers of making the wrong decision?

There are safety classes, but you don't have to take them to be a gun owner.

 

[terry78]

What steps are being made in the US to sort out the trigger happy approach people have to their guns? Ok, Yanks aren't going to give up their guns, but what about campaigns about safe gunner ownership at least? Every time I read one of these stories it's like the person just shoots first and assumes they have the right to do so because it's in the constitution. Is there any education about being a responsible gun owner? Is there any information about the dangers of making the wrong decision?

The explanation always comes back to "that's why we broke off from England."

 

[charl_huntress]

What steps are being made in the US to sort out the trigger happy approach people have to their guns? Ok, Yanks aren't going to give up their guns, but what about campaigns about safe gunner ownership at least? Every time I read one of these stories it's like the person just shoots first and assumes they have the right to do so because it's in the constitution. Is there any education about being a responsible gun owner? Is there any information about the dangers of making the wrong decision?

Part of the reason I think there is less talk about safe and responsible gun ownership is it isn't talked about until there is a tragedy. Then people are too heated to discuss it in a way where you don't end up taking a side. I am a big supporter for increased requirements for gun registration and ownership. I think there should be a renewal process that forces people to review the laws just like they do for DL renewal, and forces them to spend some time on the range as every responsible gun owner should. Again though...after any sort of tragedy people are just too heated and it's impossible to have a conversation about it. I also think the factions for and against gun control cant agree on what exactly gun control is or should be.

 

[charl_huntress]

yes, that is offensive that you are not concerned with those answers. if more people were concerned with irrational abuse of 2nd amendment rights, i bet we'd have less of these situations.

You mistake the fact I may not ask those questions with some sort of callous disregard for the victims. That is not the case. Like I said, I'm just not quick to jump to conclusions because a gun was involved.

I'm all for knowing the circumstances and not jumping to conclusions. but we are talking about kids withs eggs being shot and killed by a man with a gun. guns vs. eggs...what missing piece of the puzzle do you think is going to come to light to justify this? i cant even fabricate a reasonable enough explanation for that.

Again, you seem to think knowing the facts equates to justification. That is not always the case, but it absolutely could be the case which is why it's a good thing to search for the facts and the truth in any case. I don't support mob justice or any sort of mentality that prevents me from being objective. Again...I'm sorry if that offends you.

 

[jmc]

Part of the reason I think there is less talk about safe and responsible gun ownership is it isn't talked about until there is a tragedy. Then people are too heated to discuss it in a way where you don't end up taking a side. I am a big supporter for increased requirements for gun registration and ownership. I think there should be a renewal process that forces people to review the laws just like they do for DL renewal, and forces them to spend some time on the range as every responsible gun owner should. Again though...after any sort of tragedy people are just too heated and it's impossible to have a conversation about it. I also think the factions for and against gun control cant agree on what exactly gun control is or should be.

Let assume the gun debate doesn't get solved, surely a reasonable compromise is education towards being a good gun owner, about getting the message across that being a gun owner comes with a responsibility and that despite what the constitution says there is still an onus on you to make the correct decision. It's no different to driving a car, there's always car safety campaigns because it's important for everyone to respect the vehicle and the road they drive on. That to me anyway is a step forward in the right direction, buying a gun may be a right but it's also a responsibility. If people are educated more then maybe the attitudes will change over time.

 

[charl_huntress]

Let assume the gun debate doesn't get solved, surely a reasonable compromise is education towards being a good gun owner, about getting the message across that being a gun owner comes with a responsibility and that despite what the constitution says there is still an onus on you to make the correct decision. It's no different to driving a car, there's always car safety campaigns because it's important for everyone to respect the vehicle and the road they drive on. That to me anyway is a step forward in the right direction, buying a gun may be a right but it's also a responsibility. If people are educated more then maybe the attitudes will change over time.

The NRA for all the hate they get does try to provide some gun education to schools and other organizations, but they are really the only ones outside of law enforcement agencies. The other side of the coin is people who want to ban guns, so there isn't really any dialogue between the two sides. And discussions get heated very quickly, then people can't agree on what measures will work to solve the problem. Or what the actual problem is. You could say we have a culture that glamorizes the gun with violent video games and such. What is the real problem here? I don't think anyone is ever going to agree on that...

Speaking only for myself, I believe most gun owners are responsible. I don't believe this man went to bed hoping he would shoot some girl in the head later that night. Also the shooter lives in AR which is a state with an expanded Castle doctrine...so maybe he was reacting in a way he thought was lawful. Again, I don't like to jump to conclusions even though it was a horrible tragedy that I wished had never happened. I just hope all sides are considered so the man can get a fair trial.

 

[X Knight]

it's tragic that someone died.

and yes I do agree that it seems too many gun owners are too trigger happy these days.

that being said. that's why you should learn to respect other people's properties and not pull stupid ass pranks like that.

it seems like they had history with the man's son.

did they know his father owned a gun?

if they did, then that seems like you're playing with fire.

not excusing the guy. if you see kids egging your house, you don't go out and shoot them. at least fire some warning shots in the air.

did the article say when this happened? was it in the middle of the night?

 

[Warhammer]

That fool shouldn't have fired a gun at anyone unless news comes out that these kids threatened his life. That's the bottom line and there is simply no arguing against that. I challenge one person to do so.

At the same time, those little bad ass kids shouldn't have been dicking around. It just goes to show that you need to be careful. One day, you can mess around and die. Their dumb asses shouldn't have thrown eggs at someone's property.

 

[charl_huntress]

The LA Times mentioned that three bullets hit the car. Two hit the door while another hit the back window. It's not clear yet which of those bullets hit the girl, but from that article I gather that she was shot while in the car. Here is said article:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...ooting-20140217,0,1647739.story#axzz2tjuX7hd1

This article has more details then the OP.

 

[Feenix]

They egged a car in retaliation for a prank that this guy's son pulled.

Egging and TP'ing people's property is the oldest prank in the book.

In no way shape or form, does this warrant being shot at. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Does that mean that people who graffiti buildings should be shot and killed, too? What about a kid who throws a baseball through a window?

There is no defending what this man did.

 

[charl_huntress]

People may think there is no defending what he did, but the state has an expanded Castle doctrine.

"While Arkansas doesn't have a traditional stand-your-ground law," she said, "I've learned that they have sort of an expanded castle doctrine law, which means -- not only can you defend yourself and your property inside your home, you can also do it around the perimeter of your home."

 

[Warhammer]

People may think there is no defending what he did, but the state has an expanded Castle doctrine.

"While Arkansas doesn't have a traditional stand-your-ground law," she said, "I've learned that they have sort of an expanded castle doctrine law, which means -- not only can you defend yourself and your property inside your home, you can also do it around the perimeter of your home."

Defend doesn't mean kill without a threat on one's life, as far as the details of the scene state of course.

 

[Feenix]

That doesn't mean that the doctrine is correct or reasonable.

This kind of law breeds paranoia and overreactions. Look at what's happening in Florida. You can't do anything without fear of some trigger happy maniac shooting at you and then hiding behind these laws. It's disgusting.

 

[bullets]

People may think there is no defending what he did, but the state has an expanded Castle doctrine.

"While Arkansas doesn't have a traditional stand-your-ground law," she said, "I've learned that they have sort of an expanded castle doctrine law, which means -- not only can you defend yourself and your property inside your home, you can also do it around the perimeter of your home."

I could see if they were trying to burn the house down or commit a robbery , but this harmless prank in no way justifies use of deadly force. This doctrine should be revised to cover grey areas.

 

[charl_huntress]

Defend doesn't mean kill without a threat on one's life, as far as the details of the scene state of course.

Some castle doctrines are different in that they include defense of one's property. I'm not sure of the circumstances or the laws in this case, which is why I hope there's more articles online about it, but the kids weren't there to sell cookies at 1am. They were in the midst of vandalizing property, and while that may have been a harmless prank, they were not there with good intentions to begin with. Again, I'm not going to rush to judgment here and I'm not blaming the kids... It just sounds like a tragedy all the way around.

That doesn't mean that the doctrine is correct or reasonable.

This kind of law breeds paranoia and overreactions. Look at what's happening in Florida. You can't do anything without fear of some trigger happy maniac shooting at you and then hiding behind these laws. It's disgusting.

My property is my property. I defy anyone to tell me I don't have the right to defend it how I see fit. Yet again though, it's this sort of intransigence between the two point of views that makes agreeing impossible.

I could see if they were trying to burn the house down or commit a robbery , but this harmless prank in no way justifies use of deadly force. This doctrine should be revised to cover grey areas.

I don't think deadly force was warranted either, but it was dark and at night... So who knows what he was thinking they were doing there.

I preach normal operating hours for a reason.

 

[Feenix]

I'm not sure of the circumstances or the laws in this case, which is why I hope there's more articles online about it, but the kids weren't there to sell cookies at 1am. They were in the midst of vandalizing property, and while that may have been a harmless prank, they were not there with good intentions to begin with.

Ah, but it's okay for this guy's son to have pulled a prank on the other kids. Now, we don't know exactly what he did, but it probably wasn't with "good intentions" either.

No one deserves to die over inanimate objects. Fine them, throw them in jail, but do not kill them. No one has the right to take someone else's life over "property."

 

[charl_huntress]

Ah, but it's okay for this guy's son to have pulled a prank on the other kids. Now, we don't know exactly what he did, but it probably wasn't with "good intentions" either.

No one deserves to die over inanimate objects. Fine them, throw them in jail, but do not kill them. No one has the right to take someone else's life over "property."

I'm sorry you feel that way, but as a property owner I'm not going to let anyone dictate how I can defend MY property.

 

[Feenix]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but as a property owner I'm not going to let anyone dictate how I can defend MY property.

And we've reached the crossroads.

You're right. With such vastly different outlooks, the gun debate in the US would likely never be resolved.

Let's hope that the two sides can come to some sort of compromise and that more innocent people don't have to die before then.

As a side note, I don't believe that you would shoot to kill anyone who was on your property or vandalizing it in some way. You seem more controlled than that. Warning shots, yes, kill shot, no.

 

[X Knight]

so I read that LA Times article.

it says this happened around 1 AM. so this was dark/early morning hours.

it also said they egged a car on the property. not the house. wonder if they egged the son's car or the dad's?

I'm not excusing the shooter by any means.

But when **** like that happens at night/early morning, and it's dark out, and you're probably trying to sleep, it's not inconceivable that paranoia kicked in.

and, let's face it, for some guys, their cars are more valuable than their homes. Maybe this guy really loved his car, and he sayw them dumping **** on it, and that was enough to just set him off.

who knows??

but what the police guy in the article said is very important.

In his 20 years on the force, Allen said, he has never seen a similar case, calling it a cautionary tale.​

“You never know what somebody’s response is going to be to what may be a seemingly harmless prank,” Allen said.​

and that's why you don't pull **** like that.

 

[X Knight]

And we've reached the crossroads.

You're right. With such vastly different outlooks, the gun debate in the US would likely never be resolved.

Let's hope that the two sides can come to some sort of compromise and that more innocent people don't have to die before then.

As a side note, I don't believe that you would shoot to kill anyone who was on your property or vandalizing it in some way. You seem more controlled than that. Warning shots, yes, kill shot, no.

I totally agree.

you hear about these cases, and one of the things you first ask yourself is.........why not fire a warning shot first?

you'd think you'd yell "Hey!! What the **** are you guys doing??!! Get the **** off my lawn!!"

 

[charl_huntress]

And we've reached the crossroads.

You're right. With such vastly different outlooks, the gun debate in the US would likely never be resolved.

Let's hope that the two sides can come to some sort of compromise and that more innocent people don't have to die before then.

As a side note, I don't believe that you would shoot to kill anyone who was on your property or vandalizing it in some way. You seem more controlled than that. Warning shots, yes, kill shot, no.

Yeah...it's almost a no-win argument because everyone becomes entrenched in their given point of view and no one is willing to give an inch. Like I said, I support greater regulations for gun ownership and more regulations to enforce great gun responsibility, but most gun owners support these sorts of measures because most gun owners are responsible individuals and not criminals. It's why they can own a gun in the first place, but there's no telling how someone will react in situations like these. One thing I will say is talking about this has certainly raised the topic of home defense in my home and amongst my friends. So incidents like these, tragic as they may be, will hopefully lead to greater awareness for all.

Also regarding warning shots, I know some people preach that, but warning shots make no sense to me. You want someone who is already in a fear state to fire in the air or in some general direction? Not a good a idea.

“You never know what somebody’s response is going to be to what may be a seemingly harmless prank,” Allen said.
and that's why you don't pull **** like that.

QFT!

 

[Feenix]

I was referring to you specifically. As a military woman, you were probably trained to keep a level head in the worst kinds of situations. I just don't see you being a shoot first-ask questions later type of person.

I could be wrong and you could be a total crazy person, but I don't get that vibe