15 Year Old Dies In Prank Gone Wrong

[charl_huntress]

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

Honestly...I hope I am never put in a situation like that because my fear response is skewed. I had someone try to break into my home when I was 14, so I don't think I would have such a rational head.

lol...Show me a couple of severed fingers, which I have seen before and I'm good. Show me a bone protruding through the skin... Show me someone who is electrocuted. Show me someone injured in a motorcycle accident and I can likely keep my **** together. Let me hear a noise I think is someone breaking into my house and this Navy woman would lose her **** really fast. t:

Let me add...my fear of home invasion is why I have a pretty good security system including fencing around my front yard. I want it to be a deterrent to intruders. Plus, I have a garage and the cars are inside...lol

 

[E-Man]

One thing that I always think that's crazy during the whole gun debate and what not is how nunchakus are illegal here. You mean to tell me that I can get a gun that is far more dangerous, but I can't get some nunchakus? I think it's because you have to be good to use things like nunchakus, swords, etc. Anyone can pull a trigger, but you have to work at it to hurt someone besides yourself with nunchakus. Nunchakus are too cool to be illegal, and someone should start fighting for those rights. I would do it, but I'm too lazy and disinterested in doing anything political.

 

[charl_huntress]

You can have nunchakus (sp). You just can't carry them around in public, but there's no law I know of that prevents you from owning one.

The only weapon I believe which is illegal to own in most states are butterfly knives....and of course certain types of other weapons like grenades and such.

 

[X Knight]

at the end of the day, it comes down to RESPONSIBILITY.

Gun owners should have the sense and "duty" to handle their weapons with the utmost diligence and not just be trigger happy nutjobs.

With great power comes great responsibility.

I believe most gun owners in our nation ARE responsible. otherwise people would be shooting each other left and right like the Wild West.

But responsibility also applies to these "kids."

maybe I was raised differently, but it's all about respect and sometimes just plain common sense.

it's not respectul, or smart, to go to someone's house and vandalize that person's car, especially at 1 AM! That's a stupid prank to play.

doesn't mean you deserve to get shot at or killed. but you shouldn't be playing with fire like that in the 1st place.

again, you never know how someone will react to a prank.

Look at those kids playing that "knock out" game or whatever it's called. where they go up to some innocent bystander and hit or actually knock that person down. then laugh about it with each other and record in on their phones to post it on Youtube ( ******* morons!! ).

now, that's a much more malicious prank than egging someone's car.

but it's just as stupid.

one of these days, they're going to knock some guy down who DOES carry a gun, and he's gonna get up and shoot them, and possibly kill them.

then we'll see who's laughing and having a good time.

and honestly, if such a case did happen, I don't mean to sound cold and callous, but I wouldn't feel sorry if one of those punk ass kids did get shot over playing such a stupid and mean prank.

 

[bullets]

I just don't understand this notion of shoot first ask questions later and how that's somehow acceptable when it comes to self defense. If I woke up in the middle of the night and heard strange noises I'd try to get a grasp of the situation before running out and shooting the first thing I came into contact with. I'm saying this as an Army veteran. Not to say that makes me an expert. I know people react to situations differently. At some point you have to draw a line though and this incident looks ridiculous. He had no right to shoot at those kids and his life wasn't in danger.


What I mean to say is that I just want some nunchchakus.

 

[charl_huntress]

Here's my problem with this and it's one of the reasons I always come into these type of threads. I simply do not get why people call someone in an extreme situation like this a trigger happy, gun nut? It wasn't like this man picked up a gun and went to work and shot someone. It's not like he stood outside his home waiting for someone to trespass. Odds were this man was asleep and heard a noise that scared the **** out of him. He reacted in fear and made a bad choice while scared. Does that really make him a trigger happy, gun nut? I guess for some it does, but if you answer please don't be facetious or clever with your response. I am legitimately asking why people can't see how easy it is to make a bad choice while you are scared?

Again, I don't think deadly force was warranted in this instance, but I can legitimately give credence to someone reacting to what they think may be an ongoing theft of property or vandalism, which was what these kids were actually doing. So again, how is this incident any more than just a tragedy? Why does it have to be a trigger happy, gun nut?

 

[E-Man]

You can have nunchakus (sp). You just can't carry them around in public, but there's no law I know of that prevents you from owning one.

The only weapon I believe which is illegal to own in most states are butterfly knives....and of course certain types of other weapons like grenades and such.

Yeah but that's a stupid loop hole. So if I'm out jogging, and I get attacked I still get fined and/or go to jail for defending myself with nunchakus. Meanwhile if I shoot someone while attacked all is well and good. I can't go on a nunchaku killing rampage without being stopped pretty early on, but a gun rampage can do way more damage before it's ended. If anything there should be more gun restrictions than nunchakus or swords if we're going to pull the danger card out.

Also nunchakus is the correct spelling of the word. I think you can spell it multiple ways, but nunchakus is acceptable.

 

[E-Man]

I just don't understand this notion of shoot first ask questions later and how that's somehow acceptable when it comes to self defense. If I woke up in the middle of the night and heard strange noises I'd try to get a grasp of the situation before running out and shooting the first thing I came into contact with. I'm saying this as an Army veteran. Not to say that makes me an expert. I know people react to situations differently. At some point you have to draw a line though and this incident looks ridiculous. He had no right to shoot at those kids and his life wasn't in danger.


What I mean to say is that I just want some nunchchakus.

 

[X Knight]

Here's my problem with this and it's one of the reasons I always come into these type of threads. I simply do not get why people call someone in an extreme situation like this a trigger happy, gun nut? It wasn't like this man picked up a gun and went to work and shot someone. It's not like he stood outside his home waiting for someone to trespass. Odds were this man was asleep and heard a noise that scared the **** out of him. He reacted in fear and made a bad choice while scared. Does that really make him a trigger happy, gun nut? I guess for some it does, but if you answer please don't be facetious or clever with your response. I am legitimately asking why people can't see how easy it is to make a bad choice while you are scared?

Again, I don't think deadly force was warranted in this instance, but I can legitimately give credence to someone reacting to what they think may be an ongoing theft of property or vandalism, which was what these kids were actually doing. So again, how is this incident any more than just a tragedy? Why does it have to be a trigger happy, gun nut?

I've used the phrase trigger happy nutjobs in my posts. I do believe there are people like that.

As for the guy in this case, I have no idea. maybe he his, maybe not.

as you said, it's totally legit and conceivable that he was scared by **** going on in front of his home and he panicked.

 

[bullets]

Here's my problem with this and it's one of the reasons I always come into these type of threads. I simply do not get why people call someone in an extreme situation like this a trigger happy, gun nut? It wasn't like this man picked up a gun and went to work and shot someone. It's not like he stood outside his home waiting for someone to trespass. Odds were this man was asleep and heard a noise that scared the **** out of him. He reacted in fear and made a bad choice while scared. Does that really make him a trigger happy, gun nut? I guess for some it does, but if you answer please don't be facetious or clever with your response. I am legitimately asking why people can't see how easy it is to make a bad choice while you are scared?

Again, I don't think deadly force was warranted in this instance, but I can legitimately give credence to someone reacting to what they think may be an ongoing theft of property or vandalism, which was what these kids were actually doing. So again, how is this incident any more than just a tragedy? Why does it have to be a trigger happy, gun nut?

I don't know this man's history enough to label him a gun nut. I've also looked at the situation from his point of view and placed myself in his shoes based on the little information I've read. I just can't see how these kids spooked him so bad that he needed to fire into their vehicle. Yeah it's the middle of the night and bad stuff can happen but there is a responsibility to not pull a trigger without assessing a situation beforehand. It seems more to me like a case of rage , but that just how I perceive it.

 

[charl_huntress]

I've used the phrase trigger happy nutjobs in my posts. I do believe there are people like that.

As for the guy in this case, I have no idea. maybe he his, maybe not.

as you said, it's totally legit and conceivable that he was scared by **** going on in front of his home and he panicked.

Exactly, but be prepared for people saying you blame the victims. That's what happens when you look at both sides.

I was referring to you Raven since you did use that phrase, but I've conversed with you enough to know you didn't really mean it that way. I was just saying it because it is a common phrase that is uttered whenever this happens, and I really don't think in all of these situations the person is a trigger happy, gun nut. That was more my point. Not trying to call you out.

I don't know this man's history enough to label him a gun nut. I've also looked at the situation from his point of view and placed myself in his shoes based on the little information I've read. I just can't see how these kids spooked him so bad that he needed to fire into their vehicle. Yeah it's the middle of the night and bad stuff can happen but there is a responsibility to not pull a trigger without assessing a situation beforehand. It seems more to me like a case of rage , but that just how I perceive it.

I totally understand what you are saying, and I'm also unsure why he went outside in the first place. I really do believe once someone puts themselves in a confrontational position when they have a gun in hand the odds and likelihood of them using that gun are incredibly high... But then again... I also add in he lives in a state that has expanded castle, and maybe he went outside because he wanted to defend his property, which he may have had every right to do.

I guess I just give credence to the fact that whatever made him pull his gun in the first place was extreme, and perhaps not unwarranted given the time of night.

 

[jmc]

Here's my problem with this and it's one of the reasons I always come into these type of threads. I simply do not get why people call someone in an extreme situation like this a trigger happy, gun nut? It wasn't like this man picked up a gun and went to work and shot someone. It's not like he stood outside his home waiting for someone to trespass. Odds were this man was asleep and heard a noise that scared the **** out of him. He reacted in fear and made a bad choice while scared. Does that really make him a trigger happy, gun nut? I guess for some it does, but if you answer please don't be facetious or clever with your response. I am legitimately asking why people can't see how easy it is to make a bad choice while you are scared?

Again, I don't think deadly force was warranted in this instance, but I can legitimately give credence to someone reacting to what they think may be an ongoing theft of property or vandalism, which was what these kids were actually doing. So again, how is this incident any more than just a tragedy? Why does it have to be a trigger happy, gun nut?

If the first instinct is to go for a gun without taking into account what the situation is then that's where the problem lies.

 

[charl_huntress]

If the first instinct is to go for a gun without taking into account what the situation is then that's where the problem lies.

I hold more burden of proof for officers of the law who are trained for this (supposedly), then I do for someone who has a gun for home defense and protection. Please keep in mind these people are defending their property...not public safety.

Was it right for this man to step outside of his home to defend a car from vandals? I don't know, but I have asked myself and other gun owners if in the same circumstances they saw someone walking around their home, or backyard, or anywhere near their property, at night (1am, 2am...etc). How would they react?

Seriously....getting a gun is not an unreasonable response in this day and age.

I know many of you disagree with this, but I again bring up normal operating hours. You can't and shouldn't expect a normal response at that hour. I also have to say, even though kids will be kids.... Vandalizing in this day and age in the dead of night. That's a tragedy waiting to happen.

 

[jmc]

The problem I have with the US attitude is that owning a gun is an illusion of security because ultimately the situation might not be in your favour or worse you misinterpret the situation entirely. If you want to protect your home for real you would build the proper fencing, install secure doors and windows, buy a German Shepard as a pet and have a phone fully charged on hand with 911 on speed dial.

 

[charl_huntress]

Not everyone has the means to do that. I do... I would not require that of anyone. Again, home owners are defending their home and property. Not public safety.

 

[DeadPresident]

I'll be honest: People have been toilet papering and egging houses for half of a century. You can't single these kids out for an old school and ultimately harmless prank.

I agree, but half a century ago didn't present the social problems of today. Again, it's a tragic event, but the way I view things is my behaviour can have a range of outcomes based on how people experience them, within reason I like to be comfortable with even the most extreme of those outcomes before I do something.

Considering the social environment in the USA at the moment, it's not so outlandish to think "Hey, maybe the person who's house I'm vandalising is crazy as ****, and might overreact?". I don't condone it, but if you're going to vandalise somebody's property, at least entertain the notion that they might be strapped and might confuse the situation for what it really is.

Like I mentioned before, it's easy to come and discuss this in a leisurely way on some internet forum. Everyone here is like "Oh, I wouldn't react that way, I mean I'm reasonable and it's just kids being kids". Yeah, maybe, maybe depending on what state of mind or mood you were in on a certain day it wouldn't be so clear cut. Everyone is making normative statements about how "it should have played out".

And now thanks to this story people aren't going to look at harmless pranks as being so harmless anymore.

 

[jmc]

Kids have been mucking around since we came down from the trees. I can't stand this '50 years ago kids weren't like this or that' nonsense. The truth is each generation of teens causes trouble relative to the time in which they live in.

 

[DeadPresident]

I wasn't referring to the kids if your post is aimed at me. I was referring to 50 years ago the average homeowner probably didn't come out guns blazing on his porch, or kids were familiar with which house had a gatstrapped crazy old ******* in it.

And yeah, kids should "be able to be kids", and everyone should teach their kids that. Right after that they should include the lesson about actions and (over)reactions. Do what you wanna do, but make peace with the fact that your actions might bring out the bad in someone else, and might get your ass shot.

I like how everyone wants to police everyone else instead of their own behaviour first. Instead of "Let me not prank somebody, I don't know their circumstances" it becomes "**** everybody else, they need to control themselves while I do dumb ****".

 

[charl_huntress]

I refute both of those statements because "kids" have been getting shot in American and abroad since the first bullet was fired.

 

[DeadPresident]

Let me spell it out, since my posts haven't been explicit: What I'm saying is the social climate of 2014 is not the social climate of 1964. Yes kids have been shot in the interim period, the reasons, frequency and locations may have changed. The problems are societal in nature, that's what I'm saying.

 

[Feenix]

The problem I have with the US attitude is that owning a gun is an illusion of security because ultimately the situation might not be in your favour or worse you misinterpret the situation entirely. If you want to protect your home for real you would build the proper fencing, install secure doors and windows, buy a German Shepard as a pet and have a phone fully charged on hand with 911 on speed dial.

I agree with this. I think there's a different underlying motive for some people owning guns outside of "security."

 

[DeadPresident]

I agree with this. I think there's a different underlying motive for some people owning guns outside of "security."

Probably the agenda the right wing wants to exploit; "If you don't have a gun, the minorities will come and take everything you have".

That's the subtext of all the "security" related bull**** the conservatives spew. It works in their favor to create a fictitious fear scapegoat so that the increasingly impoverished blame minorities for their economic struggles rather than moronic governmental structures.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

I refute both of those statements because "kids" have been getting shot in American and abroad since the first bullet was fired.

But...but..but responsible gun owners would never do that!

 

[X Knight]

Exactly, but be prepared for people saying you blame the victims. That's what happens when you look at both sides.

I was referring to you Raven since you did use that phrase, but I've conversed with you enough to know you didn't really mean it that way. I was just saying it because it is a common phrase that is uttered whenever this happens, and I really don't think in all of these situations the person is a trigger happy, gun nut. That was more my point. Not trying to call you out.

That's ok, Huntress.

And I appreciate that you try to be reasonable and fair and see both sides of the situation, and try to have an intelligent, civil discussion/debate.

 

[jmc]

I agree with this. I think there's a different underlying motive for some people owning guns outside of "security."

I don't know if it's necessarily that, I just think there is the assumption that the guns will protect you. It will only protect you if the situation is in your favour, the problem is there are variables that you can't always predict, meaning the gun may very well be completely useless. It's like airport security, it's an illusion of protection.