15 Year Old Dies In Prank Gone Wrong

[Marvolo]

Gun owner here:

What a goddamn entirely avoidable tragedy. The shooter better get the maximum sentence. This ignorant shoot first willy nilly and ask questions later is getting old. If you want a gun be responsible and learn to spot your damn target and assess the danger. You dont just point and fire blindly at people without knowing what youre shooting at and why youre doing it. Use some discernment! And use some common ****ing sense! Couldn't he look out a blinds and realize it was kids?

 

[charl_huntress]

It was dark and at night...and it was late. That's a big part of the problem with this. I wish he would have accessed the situation better, and I'm not sure engaging burglars is was the way to go. Yet, you're not going to get a rational person who is able to clearly assess a situation when the hour is late, it's dark, and they were woken from a dead sleep by a noise they think is an intrusion or burglar.

Let sleeping dogs lie...

 

[Marvolo]

It was dark and at night...and it was late. That's a big part of the problem with this. I wish he would have accessed the situation better, and I'm not sure engaging burglars is was the way to go. Yet, you're not going to get a rational person who is able to clearly assess a situation when the hour is late, it's dark, and they were woken from a dead sleep by a noise they think is an intrusion or burglar.

Let sleeping dogs lie...

Ive been in a situation where I was awoken and I own a gun. I just looked out the blinds to check my car and waited a while to see if i heard anything else. I didnt burst out guns blazing. He didnt have engage them. He just needed to evaluate the situation and have some plan. Cause really if this had been a burglar outside his house going out guns blazing against said burglar is an awful plan. This gun owner failed entirely at being responsible, and didnt demonstrate any intelligence.

 

[charl_huntress]

Again, we aren't talking about a rational response, and though you may be able to wake up and assess the situation with rationality, you can't and shouldn't expect everyone to be able to do that. I know people will say well they should be able to that if they own a gun, but again this isn't a case of him lying in wait for the teens. He was asleep and was disturbed from that sleep by the noise. It startled him awake...hence the fear response. Anyone who thinks that's not natural should touch a dog they don't know when it's sleeping and see what happens.

Absolutely, he shouldn't have gone to confront them, but the bad decision could have been motivated by fear. That is not unusual.

 

[SentinelMind]

You should only be firing if you think death or bodily harm is imminent...not when someone is stealing your property from yards away.

 

[Feenix]

People should have to go through a psychological evaluation before they can own a gun.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Again, we aren't talking about a rational response, and though you may be able to wake up and assess the situation with rationality, you can't and shouldn't expect everyone to be able to do that. I know people will say well they should be able to that if they own a gun, but again this isn't a case of him lying in wait for the teens. He was asleep and was disturbed from that sleep by the noise. It startled him awake...hence the fear response. Anyone who thinks that's not natural should touch a dog they don't know when it's sleeping and see what happens.

Absolutely, he shouldn't have gone to confront them, but the bad decision could have been motivated by fear. That is not unusual.

What if he was angry?

 

[charl_huntress]

You should only be firing if you think death or bodily harm is imminent...not when someone is stealing your property from yards away.

I agree with that, but fear can make a person perceive something differently and act differently than they would if they weren't afraid.

What if he was angry?

That's a whole 'nother ball of wax, but I'm going to wager if he was woken by the noise then his initial response was fear and not anger. That could have come later though.

People should have to go through a psychological evaluation before they can own a gun.

lol....Why only apply this to guns? Why not require a psychological evaluation before people can have kids? Why not require a psych eval before people vote? Why not require one when people apply for a driver's license? I mean...we could take this to the next level and require EVERYTHING have a pysch eval!

 

[X Knight]

I agree with that, but fear can make a person perceive something differently and act differently than they would if they weren't afraid.

That's a whole 'nother ball of wax, but I'm going to wager if he was woken by the noise then his initial response was fear and not anger. That could have come later though.

lol....Why only apply this to guns? Why not require a psychological evaluation before people can have kids? Why not require a psych eval before people vote? Why not require one when people apply for a driver's license? I mean...we could take this to the next level and require EVERYTHING have a pysch eval!

right. where do you draw the line?

this guy could have come out with a baseball bat or golf club and start swinging at the kids. those could have easily caused harm or even killed someone.

should anyone who wants to buy baseball bats or golf clubs at the sports store be required to get evaluated?

 

[charl_huntress]

Well...I found some additional details in a new article.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...t-scare-teens-article-1.1619254#ixzz2tye0O9tw

An Arkansas man accused of shooting dead a 15-year-old girl after a group of teens messed with his car as part of an ongoing prank war says he only wanted to scare the kids — not kill.

Noble first found his car covered in mayonnaise, toilet paper, eggs and leaves late Friday, then waited for the teens to come back, when he allegedly unloaded his pistol at the Hyundai Sonata the mischievous teens were driving. Only Broadway was shot.

“Mr. Noble stated that he waited inside because he knew whoever vandalized his vehicle was going to come back,” police said in a statement Tuesday. “Mr. Noble stated that once they returned (about 45 minutes later), he fired his handgun to scare them."

This scenario right here is way different than what was posted in the OP. He wasn't motivated by fear at all. He was motivated by vengeance, and he did lie in wait for them to come back. Also, if he meant to scare them by shooting at them then that's probably where the terroristic act charge comes into play.

I still don't think they'll be able to get him on a 1st degree murder charge, but the way he handled this by waiting for them with a gun, instead of calling the police or the children's parents was not the way to handle that situation. He will certainly pay for that.

right. where do you draw the line?

this guy could have come out with a baseball bat or golf club and start swinging at the kids. those could have easily caused harm or even killed someone.

should anyone who wants to buy baseball bats or golf clubs at the sports store be required to get evaluated?

Well from the new article posted, it would have been better if he did use a baseball bat.

 

[bullets]

Again, we aren't talking about a rational response, and though you may be able to wake up and assess the situation with rationality, you can't and shouldn't expect everyone to be able to do that. I know people will say well they should be able to that if they own a gun, but again this isn't a case of him lying in wait for the teens. He was asleep and was disturbed from that sleep by the noise. It startled him awake...hence the fear response. Anyone who thinks that's not natural should touch a dog they don't know when it's sleeping and see what happens.

Absolutely, he shouldn't have gone to confront them, but the bad decision could have been motivated by fear. That is not unusual.

It's not unreasonable but it does seem suspect. It does take time when you wake up from a dead sleep to rationalize what's going on. However by the time he got up , grabbed his gun, and headed for the door it should of dawned on him what he was doing. It just seems highly unusual.

As for protecting his property that falls into a certain grey area that needs to be more clearly defined. Otherwise we will see a lot more of these situations.

 

[X Knight]

Well...I found some additional details in a new article.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ark-homeowner-shot-dead-15-year-old-girl-meant-scare-teens-article-1.1619254#ixzz2tye0O9tw


This scenario right here is way different than what was posted in the OP. He wasn't motivated by fear at all. He was motivated by vengeance, and he did lie in wait for them to come back. Also, if he meant to scare them by shooting at them then that's probably where the terroristic act charge comes into play.

I still don't think they'll be able to get him on a 1st degree murder charge, but the way he handled this by waiting for them with a gun, instead of calling the police or the children's parents was not the way to handle that situation. He will certainly pay for that.

Well from the new article posted, it would have been better if he did use a baseball bat.

yeah. that does change things.

if you're gonna scare them, why not fire it in the air?? why fire at them??

that's stupid and irresponsible.

it looks like he tried play his own "stupid childish prank" and it ended up costing someone's life.

 

[bullets]

I didn't see the article before I posted. This is just awful. He had to know shooting the vehicle could have lethal consequences.

 

[charl_huntress]

It's not unreasonable but it does seem suspect. It does take time when you wake up from a dead sleep to rationalize what's going on. However by the time he got up , grabbed his gun, and headed for the door it should of dawned on him what he was doing. It just seems highly unusual.

Well the new article I posted changes things a lot. Yet, as for how people can react to noises. It depends on the noise and what that person heard that woke them. Not all noises are created equally.

As for protecting his property that falls into a certain grey area that needs to be more clearly defined. Otherwise we will see a lot more of these situations.

See...I firmly believe in property rights.

yeah. that does change things.

if you're gonna scare them, why not fire it in the air?? why fire at them??

that's stupid and irresponsible.

If you wanted to scare them why not call their parents? A gun should not be used to scare anyone. I was giving credence to him catching them in the act, but he didn't even catch them in the act. That puts a different spin on things.

 

[X Knight]

Well the new article I posted changes things a lot. Yet, as for how people can react to noises. It depends on the noise and what that person heard that woke them. Not all noises are created equally.

See...I firmly believe in property rights.

If you wanted to scare them why not call their parents? A gun should not be used to scare anyone. I was giving credence to him catching them in the act, but he didn't even catch them in the act. That puts a different spin on things.

yeah......that's the worst way to use a gun. irresponsible and stupid.

a gun is NOT something you play around with, whether to show off or scare someone.

 

[bullets]

Well the new article I posted changes things a lot. Yet, as for how people can react to noises. It depends on the noise and what that person heard that woke them. Not all noises are created equally.

See...I firmly believe in property rights.

If you wanted to scare them why not call their parents? A gun should not be used to scare anyone. I was giving credence to him catching them in the act, but he didn't even catch them in the act. That puts a different spin on things.

This is true about noises. You'll initially respond to what you think is happening or may have heard. It's sort of a moot point now though.

I'm not against property rights. However I can see where situations could arise that seem questionable much like the stand your ground law for example.

 

[TheBat812]

Again, we aren't talking about a rational response, and though you may be able to wake up and assess the situation with rationality, you can't and shouldn't expect everyone to be able to do that. I know people will say well they should be able to that if they own a gun, but again this isn't a case of him lying in wait for the teens. He was asleep and was disturbed from that sleep by the noise. It startled him awake...hence the fear response. Anyone who thinks that's not natural should touch a dog they don't know when it's sleeping and see what happens.

Absolutely, he shouldn't have gone to confront them, but the bad decision could have been motivated by fear. That is not unusual.

If a person cannot handle their **** in such a circumstance, they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. They clearly demonstrated an unsafe and unintelligent course of action that is inexcusable especially if the purpose of a gun is to handle danger. You simply cannot just shoot whatever you want because you were scared.

 

[Feenix]

People who shoot blindly at "noises" should not own guns. It's incredibly irresponsible, idiotic, and downright scary. If you get scared easily, don't own a gun. You have no right to kill someone over a mistake.

 

[charl_huntress]

This is true about noises. You'll initially respond to what you think is happening or may have heard. It's sort of a moot point now though.

I'm not against property rights. However I can see where situations could arise that seem questionable much like the stand your ground law for example.

If a person cannot handle their **** in such a circumstance, they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. They clearly demonstrated an unsafe and unintelligent course of action that is inexcusable especially if the purpose of a gun is to handle danger. You simply cannot just shoot whatever you want because you were scared.

People who shoot blindly at "noises" should not own guns. It's incredibly irresponsible, idiotic, and downright scary. If you get scared easily, don't own a gun. You have no right to kill someone over a mistake.

Here's my advice... Stay the **** off my property and you won't have to worry about someone shooting you. Matter of fact, stay off anyone's property if you're not invited and don't vandalize things. Now obviously the case in the OP is not someone reacting to a noise they heard. This man was acting out of vengeance...not fear, but I'm not going to get into a debate about how anyone handles their fear when they are in their house, asleep, and minding their business. Certain people have a way they will handle that and that's up to them, but I am homeowner and a gun owner. I will handle my business on my property the way I see fit. Again...my suggestion...stay the **** off my property!

 

[bullets]

I'm going to egg your house with a bullet proof vest, lol

 

[bullets]

Seriously though I think everyone has a right to defend their property but there needs to be a limitation on the use of deadly force.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

Here's my advice... Stay the **** off my property and you won't have to worry about someone shooting you. Matter of fact, stay off anyone's property if you're not invited and don't vandalize things. Now obviously the case in the OP is not someone reacting to a noise they heard. This man was acting out of vengeance...not fear, but I'm not going to get into a debate about how anyone handles their fear when they are in their house, asleep, and minding their business. Certain people have a way they will handle that and that's up to them, but I am homeowner and a gun owner. I will handle my business on my property the way I see fit. Again...my suggestion...stay the **** off my property!

The thing is,my gun toting Ex navy forum pal, people whose first instinct is to respond with lethal force when confronted with the possibilty of a tresspasser,they WILL react the same way when they're in fear, no matter WHAT the circumstances are...hell, you could be lookin'at them funny, and they'll get nervous and reach for a gun.

If someone could rationalize that to shoot someone when tresspassing is OK,chances are, they WILL apply that reasoning on ANY situation where they feel threatened.

I'm not saying that these kind of people are crazy, but if they could make that kind of decision on one situation, it won't be a big leap for them to make the same kind of decision on other situation that they feel are similiar....

 

[charl_huntress]

I'm going to egg your house with a bullet proof vest, lol

t:

Seriously though I think everyone has a right to defend their property but there needs to be a limitation on the use of deadly force.

Seriously...I'm glad people post things like this because I have never thought of anyone egging or TPing my home. I just bought my house recently, so I haven't lived here long, but that sort of situation occurring is something to consider. There are kids in my neighborhood...and kids will be kids.

Yet I agree with you, and there does need to be limitations on the use of deadly force, which is why I am not a fan of SYG outside of the home. However, I draw the line when it comes to SYG on a person's property because that is something different. A man or woman's home is their castle and they have the right to defend it. No they don't have the right to do what this man did in the OP, but I lower the burden when it comes to a person's property because it's their property, and whoever was on it probably shouldn't have been on the property to begin with.

The thing is,my gun toting Ex navy forum pal, people whose first instinct is to respond with lethal force when confronted with the possibilty of a tresspasser,they WILL react the same way when they're in fear, no matter WHAT the circumstances are...hell, you could be lookin'at them funny, and they'll get nervous and reach for a gun.

Some distinction needs to be made for people defending themselves in their home and those picking fights with people and then standing their ground. That's why I'm not a fan of SYG outside the home.

If someone could rationalize that to shoot someone when tresspassing is OK,chances are, they WILL apply that reasoning on ANY situation where they feel threatened.

I'm not saying that these kind of people are crazy, but if they could make that kind of decision on one situation, it won't be a big leap for them to make the same kind of decision on other situation that they feel are similiar....

I disagree with that because most law-abiding citizens aren't carrying a gun around 24/7. As I have explained before, my gun is for home protection only. I don't take it with me elsewhere because I don't need it for protection anywhere else. The only place where life and death situations apply (at least for me) are in regards to home intrusions and invasions. I'm not going to debate the whys or what fors... If you're on my property and you shouldn't be...God help you. God especially help you if you're on my property at night because I'm not inclined to even ask any questions as to why you're there.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

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?

Oh he did, did he?

What I don't do is jump to conclusions on 500 words that's meant to be sensational. That's what a lot of y'all do, but I just don't do that.

lol

 

[Octoberist]

I do think that there's a difference in playing the Devil's Advocate - giving a different perspective - verses being a contrarian. In fact, I would venture to say that playing the Devil's Advocate only works when it's used sparingly. Otherwise it comes off being somewhat shortsighted at the situation.

In this case, I can't defend the guy who shot the girl. Like what I said before, these pranks have been around since the mid 20th Century. It's nothing new. I've done it myself. If he saw them walking away, don't shoot at them. Why not shoot at the ground or something, or just yell and point the gun. It's not that he had a gun but he got too trigger happy.

He's made that choice.