15 Year Old Dies In Prank Gone Wrong

[Feenix]

People can talk a lot of **** about "defending" their property, but if it was their loved one that was gunned down because they were on someone else's property, it would be a different story. It's easy to say you would shoot someone if they were on your property, but to actually do it? Or to have someone you love be shot for it?

It's all talk.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

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.

Hmmm...perhaps i should have made my point clearer.What i'm trying to say is if your first reaction to a tresspasser is to respond with deadly force, without even bothering to consider other options,then there IS something that's not normal with your way of thinking. I'm excluding you because you've had a a nasty experience with this kind of situation, so your reaction is understandable.

With these other people, is just a nasty combination of itchy trigger finger,some kind of mental defectand a wild west mentality.

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.

Dear Charl, i would agree with you accept for the fact that these kind of incidents are occuring more and more frequently.

Anyway you slice it, it's a symptom of a much larger problem.

 

[Octoberist]

It is happening a lot lately. Or is it just that we're more prone to focus on these types of news now due to social media? Either way, it seems like it's been happening a lot.

 

[Victarion]

I imagine the news networks know these kind of stories will get all kinds of hits and clicks. So you're seeing more of a focus on them now.

 

[Octoberist]

That's possible too. There isn't' really a gauge to know.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

It doesn't really matter. What matter is that these incidents should not happen in the first place.

 

[Octoberist]

Yeah.

Either way, it's just really hard to defend that man. A chid got shot and killed for a harmless prank.

 

[Victarion]

Agreed.

 

[charl_huntress]

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.

I'm not playing the role of devil's advocate here. These discussions generally tend to wind around to when deadly force is applicable on your property. I, of course, have a different view on this. I'm not trying to be contrarian here. I'm just stating my opinion on homeowners using deadly force and when I think it's appropriate. Also let me clarify I am not defending this man. It's clear from the article I posted that he did lay in wait for the children for 45 minutes with a gun trying to scare them. So I am not defending him. Again, I'm just stating my position on homeowners using deadly force appropriately, which the man in the OP did not.

Hmmm...perhaps i should have made my point clearer.What i'm trying to say is if your first reaction to a tresspasser is to respond with deadly force, without even bothering to consider other options,then there IS something that's not normal with your way of thinking. I'm excluding you because you've had a a nasty experience with this kind of situation, so your reaction is understandable.

Again my situation is a bit different, but as I've explained I have fencing and a security system. If someone has bypassed all that, I don't feel I need to evaluate the situation anymore. That's why I have security and fencing in the first place. I also apply this to someone who also has a home security situation similar to mine, even if they haven't had any prior experience with a home invasion.

With these other people, is just a nasty combination of itchy trigger finger,some kind of mental defectand a wild west mentality.

The incident in the OP is a situation where the homeowner wasn't defending anything because the vandalism had already taken place. He waited 45 minutes before calling the cops, and he was waiting for them, so I agree there was something wrong with him. He should not have used his gun to "scare" a bunch of kids. Yet, you can't take a situation like this as a reason to say ban all guns, but I know many will.

Dear Charl, i would agree with you accept for the fact that these kind of incidents are occuring more and more frequently.

Anyway you slice it, it's a symptom of a much larger problem.

I don't think these incidents are happening that often. We hear about them here, but in the scheme of things they aren't happening all the time. Though occurrences like these do speak to larger problem in society. People are more wary of others, and less tolerant to believe someone isn't out to do them harm. Simply put...people don't trust other people, which is why I preach things like normal operating hours. Behave responsibly. Don't put yourself in a position where someone will question your intentions...like for instance skulking around their house in the dead of night when you have no reason to be there.

 

[Feenix]

like for instance skulking around their house in the dead of night when you have no reason to be there.

How do you know they have no reason to be there? What if they're looking for their lost cat? What if they wanted to take a shortcut to avoid something? What if they were hurt and needed help? What if they were lost? Drunk?

The point is, "defending" your property with deadly force can result in the loss of an innocent life (as we've read numerous times). No one has the right to take a life because they're paranoid. If their first reaction is to shoot, then they have major issues. Scared or not, no one has the right to be trigger happy.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

Again my situation is a bit different, but as I've explained I have fencing and a security system. If someone has bypassed all that, I don't feel I need to evaluate the situation anymore. That's why I have security and fencing in the first place. I also apply this to someone who also has a home security situation similar to mine, even if they haven't had any prior experience with a home invasion.

I know your situation is different, Charl. That's why i mentioened it in my post.

I don't think these incidents are happening that often. We hear about them here, but in the scheme of things they aren't happening all the time

Well, we sure as heck are hearing it more and more often these days, Charl.

people don't trust other people, which is why I preach things like normal operating hours. Behave responsibly. Don't put yourself in a position where someone will question your intentions...like for instance skulking around their house in the dead of night when you have no reason to be there.

Well, what you mentioned here is only one half of the problem. The other half is home owners, gun owners etc behaving like Clint Eastwood in these incidents.

Can't fix the problem if you're ignoring half of it.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

You have no right to take a life because you're paranoid. If your first reaction is to shoot, you have major issues. Scared or not, no one has the right to be trigger happy.

THIS...agree 100%

 

[Hotwire]

How do you know they have no reason to be there? What if they're looking for their lost cat? What if they wanted to take a shortcut to avoid something? What if they were hurt and needed help? What if they were lost? Drunk?

The point is, "defending" your property with deadly force can result in the loss of an innocent life (as we've read numerous times). No one has the right to take a life because they're paranoid. If their first reaction is to shoot, then they have major issues. Scared or not, no one has the right to be trigger happy.

According to Charl, these are to be done in the day time or else, deadly force is reasonable. You should have read her posts on the guy who shot the injured woman who came knocking looking for help after a car accident! Her stance is that there are "normal operating hours" for venturing anywhere near anyone's property, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[charl_huntress]

How do you know they have no reason to be there? What if they're looking for their lost cat? What if they wanted to take a shortcut to avoid something? What if they were hurt and needed help? What if they were lost? Drunk?

I know they have no reason to be on my property because I did not invite them. CP, while I understand your concern for someone being lost and wandering that is why I said behave responsibly earlier. I should also mention practice good risk management.

1. Don't go looking for your cat in the middle of the damn night!!! Don't go looking for your cat on someone else's property without informing them you are on their property looking for your cat.

2. Don't shortcut through someone's property. Their property is not a roadway or pathway. Behave responsibly and plan your route responsibly.

3. If you are hurt the best thing to do is to stay where you are and wait for help to arrive. It's not safe to go wandering injured, but if you must then announce yourself if you can.

4. If you're lost...I would advise looking for a place or location that is well lit; yet, if you must knock on someone's door, or skulk around their property, then try to identify yourself often and early.

5. If you're drunk then you're out of your right mind and not responsible for your actions, which means you probably shouldn't be drinking in the first place and you definitely shouldn't be on my property!

The point is, "defending" your property with deadly force can result in the loss of an innocent life (as we've read numerous times). No one has the right to take a life because they're paranoid. If their first reaction is to shoot, then they have major issues. Scared or not, no one has the right to be trigger happy.

You confuse someone being scared and frightened with someone being trigger happy. Those are not the same things. While I know you would like to put every tragedy that occurs on the gun owner or homeowner, there must be responsibility on both ends. People have to behave responsibly, and it's not responsible to skulking around someone's house in the dead of night. It's not good to do it at anytime, but it's especially unwise to do it at night. You are likely to get a very different response than in the daytime.

Well, we sure as heck are hearing it more and more often these days, Charl.

I haven't really heard of that many instances here in CA tbh. I only really read about this when I come to the Hype.

Well, what you mentioned here is only one half of the problem. The other half is home owners, gun owners etc behaving like Clint Eastwood in these incidents. Can't fix the problem if you're ignoring half of it.

The situation in the OP makes gun owners look bad. I'll give you that. This man should have called the police after his car was vandalized. He should NOT have laid in wait with his gun for the kids to come back so he could shoot at them and...supposedly try to scare them. I don't really buy that, so again I'm not defending him.

I'm not sure the DA can get him on 1st degree murder, but they will get him on something. That's for sure. He had no right to do what he did because guns should not be used to scare someone. That's why I don't support warning shots. If my gun is in my hand then I am heavily considering deadly force, which is why the DA might actually get the man in the OP on 1st degree murder. He should have know better as a gun owner.

 

[charl_huntress]

According to Charl, these are to be done in the day time or else, deadly force is reasonable. You should have read her posts on the guy who shot the injured woman who came knocking looking for help after a car accident! Her stance is that there are "normal operating hours" for venturing anywhere near anyone's property, regardless of the circumstances.

You mean the injured, drunk woman....

Yes, Hotwire, I do support normal operating hours and I also support not drinking and driving.

 

[Hotwire]

I should also mention practice good risk management.

Practice good risk management. I like this. So, if you're scared someone is on your property, practice some risk management and assess the situation. Does it call for the, "shoot first and ask questions later" approach or, perhaps we call the cops first? Do we confront the person on our property or, do we stop to think that they may be better armed than we are?

See, you love to apply this line of logic to everyone but the shooter. I'm still not sure why you so often want to give a trigger happy home owner the benefit of the doubt but will not offer the same to their victims.

 

[TheBat812]

t:

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.

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.

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.

But you can't just excuse anything just because it's your property. It's understandable to feel fear when there are noises or movements around your house, but that is not at all cause to come out guns blazing. If I am outside at your door knockig on it at 3 am, you have the right to call the cops and wait inside with your gun drawn because I'd be disturbing your peace after hours, but you still have no right to shoot at them. Until the intention for their interaction becomes clear, the only information youre using is the unreliable one of fear. That fear is understandable and warranted, but shooting first and asking questions later is not. It being day or night doesn't matter when it comes to shooting people. It might change your fear level - but that's not a valid reason.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

I know they have no reason to be on my property because I did not invite them. CP, while I understand your concern for someone being lost and wandering that is why I said behave responsibly earlier. I should also mention practice good risk management.

1. Don't go looking for your cat in the middle of the damn night!!! Don't go looking for your cat on someone else's property without informing them you are on their property looking for your cat.

2. Don't shortcut through someone's property. Their property is not a roadway or pathway. Behave responsibly and plan your route responsibly.

3. If you are hurt the best thing to do is to stay where you are and wait for help to arrive. It's not safe to go wandering injured, but if you must then announce yourself if you can.

4. If you're lost...I would advise looking for a place or location that is well lit; yet, if you must knock on someone's door, or skulk around their property, then try to identify yourself often and early.

5. If you're drunk then you're out of your right mind and not responsible for your actions, which means you probably shouldn't be drinking in the first place and you definitely shouldn't be on my property!

Every single one of your numbered scenarios can be countered with, Don't be a maniac and shoot people before assessing the situation. I'm glad you think your property is more valuable than an innocent life.

You confuse someone being scared and frightened with someone being trigger happy. Those are not the same things. While I know you would like to put every tragedy that occurs on the gun owner or homeowner, there must be responsibility on both ends. People have to behave responsibly, and it's not responsible to skulking around someone's house in the dead of night. It's not good to do it at anytime, but it's especially unwise to do it at night. You are likely to get a very different response than in the daytime.

The situation in the OP makes gun owners look bad. I'll give you that. This man should have called the police after his car was vandalized. He should NOT have laid in wait with his gun for the kids to come back so he could shoot at them and...supposedly try to scare them. I don't really buy that, so again I'm not defending him.

Oh, but you WERE defending him before the new little tidbit of info became available. You said he was scared and justified in his reaction...whoops.

I'm not sure the DA can get him on 1st degree murder, but they will get him on something. That's for sure. He had no right to do what he did because guns should not be used to scare someone. That's why I don't support warning shots. If my gun is in my hand then I am heavily considering deadly force, which is why the DA might actually get the man in the OP on 1st degree murder. He should have know better as a gun owner.

Yet he didn't. Why is that?

 

[charl_huntress]

Practice good risk management. I like this. So, if you're scared someone is on your property, practice some risk management and assess the situation. Does it call for the, "shoot first and ask questions later" approach or, perhaps we call the cops first? Do we confront the person on our property or, do we stop to think that they may be better armed than we are?

I am on MY PROPERTY. You're asking me...I'm prior military. Like I said, if you've bypassed all my SECURITY then I really don't need to ask any ****ing questions.

See, you love to apply this line of logic to everyone but the shooter. I'm still not sure why you so often want to give a trigger happy home owner the benefit of the doubt but will not offer the same to their victims.

I give them the benefit of the doubt because it's their HOME. It's the place of residence. It's where they want to feel safe at. I know you live in an apartment and have to share your space with every Tom, Dick and Harry... I, however, do not have to do that and DO NOT expect to do that.

 

[TheBat812]

I am on MY PROPERTY. You're asking me...I'm prior military. Like I said, if you've bypassed all my SECURITY then I really don't need to ask any ****ing questions.

I give them the benefit of the doubt because it's their HOME. It's the place of residence. It's where they want to feel safe at. I know you live in an apartment and have to share your space with every Tom, Dick and Harry... I, however, do not have to do that and DO NOT expect to do that.

Your case is unique as most houses do not have security. But at the same time, maybe they need help. If they've bypassed your security, you clearly have the right to call the cops, but shooting them is still off the table.

 

[Hotwire]

I am on MY PROPERTY. You're asking me...I'm prior military. Like I said, if you've bypassed all my SECURITY then I really don't need to ask any ****ing questions.

I give them the benefit of the doubt because it's their HOME. It's the place of residence. It's where they want to feel safe at. I know you live in an apartment and have to share your space with every Tom, Dick and Harry... I, however, do not have to do that and DO NOT expect to do that.

I was talking in a more general sense. I know you live in a little private fortress so, yeah, you're afford a little more leeway. I'm talking about Joe Homeowner. Shouldn't he practice some risk management rather than just assuming that every person setting foot on his property needs to be shot?

 

[Hal_Jordan]

I am on MY PROPERTY. You're asking me...I'm prior military. Like I said, if you've bypassed all my SECURITY then I really don't need to ask any ****ing questions.

That's really interesting coming from a "devil's advocate/I give the benefit of the doubt in all situations," kind of person you claim to be.

 

[jmc]

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.

Perhaps you should ask questions, it could mean the difference of screwing up the lives of everybody including your own.

 

[charl_huntress]

But you can't just excuse anything just because it's your property.

Yes...actually I can. The fact you think I don't have the right to do that perplexes me.

It's understandable to feel fear when there are noises or movements around your house, but that is not at all cause to come out guns blazing. If I am outside at your door knockig on it at 3 am, you have the right to call the cops and wait inside with your gun drawn because I'd be disturbing your peace after hours, but you still have no right to shoot at them.

Hm....if you are making yourself a threat.... I have every right to blast on you. Don't think I don't, or you will be dead.

Until the intention for their interaction becomes clear, the only information youre using is the unreliable one of fear. That fear is understandable and warranted, but shooting first and asking questions later is not. It being day or night doesn't matter when it comes to shooting people. It might change your fear level - but that's not a valid reason.

What's unwarranted is you being on MY PROPERTY.

Your case is unique as most houses do not have security. But at the same time, maybe they need help. If they've bypassed your security, you clearly have the right to call the cops, but shooting them is still off the table.

That's not true. Most neighbors in my area have fencing. I don't know if this is the case America-wide.

Perhaps you should ask questions, it could mean the difference of screwing up the lives of everybody including your own.

I will defend my home. If you're there when you shouldn't be and you're not invited then you are putting yourself in a position as an agitator/aggressor. That's not my fault. That's YOUR FAULT!!!!

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Yes...actually I can. The fact you think I don't have the right to do that perplexes me.



Hm....if you are making yourself a threat.... I have every right to blast on you. Don't think I don't, or you will be dead.



What's unwarranted is you being on MY PROPERTY.



That's not true. Most neighbors in my area have fencing. I don't know if this is the case America-wide.

I will defend my home. If you're there when you shouldn't be and you're not invited then you are putting yourself in a position as an agitator/aggressor. That's not my fault. That's YOUR FAULT!!!!

I feel sorry for you. Living in such a state of constant fear is a mental illness. You have it.