• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police: Boy, 15, Shot By Homeowner After Knocking At Wrong House

longview said:
Back in post #88 you said,


So while you did not specifically say he should be sent to prison, you did say he would
according to the laws of his state be found guilty of murder.
He was not, because the Judge looked at the facts in the case and felt that not only was it not murder,
but not even manslaughter.
Click to expand...

And again I already said that justice prevailed wtf do you want from? Or are you just pathetic enough to bring back a long dead thread to rub my face in the fact that I was wrong? FFS you won; Im happy for you, is that what you wanted? Why the **** does this matter so much to you?

I may have been wrong about that States laws, but still the shooting was bad. As it turns out the boy was unarmed and the evidence in the case that was never disputed by the defense, stated that the boy was never actually threatening anyone. The homeowner misunderstood the situation and killed an innocent kid. It was ****ing tragic. The anti-gun nuts could easily argue that had the homeowner not had a gun the outcome would have been much different. Not is that bad PR for us responsible gun owners but it is bad for us responsible homeowners. No one should be treating this guy like a hero. The dude panicked and killed a drunk kid. The law may be on his side but, what he did was irresponsible. There many things that an able bodied man like Lovell could have done that did not involve shooting the kid dead to start with. For one he could have had the nuts to go outside and confronted the boys and shushed them away. Instead he stood there like a coward probably pissing his pajamas. Or he knew the law and just shot first, because he knew he could. Meanwhile the boy and his friends were never a real threat. No matter how scared you are of in this situation only a coward or an asshole would shot and kill someone without at least saying something to them. Or perhaps the guy is just a complete idiot.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
And again I already said that justice prevailed wtf do you want from? Or are you just pathetic enough to bring back a long dead thread to rub my face in the fact that I was wrong? FFS you won; Im happy for you, is that what you wanted? Why the **** does this matter so much to you?

I may have been wrong about that States laws, but still the shooting was bad. As it turns out the boy was unarmed and the evidence in the case that was never disputed by the defense, stated that the boy was never actually threatening anyone. The homeowner misunderstood the situation and killed an innocent kid. It was ****ing tragic. The anti-gun nuts could easily argue that had the homeowner not had a gun the outcome would have been much different. Not is that bad PR for us responsible gun owners but it is bad for us responsible homeowners. No one should be treating this guy like a hero. The dude panicked and killed a drunk kid. The law may be on his side but, what he did was irresponsible. There many things that an able bodied man like Lovell could have done that did not involve shooting the kid dead to start with. For one he could have had the nuts to go outside and confronted the boys and shushed them away. Instead he stood there like a coward probably pissing his pajamas. Or he knew the law and just shot first, because he knew he could. Meanwhile the boy and his friends were never a real threat. No matter how scared you are of in this situation only a coward or an asshole would shot and kill someone without at least saying something to them. Or perhaps the guy is just a complete idiot.
Click to expand...

How would the homeowner have knowing the kids were not a threat. There were three young men trying to beat down his door. He tried 'communicating' (probably yelling) at them, and they wouldn't stop. They finally broke a window. It's easy to see how he could feel threatened and afraid, especially once they started breaking through the door. Should he have shot blind? Probably not. I wouldn't have. But it's hard to view him as the aggressor.

Note that he did attempt to communicate with them -- and they didn't stop.

And how do you know that they weren't a threat?
 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The gun nuts are just itching to use their guns and apparently our laws protect them. We have a thing called 911, use it.
 
dcsports said:
How would the homeowner have knowing the kids were not a threat. There were three young men trying to beat down his door. He tried 'communicating' (probably yelling) at them, and they wouldn't stop. They finally broke a window. It's easy to see how he could feel threatened and afraid, especially once they started breaking through the door. Should he have shot blind? Probably not. I wouldn't have. But it's hard to view him as the aggressor.

Note that he did attempt to communicate with them -- and they didn't stop.

And how do you know that they weren't a threat?
Click to expand...

The homeowner said in his testimony under oath in the court room and on camera that he said not one thing to the kid before shooting. He said that he walked up to the door/window quickly and fired with no warning at all. He said it all happened very quickly.

And it was only the one kid that he could see. He heard one other knocking on another door. There was not multiple people trying to get in one door. In fact he stated that the kid was knocking hard and thats what broke the window. At no time did he say that the window broke in an attempt to enter. He believed the knocking broke the window. No one ever entered the house or even attempted to enter the house, or threatened in in any way. What happened according to the homeowner is that his wife woke him up telling him that people were trying to get in the house. He then observed someone walk by a window. There was violent knocking on his two doors. one of them called the police. Then Jeffery Lovell grabbed his gun went to the door saw the kid face to face and observed that he had no weapons that he could see and shot him dead.

Note: he never tried to communicate with anyone.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The homeowner said in his testimony under oath in the court room and on camera that he said not one thing to the kid before shooting. He said that he walked up to the door/window quickly and fired with no warning at all. He said it all happened very quickly.

And it was only the one kid that he could see. He heard one other knocking on another door. There was not multiple people trying to get in one door. In fact he stated that the kid was knocking hard and thats what broke the window. At no time did he say that the window broke in an attempt to enter. He believed the knocking broke the window. No one ever entered the house or even attempted to enter the house, or threatened in in any way. What happened according to the homeowner is that his wife woke him up telling him that people were trying to get in the house. He then observed someone walk by a window. There was violent knocking on his two doors. one of them called the police. Then Jeffery Lovell grabbed his gun went to the door saw the kid face to face and observed that he had no weapons that he could see and shot him dead.

Note: he never tried to communicate with anyone.
Click to expand...

Where did you see all this? It directly contradicts the story linked earlier.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The homeowner said in his testimony under oath in the court room and on camera that he said not one thing to the kid before shooting. He said that he walked up to the door/window quickly and fired with no warning at all. He said it all happened very quickly.

And it was only the one kid that he could see. He heard one other knocking on another door. There was not multiple people trying to get in one door. In fact he stated that the kid was knocking hard and thats what broke the window. At no time did he say that the window broke in an attempt to enter. He believed the knocking broke the window. No one ever entered the house or even attempted to enter the house, or threatened in in any way. What happened according to the homeowner is that his wife woke him up telling him that people were trying to get in the house. He then observed someone walk by a window. There was violent knocking on his two doors. one of them called the police. Then Jeffery Lovell grabbed his gun went to the door saw the kid face to face and observed that he had no weapons that he could see and shot him dead.

Note: he never tried to communicate with anyone.
Click to expand...

FYI -- this was over a year ago. He was already tried and found not guilty of manslaughter.
 
dcsports said:
Where did you see all this? It directly contradicts the story linked earlier.
Click to expand...
FFS I said it in the first damn sentence. I am not making anything up, these are the facts of the case. There are no contradictions.
Chicopee manslaughter defendant Jeffrey Lovell testifies he fatally shot 15-year-old Dylan Francisco to protect his own family | masslive.com

'"When Assistant District Attorney Karen J. Bell began cross-examining Lovell, he said he did not tell the person at the door to go away or tell him he was calling police or that he had a gun and was ready to use it.
Lovell said when he shot Francisco, Francisco was not coming into this home."

'

dcsports said:
FYI -- this was over a year ago. He was already tried and found not guilty of manslaughter.
Click to expand...
No crap really? Yes we all know by now that Lovell was acquitted for manslaughter. In fact its old news, much like this thread. I am not the one that resurrected this dead thread. Another poster did, and it seems that his only point was to make the statement that I was wrong and that the guy was found not guilty by a Judge. He waited a longtime to say that. It was rather pathetic IMO.

Of course the verdict doesnt change the facts of the case and how it went down. And like I said according to the homeowner he never said a thing, just walked up to the door and within 30 seconds to a minute shot the kid dead standing there looking him in the eye knowing that he was unarmed and just violently knocking on his door and when the glass broke boom the kid was dead and it was all quit. ANd he only ever saw one kid the others the wife said she saw. But this guy was such a coward that he did not go outside on his own property to defend it. So he never saw any of the others. Now I dont know about you but the first thing that I would have done was stop the kid from pounding on my door, not just stands there pissing my pants until the glass breaks like a ****ing moron. I certainly would not have ran to get my gun out of my safe for such crap. ANd had this idiot not panicked like the little girl that he was, the kid would still be alive. FFS you dont kill people just because they are knocking on your door even if the laws of your state allow it. Its just wrong and irresponsable and will lead to that law being chamnged or even worse.

Me personally I want to retain my right to bear arms. But cases like this are being handed on a golden platter to the anti gun nuts. And I see that as a problem and a threat to the 2nd Amendment.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
FFS I said it in the first damn sentence. I am not making anything up, these are the facts of the case. There are no contradictions.
Chicopee manslaughter defendant Jeffrey Lovell testifies he fatally shot 15-year-old Dylan Francisco to protect his own family | masslive.com

'"When Assistant District Attorney Karen J. Bell began cross-examining Lovell, he said he did not tell the person at the door to go away or tell him he was calling police or that he had a gun and was ready to use it.
Lovell said when he shot Francisco, Francisco was not coming into this home."

'

No crap really? Yes we all know by now that Lovell was acquitted for manslaughter. In fact its old news, much like this thread. I am not the one that resurrected this dead thread. Another poster did, and it seems that his only point was to make the statement that I was wrong and that the guy was found not guilty by a Judge. He waited a longtime to say that. It was rather pathetic IMO.

Of course the verdict doesnt change the facts of the case and how it went down. And like I said according to the homeowner he never said a thing, just walked up to the door and within 30 seconds to a minute shot the kid dead standing there looking him in the eye knowing that he was unarmed and just violently knocking on his door and when the glass broke boom the kid was dead and it was all quit. ANd he only ever saw one kid the others the wife said she saw. But this guy was such a coward that he did not go outside on his own property to defend it. So he never saw any of the others. Now I dont know about you but the first thing that I would have done was stop the kid from pounding on my door, not just stands there pissing my pants until the glass breaks like a ****ing moron. I certainly would not have ran to get my gun out of my safe for such crap. ANd had this idiot not panicked like the little girl that he was, the kid would still be alive. FFS you dont kill people just because they are knocking on your door even if the laws of your state allow it. Its just wrong and irresponsable and will lead to that law being chamnged or even worse.

Me personally I want to retain my right to bear arms. But cases like this are being handed on a golden platter to the anti gun nuts. And I see that as a problem and a threat to the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes, many contradictions there. For starters, the article says he did try to communicate with the kid for '30 seconds to one minute'. He thought three people were trying to break into his house, with one beating on the door hard enough to break a window. How was he supposed to know what these strange people were doing?

Yes, It's easy to say in hindsight that he could have done things differently, or that you would have. That's easy. Much harder when you are in your home, you think people are breaking into your house (some of whom you can't see) and someone's trying to break through the door.
 
dcsports said:
Yes, many contradictions there. For starters, the article says he did try to communicate with the kid for '30 seconds to one minute'. He thought three people were trying to break into his house, with one beating on the door hard enough to break a window. How was he supposed to know what these strange people were doing?

Yes, It's easy to say in hindsight that he could have done things differently, or that you would have. That's easy. Much harder when you are in your home, you think people are breaking into your house (some of whom you can't see) and someone's trying to break through the door.
Click to expand...

What part of '"When Assistant District Attorney Karen J. Bell began cross-examining Lovell, he said he did not tell the person at the door to go away or tell him he was calling police or that he had a gun and was ready to use it.
Lovell said when he shot Francisco, Francisco was not coming into this home." did you not understand? The article does not say that he tried to communicate. It instead and more importantly what he said under oath, was that he just walked up without trying communicate and looked the 15 year old kid in the eye and killed him. And the fact that he got away with it shows that the laws in that state are flawed. The judge the court and the homeowner all call it a mistake. The homeowner misread the situation and a kid died because of his mistake, but the law doesnt address that type of mistake.

Lovell said that everything happened in 30 seconds to a minute. That means from the time he was awake to firing his weapon all took 30 second to a minute. Apparently he can wake up, get in his gun safe and walk to the kitchen door really fast. Whatever his wife told him had to be within that time span. He literally shot first, before he had time to do anything else. And it was the top pane of glass that broke not near the door knob. The door was never unlocked or opened during that time. So the guy woke up ran to the kitchen door and the first thing that he did was shoot. He really didnt access anything. All he claims on record is that he was petrified. And he shot because he was scared. thats why he killed the kid he was a coward with a gun in his hand. He actually says that under oath right there in court on video. He is the poster boy for what not to do as a gun owner. You should never panic and start shooting because you are scared. But that was his testimony because, thats what he needed to say to get out of manslaughter. it worked because the law is flawed and needs fixed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom