• 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!

Homeowner shot a 14-year-old during burglary attempt. The 5 other teens with him were charged with m

Mason66 said:
Not everybody has been pussified in the country yet.

When the man heard commotion at his house, he went outside to see what it was.

Should he have waited for the group to enter the house and kill him?
Click to expand...

That's exactly the kind of macho-man stupidity that can get yourself and other people killed. Maybe we could put "Let me show you how a real man does it" as the final epitaph on your gravestone. And the answer to your question is yes. If you hear some suspicious commotion outside your of home. Stay inside your home. Pick up your phone, call 911 as you retrieve your firearm, stay on the phone with them, tell them you're armed, give them a description of yourself, your location, etc. Don't go looking for any intruders inside of, or outside of your home. Cause then the intruders have the tactical advantage in that you don't necessarily know where they are or are going to be, how many of them there are, or what kind of weapons they may or may not have. Better to barricade yourself in a safe room, such as a bedroom, take a covered or concealed position adjacent to the entrance way to that room. Then simply protect that entrance way, giving you the tactical advantage, as you wait for the police to arrive
 
vanceen said:
I think "felony murder" laws are poor law. The intention behind it may be fine - create a penalty for someone being involved in a felony during which someone is killed - but the practical application is often unjust. Murder charges should be reserved for people who actually commit murder. It would be possible to implement a specific charge or penalty for the case where someone is killed during a felony without classifying it as murder.

It also seems obvious to me that minors simply should not be tried as adults. Ever. We do not apply a sliding scale to the definition of a minor when it comes to driving licenses, alcohol purchases, or statutory rape. In every other area of law apart from criminal law, minors are legally considered not to be fully responsible for themselves in the same way as adults. I see no reason to blur the line when it comes to criminal law.
Click to expand...

Driving a car and drinking a beer are not on the same level as ending the life of another human. Just because a person is 17 doesn't make the victim any less dead. The victim had a life too - and it is not acceptable that because a peson is 17 they should be allowed to take a life while only sacrificing a small part of their own. I cannot agree with that line of thought.
 
Atomic Kid said:
That's exactly the kind of macho-man stupidity that can get yourself and other people killed. Maybe we could put "Let me show you how a real man does it" as the final epitaph on your gravestone. And the answer to your question is yes. If you hear some suspicious commotion outside your of home. Stay inside your home. Pick up your phone, call 911 as you retrieve your firearm, stay on the phone with them, tell them you're armed, give them a description of yourself, your location, etc. Don't go looking for any intruders inside of, or outside of your home. Cause then the intruders have the tactical advantage in that you don't necessarily know where they are or are going to be, how many of them there are, or what kind of weapons they may or may not have. Better to barricade yourself in a safe room, such as a bedroom, take a covered or concealed position adjacent to the entrance way to that room. Then simply protect that entrance way, giving you the tactical advantage, as you wait for the police to arrive
Click to expand...

If your only intention is to keep your self alive then that may work. What about your family? Your belongings? Your property? A person should be allowed to protect themselves, and their property from intruders. I am not saying everyone should go in guns blazing but if a person is robbing your home, and the reality is in many cases police may not arrive for more than a few minutes giving them plenty of time to rob you blind, that decision to engage or not engage should be completely your discretion. And if the burglar leaves before the police arrive you will be given a report for insurance (if you have any) and that is likely the end of it. If a person chooses to use lethal force then so be it. They should not be forced to lose what they have worked hard for just because criminals shouldn't be shot at. That type of thing isn't macho-man stupidity. That is simply protecting your property, life, and loved ones.

We don't need to protect criminals in our society. Especially criminals whos crimes have victims.
 
Mason66 said:
Not everybody has been pussified in the country yet.

When the man heard commotion at his house, he went outside to see what it was.

Should he have waited for the group to enter the house and kill him?
Click to expand...

And should he go out unprepared to defend himself? How stupid is that? To get out and see what the problem is and THEN realize there are several armed (at least 1 in this instance) criminals out there? It's a little late after they decide to attack you.

You cant always ascertain what's happening unless you go outside and check. Maybe just your presence is enough to run raccoons or thieves off. But you look pretty silly calling the cops on raccoons.

The lack of common sense in some posts is appalling.
 
apdst said:
It's bazarre even if they did coerce him.
Click to expand...

This is very well established law. If 5 people go into rob a bank and one of them shoots a banker, all 5 are legally responsible. If not, you get into real problems. What if each one says it was the other one? Who is the actual ring leader etc.
 
Lursa said:
If I saw 4/5 guys on my property stealing my car:

a) after calling 911, I would go out and tell them I did and try to get pics for ID, hoping that gets them to run off.

Is a) reasonable? Yes/no?

b) I would take my firearm, holstered, with me.

Is b) reasonable? Yes/no

If no, please explain.

c) if they did rush me and attack, am I justified in drawing my firearm and firing if they dont stop?

Is c) reasonable? yes/no

Keep in mind that 'reasonable' is a standard used in court. (And everything I just listed would be legal)

My answers: a) yes I cant afford to be without a car, I hope that they'll leave if they know the cops are coming and I can take their pics and ID them.

b) yes. 4/5 individuals can do me lethal harm even if they dont have weapons.
Shouldnt I be able to defend myself if they do attack me? Or should I go out and just "hope" they'll leave? (And have no ability to protect myself if they do attack me?)

c) yes of course...why would I let them harm or kill me?

Or am I just supposed to watch them drive my expensive, hard to replace (certainly insurance wont be total replacement value) property that will keep me from getting to work from my rural property?
Click to expand...

Actually there is no truly good answer. It says he had a small caliber handgun. Those are almost impossible to control in rapid fire and generally they don't stop anyone. As in this instance it may lethally kill someone - but they die minutes or hours later. If he waited until all 5 rushed him, he would lose - possibly murdered then with his own little pistol.

Realistically, in a 5 against 1 situation the 1 should make retreat and sheltering the priority. If you are TD and have such as one of his 15 round double stack 9mm, sure. If you are an ex-Navy Seal with your AR15 .308? Yeah. Otherwise, 5 against 1 - even if the 1 is armed - is very bad odds. You're not going to be stopping them with a 6 shot magazine pocket .25.

The general rule is "shelter first." Then shoot, take pictures, call the police etc. He should have gone back in the house, quickly, locking the door and if he has more firepower than a small caliber pistol, grab it. A semi-auto 12 gauge with a 20 shell magazine loaded with OO buckshot would be nice to have at that time. An AR15 with a 30 round magazine possibly could be enough - if he's a very good shot with it. :)
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Actually there is no truly good answer. It says he had a small caliber handgun. Those are almost impossible to control in rapid fire and generally they don't stop anyone.
Click to expand...

So you just invalidated my scenario/questions where I clearly stated, "If I saw 4/5 guys on my property stealing my car"

It wasnt about the OP.

(But if it was, he actually did 'control' his shots and kill the kid, at the scene.)
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
This is very well established law. If 5 people go into rob a bank and one of them shoots a banker, all 5 are legally responsible. If not, you get into real problems. What if each one says it was the other one? Who is the actual ring leader etc.
Click to expand...

But, they didn't kill anyone.
 
The old man have one thing going for him - a gun.

The appearance of ANY gun will get people running off 90% of the time. Once it is fired - any gun - and 99+% are running. Tiny guns are extremely loud because all guns - particularly short barrel guns - are. This is particularly true it the volume of the blast is coming at the person(s) from only a few feet away. No one thinks "I wonder what the caliber and size of that gun is?" They just run.
 
apdst said:
But, they didn't kill anyone.
Click to expand...

If only one grabbed the money, was only one of them a robber?

I understand your point and think the actually shooter (if one of the criminals) should be more harsely charged. But all 5 made the event happen. But for them, all 5, no one would have been killed. The court certainly should take it into consideration in sentencing. Yes, it seems unfair, but then so does the opposite, doesn't it?

This old man is seriously and permanently traumatized by this - meaning they miscalculated that just stealing a car harms no one. What happened was one of the predictable consequences. Someone is dead from a criminal episode. Do we conclude no one is responsible? Just "oh well, that happens sometimes during criminal activities?"

A legitimate legal question is whose idea of the 5 was this - and hit that one MUCH harder in sentencing.

I have no doubt the court will consider that none of them had a gun or shot anyone in sentencing, plus of course their ages.
 
Lursa said:
So you just invalidated my scenario/questions where I clearly stated, "If I saw 4/5 guys on my property stealing my car"

It wasnt about the OP.

(But if it was, he actually did 'control' his shots and kill the kid, at the scene.)
Click to expand...

What a wrote also applies to you in that situation. In that situation the thing to do in MY opinion is retreat and shelter first. By my reading, there was 1 shot and he was alive enough to get back to the car and leave. His "controlled shot" did stop even one of them.

It is much more difficult to kill someone with a gun, particularly a small caliber pocket gun, than most people think and virtually impossible to stop a charging person with one. That person may die later but still have plenty of fight left in him. Small pistol calibers are very deadly because the bullet snakes around thru soft vital organs. The person dies by bleeding to death - later.
 
joko104 said:
If only one grabbed the money, was only one of them a robber?

I understand your point and think the actually shooter (if one of the criminals) should be more harsely charged. But all 5 made the event happen. But for them, all 5, no one would have been killed. The court certainly should take it into consideration in sentencing. Yes, it seems unfair, but then so does the opposite, doesn't it?

This old man is seriously and permanently traumatized by this - meaning they miscalculated that just stealing a car harms no one. What happened was one of the predictable consequences. Someone is dead from a criminal episode. Do we conclude no one is responsible? Just "oh well, that happens sometimes during criminal activities?"

A legitimate legal question is whose idea of the 5 was this - and hit that one MUCH harder in sentencing.

I have no doubt the court will consider that none of them had a gun or shot anyone in sentencing, plus of course their ages.
Click to expand...

But...none of them killed anyone. The property owner shot the kid.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You noted, in an earlier post, the presence of multiple (possibly armed and violent) criminals actively engaged in the commission of at least one felony. Rather than not do anything (except cower in fear inside) to prevent his car from being stolen, he decided if B happens he was prepared to deal with that. What we will never know is who (or how many) those stupid and greedy criminals would have victimized (and how seriously) had the old man not taken the action that he did.

After all, it is apparent that had the old man not been armed he could have been seriously injured or killed for *gasp* going outside and trying to stop a felony in progress. The next person who may have objected to having their car stolen by those fine young lads may not have been so prepared to defend himself or herself.
Click to expand...

I believe nearly every defensive firearms instructor would say that using a firearm to defend property is almost never a good idea. Generally the best course of action is to simply call the police, be a good witness, and let them handle it. You need to be very well versed in your state and local laws before you even think about doing it. Every circumstance requires analysis, restraint and good judgement always bearing in mind those 12 reasonable people, and sometimes not so reasonable people on the jury. In many states just the act of going outside brandishing a weapon is considered deadly force. And as I mentioned before brandishing a weapon often has a way of dramatically escalating things. I've seen this example given to simplify the concept.

Your son falls into a shark tank filled with hungry sharks, would you jump in to save him? Of course you would, now consider that you dropped your very expensive $600 watch into the same tank. Would you jump in the tank to retrieve your watch? Probably not since $600 is really not worth losing your life over. You can replace property. You can't replace your life.
 
Atomic Kid said:
I believe nearly every defensive firearms instructor would say that using a firearm to defend property is almost never a good idea. Generally the best course of action is to simply call the police, be a good witness, and let them handle it. You need to be very well versed in your state and local laws before you even think about doing it. Every circumstance requires analysis, restraint and good judgement always bearing in mind those 12 reasonable people, and sometimes not so reasonable people on the jury. In many states just the act of going outside brandishing a weapon is considered deadly force. And as I mentioned before brandishing a weapon often has a way of dramatically escalating things. I've seen this example given to simplify the concept.

Your son falls into a shark tank filled with hungry sharks, would you jump in to save him? Of course you would, now consider that you dropped your very expensive $600 watch into the same tank. Would you jump in the tank to retrieve your watch? Probably not since $600 is really not worth losing your life over. You can replace property. You can't replace your life.
Click to expand...

What you believe is simply your opinion (even with loads of extra words tossed in). Thank you for sharing.
 
joko104 said:
What a wrote also applies to you in that situation. In that situation the thing to do in MY opinion is retreat and shelter first. By my reading, there was 1 shot and he was alive enough to get back to the car and leave. His "controlled shot" did stop even one of them.

It is much more difficult to kill someone with a gun, particularly a small caliber pocket gun, than most people think and virtually impossible to stop a charging person with one. That person may die later but still have plenty of fight left in him. Small pistol calibers are very deadly because the bullet snakes around thru soft vital organs. The person dies by bleeding to death - later.
Click to expand...

And since no weapons were visible, and there was a possibility of identification (phone pics) to help prevent them from further victimizing others AND to try a preserve a vehicle necessary to my employment and support in a rural area...I consider your opinion frivolous with my actual life.

I would be within 30 feet, which is my training distance, moving and accurate. And trained to shoot to stop, not wait for bleeding out. Please dont preach about handguns to me.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What you believe is simply your opinion (even with loads of extra words tossed in). Thank you for sharing.
Click to expand...

And his "opinions" on gun owner's knowledge and skills and responsibility levels are not demonstrated by reality either.

He's come up with zero instances where the scenario he keeps describing...home owner accidentally shooting neighbors, bystanders protecting property...has happened.

It may have...but it sure doesnt seem enough for his level of fear-based fantasy.
 
Kreton said:
Driving a car and drinking a beer are not on the same level as ending the life of another human. Just because a person is 17 doesn't make the victim any less dead. The victim had a life too - and it is not acceptable that because a peson is 17 they should be allowed to take a life while only sacrificing a small part of their own. I cannot agree with that line of thought.
Click to expand...

You apparently miss the point entirely. A four year old can end someone's life. We do not prosecute that four year old as an adult, because we regard him/her as incompetent of adult judgement. The same applies to a sixteen or seventeen year old. They are incompetent under the law to vote, buy alcohol, or choose to have sex (in most states). The severity of their crime has nothing to do with whether they are legally competent or not.
 
apdst said:
But...none of them killed anyone. The property owner shot the kid.
Click to expand...

But who got the kid killed? Who created the situation? Who started this criminal episode? It wasn't the old man.

Someone was violently killed during a crime. Do you 1.) blame the criminals? 2.) blame the victim (old man) or 3.) just say "oh well, these things happen?"

Again, I understand your point, maybe even you are right ethically if we knew every little detail. But the law does say the others are responsible for the death and has for a very long, long time.
 
vanceen said:
You apparently miss the point entirely. A four year old can end someone's life. We do not prosecute that four year old as an adult, because we regard him/her as incompetent of adult judgement. The same applies to a sixteen or seventeen year old. They are incompetent under the law to vote, buy alcohol, or choose to have sex (in most states). The severity of their crime has nothing to do with whether they are legally competent or not.
Click to expand...

It does if the law says it does. There is no magic to the number 18. There is lots of stuff you can't do until 21. Or can't do until you are 12. Or can't do until you are 35. Or can't do after age 65. The law is what defines this. The law says it is not solely upon age, the relative emotional and psychological age - a difficult question.

I do not think it should be a person gets to commit any and all crimes and violence they want with no consequences past their 18th birth.
 
joko104 said:
But who got the kid killed? Who created the situation? Who started this criminal episode? It wasn't the old man.

Someone was violently killed during a crime. Do you 1.) blame the criminals? 2.) blame the victim (old man) or 3.) just say "oh well, these things happen?"

Again, I understand your point, maybe even you are right ethically if we knew every little detail. But the law does say the others are responsible for the death and has for a very long, long time.
Click to expand...

Sure, blame the criminals; charge them with negligent homocide, even. But, murder? That don't add up, to me.
 
apdst said:
Sure, blame the criminals; charge them with negligent homocide, even. But, murder? That don't add up, to me.
Click to expand...

I could go along with some "accessory to, which usually is a grade lower offense - or even "aggravated thief" charge - a grade enhancement to the thief charge. I just can't go along with no one held responsible for the death - though I suppose it could be argued the kid who was shot is responsible for his own death and the other 4 were just very lucky and hopefully learned a lesson out of it.

I really do understand your concern. Four high school kids decide to sneak to an old man's garage to steal beer he keeps in a refrigerator. The old man shoots and kills one of them. The other 3 are murderers? Yes, I see your point. Still, this was a potential consequence of their criminal action.
 
Lursa said:
And his "opinions" on gun owner's knowledge and skills and responsibility levels are not demonstrated by reality either.

He's come up with zero instances where the scenario he keeps describing...home owner accidentally shooting neighbors, bystanders protecting property...has happened.

It may have...but it sure doesnt seem enough for his level of fear-based fantasy.
Click to expand...

Discussing what could have happened allows him to ignore the facts of this case completely and use his (canned?) talking points.
 
Lursa said:
And should he go out unprepared to defend himself? How stupid is that? To get out and see what the problem is and THEN realize there are several armed (at least 1 in this instance) criminals out there? It's a little late after they decide to attack you.

You cant always ascertain what's happening unless you go outside and check. Maybe just your presence is enough to run raccoons or thieves off. But you look pretty silly calling the cops on raccoons.

The lack of common sense in some posts is appalling.
Click to expand...

LOL! Speaking of a lack of common sense. What is stupid is going outside in the first place. I think most people can determine the difference between a raccoon rummaging through their garbage cans and a group of thieves messing with their vehicles. You mean to tell me that you would take weapon with you to see if some raccoons are messing with your garbage? Who the hell does that? You want to check on what is going on outside? Peek out a window for Christ's sake. Ever hear of those? If you turn on a light while doing so however you may not be able to see much. But at the same time it may have unintended benefit of alerting those thieves that someone inside is aware of their presence causing them to runaway since their primary goal is not to get caught. And then problem solved. Without having to expose yourself to any possible attacks or dangers at all. The cops aren't going to judge you should they come find no evidence of burglars or intruders. Since that's probably the case more often than not anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom