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

Atomic Kid said:

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. .

Click to expand...

The bold is a complete failure. That is a complete BS statement. And it could also be other property they're taking out of sheds, garage, carport, etc.

It's untrue, plain and simple. Not only that, I WOULD go out to scare off raccoons from my garbage :roll: *If I wasnt sure* I would definitely take a holstered handgun :doh I and many other rural people also have big halogen farm lights on all night long. You dont seem to have any idea how other people live.

I live on rural property. My car and garbage cans and most other property...are not right under my nose or in a driveway. And millions of other people live similarly. But even suburban people cant necessarily see their garbage cans from their windows...or all their other property in their yards.

stop making crap up just to try and look right on the Internetz.

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...

You are one of the few making real sense in this thread.

I particularly resent the victimized homeowner as repeatedly being referred to as "the old man", implying that an "old man" and his home/property do not have as much value as a bunch of teenage thugs who trespassed, tried to steal his car, one of whom advanced toward him holding something he believed to be a weapon, and could possibly be the knife found at the scene.

I'm old, too. I guess if 5 or 6 teenagers descend on my home intent on stealing my car, or perhaps breaking in and ransacking my house, I should merely cower in the corner on the phone with 911, knowing that not a single law enforcement officer will be able to reach my rural location in less than 30 minutes. If I'm dead by then, too bad, so sad, I'm nothing more than an "old woman"

This thread has truly irritated the snot out of me, and so have many posters in it. Such unmitigated hubris and gall.

Atomic Kid said:

Short attention span?

Click to expand...

Nope, just trying to keep the discussion focused on the OP linked case. What could have or might have happened is beyond that scope, especially when no supporting link(s) or evidence is being offered. Feel free to post examples of your alternate real cases (if you can find them) in your own BN thread, but this thread is about this particular case (news event).

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...

And you should be ashamed of yourself if you are truly the responsible gun owner agent of the law you represent yourself to be by falsely asserting that such incidents never happen. If that is truly your background than you should know better. Unfortunately there have been, and will continue to be, many such incidents where people have struck by stray bullets while sitting or sleeping in their homes, sitting outside on their porches, walking along the street, driving their cars and whatnot. The circumstances under which they happen vary, accidental discharges that go through a floor, wall or ceiling, law enforcement actions or gang related and self-defense related shootings out on the streets, people target shooting that end up going astray via a ricochet, a pass through of the intended target to an innocent standing behind. The victims usually have no idea of what the circumstances were that led to their being injured. You fancy yourself as being some kind of handgun expert. If so then know that very many handgun rounds are very well capable of penetrating multiple layers of sheet rock, plywood or siding while still retaining enough energy to cause serious or even fatal injuries. If that is your belief than perhaps it would be in your best interest to surrender or sell your guns before you end up hurting yourself or someone else if you don't fully understand the power of those weapons. You as a gun owner are ultimately responsible for ALL of the bullets you fire and not just the ones that strike your perceived assailant or assailants.

Atomic Kid said:

And you should be ashamed of yourself if you are truly the responsible gun owner agent of the law you represent yourself to be by falsely asserting that such incidents never happen.

Click to expand...

Prove it. I said I'd never seen any, not that they didnt happen.

But it's up to you to prove it. And again...certainly they must be rare indeed.

If that is truly your background than you should know better. Unfortunately there have been, and will continue to be, many such incidents where people have struck by stray bullets while sitting or sleeping in their homes, sitting outside on their porches, walking along the street, driving their cars and whatnot.

Click to expand...

Ah, backpeddling.

yes, and even those incidences are very uncommon. Esp. considering there are millions of us out here. Seems the vast vast vast majority of us manage not to shoot our neighbors and innocent bystanders *in any situations.*

The circumstances under which they happen vary, accidental discharges that go through a floor, wall or ceiling, law enforcement actions or gang related and self-defense related shootings out on the streets, people target shooting that end up going astray via a ricochet, a pass through of the intended target to an innocent standing behind. The victims usually have no idea of what the circumstances were that led to their being injured. You fancy yourself as being some kind of handgun expert. If so then know that very many handgun rounds are very well capable of penetrating multiple layers of sheet rock, plywood or siding while still retaining enough energy to cause serious or even fatal injuries. If that is your belief than perhaps it would be in your best interest to surrender or sell your guns before you end up hurting yourself or someone else if you don't fully understand the power of those weapons. You as a gun owner are ultimately responsible for ALL of the bullets you fire and not just the ones that strike your perceived assailant or assailants.

Click to expand...

^^^ continued mass of wasted, unsupported space. AKA, your baseless opinion...turned into a failed personal attack because you are losing on the Internetz.

(except for the part about bullets and walls. It's kind of a "duh"...even people that dont own guns know that. One doesnt need to be an expert. You even lie as if I'd presumed I am one.)

ttwtt78640 said:

Nope, just trying to keep the discussion focused on the OP linked case. What could have or might have happened is beyond that scope, especially when no supporting link(s) or evidence is being offered. Feel free to post examples of your alternate real cases (if you can find them) in your own BN thread, but this thread is about this particular case (news event).

Click to expand...

Yeah right! You only want to hear what you want to hear.

Lursa said:

Prove it. I said I'd never seen any, not that they didnt happen.

But it's up to you to prove it. And again...certainly they must be rare indeed.


Ah, backpeddling.

yes, and even those incidences are very uncommon. Esp. considering there are millions of us out here. Seems the vast vast vast majority of us manage not to shoot our neighbors and innocent bystanders *in any situations.*


^^^ continued mass of wasted, unsupported space. AKA, your baseless opinion...turned into a failed personal attack because you are losing on the Internetz.

(except for the part about bullets and walls. It's kind of a "duh"...even people that dont own guns know that. One doesnt need to be an expert. You even lie as if I'd presumed I am one.)

Click to expand...

I'm losing on the internetz??? LOL! Is that something that is important you? No one here even knows who the **** we are. Nor do I fancy that they even care. So tell me if you're 'losing on the internetz' are you going to grab your gun so that you can be prepared? As far as presenting yourself as being an expert or very knowledgeable about guns. Didn't you just admonish another poster in here for trying to preach to you about handguns? You're one hot mess.

Atomic Kid said:

Yeah right! You only want to hear what you want to hear.

Click to expand...

Nope, I only want to discuss the BN story in the BN thread. You want to make it about gun control (those evil guns should not be taken *gasp* out of their owner's homes) to keep massive numbers of stray bullets (fired randomly?) from doing terrible things to innocent people (which, of course, never happened in the OP story or any other news story which you have supplied for discussion).

Atomic Kid said:

I'm losing on the internetz??? LOL! Is that something that is important you? No one here even knows who the **** we are. Nor do I fancy that they even care. So tell me if you're 'losing on the internetz' are you going to grab your gun so that you can be prepared? As far as presenting yourself as being an expert or very knowledgeable about guns. Didn't you just admonish another poster in here for trying to preach to you about handguns? You're one hot mess.

Click to expand...

No, it's apparently important to you, as you keep posting more and more irrational garbage that you cannot support. Your past post was a desperate joke. And I havent preached anything about handguns except as directly required or answered.

Look at your post...just another desperate rant with you losing your temper, attempting to attack me instead of discussing the issue.

LOLOL...remember? I keep asking you to prove it? The most basic premise based on the OP? And still...nothing.

Lursa said:

The bold is a complete failure. That is a complete BS statement. And it could also be other property they're taking out of sheds, garage, carport, etc.

It's untrue, plain and simple. Not only that, I WOULD go out to scare off raccoons from my garbage :roll: *If I wasnt sure* I would definitely take a holstered handgun :doh I and many other rural people also have big halogen farm lights on all night long. You dont seem to have any idea how other people live.

I live on rural property. My car and garbage cans and most other property...are not right under my nose or in a driveway. And millions of other people live similarly. But even suburban people cant necessarily see their garbage cans from their windows...or all their other property in their yards.

stop making crap up just to try and look right on the Internetz.

Click to expand...

Holy Christ. Do you think that living with and around raccoons is uncommon? No matter practically where it is you live? So what if you can't see your garbage cans. You can usually see your car, right? I think that old man could too and you can be pretty damn sure that he didn't take his gun outside with him because he thought raccoons were trying to steal his car. You've got ears as well as eyes, don't you? If so look and listen. If you hear anyone speaking I think you can pretty much safely rule out raccoons. As far as I know except for in Disney and certain science fiction comic book superheroes movies, raccoons can't really talk.

Lursa said:

No, it's apparently important to you, as you keep posting more and more irrational garbage that you cannot support. Your past post was a desperate joke. And I havent preached anything about handguns except as directly required or answered.

Look at your post...just another desperate rant with you losing your temper, attempting to attack me instead of discussing the issue.

LOLOL...remember? I keep asking you to prove it? The most basic premise based on the OP? And still...nothing.

Click to expand...

Prove what? The obvious? Talk about the irrational if you really had any sort or awareness about this issue whatsoever you KNOW that innocent people get hit by stray bullets all the time. I'm not going waste my time spoon feeding something you can easily see for yourself if you really cared to take off your blinders and do it yourself. But you won't. Because all you really care about is your precious guns

ttwtt78640 said:

Nope, I only want to discuss the BN story in the BN thread. You want to make it about gun control (those evil guns should not be taken *gasp* out of their owner's homes) to keep massive numbers of stray bullets (fired randomly?) from doing terrible things to innocent people (which, of course, never happened in the OP story or any other news story which you have supplied for discussion).

Click to expand...

BS! I have not said one single word in here about gun control and you know it. Or at least you should. I have owned and used guns myself. And it can be said that I even like them. But with that comes great responsibility and that's what I am imploring to be taken here. And once again and if you believe that no one has ever suffered the consequences of a stray bullet I don't know which world it is you're living in really. If really want to know all you have to do is take a look for yourself and you will find what you;re looking for. I'm not your nanny.

Atomic Kid said:

1) BS! I have not said one single word in here about gun control and you know it. Or at least you should. I have owned and used guns myself. And it can be said that I even like them. But with that comes great responsibility and that's what I am imploring to be taken here. 2) And once again and if you believe that no one has ever suffered the consequences of a stray bullet I don't know which world it is you're living in really. If really want to know all you have to do is take a look for yourself and you will find what you;re looking for. I'm not your nanny.

Click to expand...

1) I provided the (parenthetical) context for my use of the words "gun control". You refer to some great responsibility (to not venture outside of one's home while armed?), yet provided no evidence that the old man acted irresponsibly (i.e. fired random shots or even fired any shot to protect only his property). This BN event seems to be a case of armed self-defense (defensive gun use?) with the only person shot being an (armed with a knife?) alleged attacker during that alleged attack - none of the other would be car thieves were shot.

2) I never said that no stray bullet has caused harm, simply that stray bullets being fired was not part of this BN event.

Atomic Kid said:

Prove what? The obvious? Talk about the irrational if you really had any sort or awareness about this issue whatsoever you KNOW that innocent people get hit by stray bullets all the time. I'm not going waste my time spoon feeding something you can easily see for yourself if you really cared to take off your blinders and do it yourself. But you won't. Because all you really care about is your precious guns

Click to expand...

Yep, and people get injured and killed by drunk drivers "all the time" too, but that also did not happen in this BN story. You want to divert discussion of what actually happened in the OP's BN story into some tangential discussion of when you feel it might be proper to employ defensive gun use (only if the criminals get inside one's home?). Just let whoever do whatever outside so long as one could have remained uninvolved (hidden in one's home?) and dial the police (non-emergency?) number to let the almighty protectors of order in society (LEOs) handle (armed?) bands of thieves 'redistributing' other folks' property.

ttwtt78640 said:

1) I provided the (parenthetical) context for my use of the words "gun control". You refer to some great responsibility (to not venture outside of one's home while armed?), yet provided no evidence that the old man acted irresponsibly (i.e. fired random shots or even fired any shot to protect only his property). This BN event seems to be a case of armed self-defense (defensive gun use?) with the only person shot being an (armed with a knife?) alleged attacker during that alleged attack - none of the other would be car thieves were shot.

2) I never said that no stray bullet has caused harm, simply that stray bullets being fired was not part of this BN event.

Click to expand...

Excerpt from the mother of the deceased;

But about a week ago she allowed Ja’quan to stay with his cousins near Washington Park on the South Side even though they have had run-ins with the law. “My nephews, they steal cars sometimes,” she said. “Yes, they were wrong for being in a stolen car, but he was wrong for pulling the trigger.”



Madame, I believe you have just taken the award for the worst parental critical thinking skills of 2019.

Bum said:

Excerpt from the mother of the deceased;

But about a week ago she allowed Ja’quan to stay with his cousins near Washington Park on the South Side even though they have had run-ins with the law. “My nephews, they steal cars sometimes,” she said. “Yes, they were wrong for being in a stolen car, but he was wrong for pulling the trigger.”



Madame, I believe you have just taken the award for the worst parental critical thinking skills of 2019.

Click to expand...

It's the entitlement attitude on steroids. They just be poor kids, who wants to be richer kids, and thats just how they do sometimes. The old man did not shoot him for "being in a stolen car" - he shot him for attacking him (armed with a knife?).

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...

There is a huge gap between a 4 year old accidently killing a person, and a 17 year old knowingly committing a felony and causing a death. Those 2 scenarios have nothing to do with one another. Also, 17 year olds having sex isn't illegal.

Once again voting or buying alcohol and murdering someone are not the same thing. Your premise of it is ok to murder since he can't buy beer makes no sense.

Atomic Kid said:

BS! I have not said one single word in here about gun control and you know it. Or at least you should. I have owned and used guns myself. And it can be said that I even like them. But with that comes great responsibility and that's what I am imploring to be taken here. And once again and if you believe that no one has ever suffered the consequences of a stray bullet I don't know which world it is you're living in really. If really want to know all you have to do is take a look for yourself and you will find what you;re looking for. I'm not your nanny.

Click to expand...

I'd argue that the most responsible thing a person can do with a gun is use it in self defense. Which in my opinion this man was more responsible with his use of a gun than you were in your recreational use.

joko104 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The question is whether the law is a good idea.

I think your last sentence is meant to say that a person shouldn't have a free pass to commit crimes before they are 18. (Apologies if I got that wrong, feel free to correct me.) I agree. But not being tried as an adult is not the same as getting a free pass, or at least it shouldn't be. It just means that the fact of the individual's age is taken into account.

Kreton said:

There is a huge gap between a 4 year old accidently killing a person, and a 17 year old knowingly committing a felony and causing a death. Those 2 scenarios have nothing to do with one another. Also, 17 year olds having sex isn't illegal.

Once again voting or buying alcohol and murdering someone are not the same thing. Your premise of it is ok to murder since he can't buy beer makes no sense.

Click to expand...

If you can't make an argument against what I said, try making an argument against what I didn't say. No one thinks it is "OK" to murder, that's preposterous. Serious consequences can and do occur for minors that commit serious crimes.

Again, the point you didn't address is that the severity of the act is not issue. The issue is the competence of the individual. If, in law, we regard individuals below a certain age to be "minors" without full competence, it makes no sense to suddenly ignore that categorization because they did something extra bad.

Atomic Kid said:

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.

Click to expand...

I do that, but then I'll always have at least a .380 with a backup mag in my pocket anyway. And I don't go outside to noises at night with just a .380 little pistol. I go out with either a double barrel 12 gauge coach gun, a 45acp pistol with laser grip - or both.

That said, it is alright for you to explain how you are afraid to go outside at night and only peek out a window. But with you calling the police every time you hear a noise they'll stop coming - or take a few hours to get to the house of the old guy peeking out the window frightened by every noise he hears.

911 operator, hand over mouthpiece microphone to a supervisor: "Damn, it's that old guy again. He heard another noise outside. Can't see anything by peeking out his window again. How many times is that this week? 23?" Then back on the line, "we'll send an officer out as soon as one is available. Just keep your doors locked and I'm sure you'll be just fine."

For some ant-gun rights people, it is only a matter of changing your lifestyle and then it is unlikely you'll ever need a firearm. This is how:

1. The only reason anyone should ever leave their home is if they have a job and have to go to work or a doctor. Everything a person needs can be ordered online- even food. You can make a entry room with a remote control lock, though there still is the interior door - a heavy steel. After seeing it a delivery person, you can safely buzz the person into this entry room, and relock it when that person leaves. Only then do you get what was delivered. Make certain nothing is being sent signature required.

2. If you MUST go outside to go to work or a doctor, this is the procedure.
a.) check all the video cameras around the house to see if anyone is outside. Ideally you also have a drone with a remote feed camera continuously flying over your property to check too. DO NOT GO OUTSIDE unless there is no one.
b.) with key in hand, run as fast as you can to your car, unlocking the door while you run. However, if you see anyone, turn around and run back in the house.
c.) immediately leave and drive to your destination. Do not stop anywhere. Have tinted windows on your car.
d.) At work or the doctor, do not exit your car until there is no one in any direction - then run as fast as you can inside.
e.) follow the same precautions going home. NEVER leave your home or car if you can see anyone.
f.) require all family members to do the same. If you have children, you must home school them. Other than a doctor visit, NEVER allow them outside
g.) if you hear any noises outside or see anyone near your residence or near your property, immediately call the police - but ONLY if the people are white. NEVER call the police on any non-white person - no exceptions.
If you do phone the police over someone you say and they ask the person's race, call that 911 operator a racist, order them not to come to your property or residence and hang. Otherwise the police may come and shoot everyone thinking they might not be white.

If you do this, there is very little risk you will be attacked. However, if someone breaks into your house, remember it is the duty of you and your family to defenselessly be raped, beaten and/or murdered if the invader(s) wish to do so. Remember, physical fighting kills far more people than rifles, so do not resist or you could hurt or even kill the invader(s) even if you use no weapon.

So they feel no need to harm you, post a notice on all sides of your house that you are a pacifist and could never harm anyone. The sign also should state firearms are banned from your property.

Follow these simple safeguards and you probably have no need for a firearm.

Atomic Kid said:

Holy Christ. Do you think that living with and around raccoons is uncommon? No matter practically where it is you live? So what if you can't see your garbage cans. You can usually see your car, right? I think that old man could too and you can be pretty damn sure that he didn't take his gun outside with him because he thought raccoons were trying to steal his car. You've got ears as well as eyes, don't you? If so look and listen. If you hear anyone speaking I think you can pretty much safely rule out raccoons. As far as I know except for in Disney and certain science fiction comic book superheroes movies, raccoons can't really talk.

Click to expand...

Your feeble grasp of reality is not capable of supporting argument. You have not even been able to string together the connections I made between noise, sight lines, and probability in the post you quoted.

And no, I cannot see my car, depending on where on my property it is. I have outbuildings, I have acreage.You even make the assumption that thieves are talking in the middle of a robbery :doh

Your ability to make any rational arguments has ceased, if you ever were able.

Atomic Kid said:

Prove what? The obvious? Talk about the irrational if you really had any sort or awareness about this issue whatsoever you KNOW that innocent people get hit by stray bullets all the time. I'm not going waste my time spoon feeding something you can easily see for yourself if you really cared to take off your blinders and do it yourself. But you won't. Because all you really care about is your precious guns

Click to expand...

Your continued petulance is noted. You have continued to argue that what the man in the OP did was wrong and irresponsible because he could have harmed innocent people. You have made a huge deal out of this, without one shred of proof.

It is the fear-based fantasy that your entire argument is based on...and it remains completely unsupported by reality. It's a discussion. Proof is required.

I cant 'see' something that doesnt exist. Apparently you can. They have medication for that.

Please let me know if you have anything OP-related to discuss, instead of you focusing on trying to use personal attacks to divert from your failure.

Still curious about the justification for this:

Atomic Kid said:

Get better insurance then.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

Yeah...that's one of the least rational...and most rationalized...posts I've ever read.

Dont make excuses for criminals that make all their own decisions and choose their own risks. It's ludicrous that I should have to sacrifice even more as a victim. Why not just tell every homeowner to put a chain link fence with razor wire around their property? That's how you sound...you're actually blaming the victims for being victimized...for 'not having enough protection.' :doh

The attempts to get their ID (phone pics) and getting them caught protects other people from their crimes.

Click to expand...

the fact that your "arguments" have led you down a path where individuals are supposed to 'guess' what is happening outside their homes, on their own property, and call 911 (even if it's raccoons, or a drunk, or somebody lost, etc) without actually finding out shows that you do not use reality as a foundation for your thought processes. It shows someone who expediently changes reality to suit their own failed premise.