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

[ludin]

To the bolded: "You can cite this"?

Not in any story however I thought someone else posted more information in this thread.
so I can't verify it will retract.

 

[ludin]

I did not read where they were reaching their hands through the broken window,
I would consider that a committed break in, well beyond an accidental broken window.

I must have misread something. I thought I saw where the homeowner said that they were doing it.

 

[Gaius46]

Actually, those were 2 & 3 when I learned it.

#1 was: "Always assume every gun is loaded"

But those are the Holy Trinity of gun safety, and will go far in making the gunowner and their family & neighbors safe.

Now - as to developing the judgement as to when it's appropriate to use a firearm, well that a whole 'nuther complicated subject! And the cause of much consternation!

Yessir! Absolutely right.

 

[Chomsky]

Not in any story however I thought someone else posted more information in this thread.
so I can't verify it will retract.

Fair enough, and I thank you for being forthright. :cheers:

I wondered if there was additional info that I was not aware.

That would be a pretty big deal.

 

[Gaius46]

here you have the right to defend your property from someone destroying it. I guess MA doesn't think it so.
I feel bad I hate to see this kind of thing, but they have fair warning that he was going to shoot if they didn't leave and
were told to go.

they refused and continued to beat on his door and destroying his property.

So someone breaks your window and that gives you legal justification to shoot them because you're defending your property? What's a window cost?

How about if they swipe my tootsie roll? Can I whack them for that?

 

[longview]

I must have misread something. I thought I saw where the homeowner said that they were doing it.

This made me think of something, a number of years ago, my mother in law, had someone try to break into her house.
Whoever it was broke the window on the back door. She yelled she had a gun, and fired several blanks from a starter pistol.
Since firing actual warming shots seems to be a crime in some areas, I wonder about the starter pistol?
No potential harm (other than your own ears), and would get someone's attention.
It might hasten the Polices arrival, if you had 911 on the line.

 

[Chomsky]

So someone breaks your window and that gives you legal justification to shoot them because you're defending your property? What's a window cost?

How about if they swipe my tootsie roll? Can I whack them for that?

If it's an 'original recipe' Tootsie Roll, even for the relatively passive & life-respecting me - that would be a tough call! :2razz:

 

[Benzin388]

Any death is a tragedy. But the insensitive side of me is wondering A: what will the outcry be the moment we find out what type of gun it was and how will the banners push for it to be banned.

And B: I'm guessing it wasn't an AR15 "assault rifle" because we would never be hearing the end of it.


Sent from my XT1030

 

[longview]

So someone breaks your window and that gives you legal justification to shoot them because you're defending your property? What's a window cost?

How about if they swipe my tootsie roll? Can I whack them for that?

Only if they do it after dark!
Seriously, people clearly have to make judgement calls, but 3 large boys on the front step, beating on
door, demanding entry! And then from the homeowners point of view, they start to break in!
He might have actually felt threatened.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I dont think that deadly force was needed to stop drunk teens from abusing a door. All the coward had to do was open the ****ing door and tell the kids to leave. But instead he apparently stood behind the door shaking and peeing (probably) his pants. And shot some kid through his door that also apparently had glass in it. Meaning he probably could see it was kids and like a cowardly asshole shot anyways. He is what he is a ****ing murderer. You dont just kill kids because they are knocking on your door too hard. He was pissed that they broke his door so he killed one. He was never under any real threat.

 

[Chomsky]

This made me think of something, a number of years ago, my mother in law, had someone try to break into her house.
Whoever it was broke the window on the back door. She yelled she had a gun, and fired several blanks from a starter pistol.
Since firing actual warming shots seems to be a crime in some areas, I wonder about the starter pistol?
No potential harm (other than your own ears), and would get someone's attention.
It might hasten the Polices arrival, if you had 911 on the line.

It would seem to me if a starter pistol is legal to fire in public, it would be legal in one's private domicile as well.

But I've got a similar story.

My grandmother was awoken at 1:00A early on a weekend morning, by the sound of someone attempting to jimmy the deadbolt lock on the rear door of her 3rd floor flat, while they were living in the building she & my grandfather owned.

Her response? She yelled at the top of her lungs at the door:

"Joe! Get the gun! Get the gun! Get the gun, Joe!"

The intruder bolted, and as he attempted to navigate the turn on the back porch to the stairs, he ended-up breaking through the wooden railing and falling 3 flights down onto the cement below! When the police found him he was half a block down, crawling through the alley with broken ribs and a broken leg!

He had an extensive B & E record, but sued my grandparents claiming to be drunk and at the wrong house. His knife was never found, and the coppers suspected he may have tossed it down one of the alley sewers (they never searched the sewers for some reason). My grandparents dropped their charges (following their lawyer's advice) in exchange for the crook dropping his suit against their property.

But here's the deal: My grandfather was not home during the incident, and they didn't own a gun! Just my grandmother's quick thinking words alone, was enough to deescalate the situation! :mrgreen:

 

[longview]

I dont think that deadly force was needed to stop drunk teens from abusing a door. All the coward had to do was open the ****ing door and tell the kids to leave. But instead he apparently stood behind the door shaking and peeing (probably) his pants. And shot some kid through his door that also apparently had glass in it. Meaning he probably could see it was kids and like a cowardly asshole shot anyways. He is what he is a ****ing murderer. You dont just kill kids because they are knocking on your door too hard. He was pissed that they broke his door so he killed one. He was never under any real threat.

Once again, it is too early, and we have way too few details for mind reading.
You have no way of knowing if the homeowner felt threatened.

 

[99percenter]

Man has a right to protect his home. How stupid do you have to be to pound at someones home in the middle of night drunk or not?

 

[joG]

It would seem to me if a starter pistol is legal to fire in public, it would be legal in one's private domicile as well.

But I've got a similar story.

My grandmother was awoken at 1:00A early on a weekend morning, by the sound of someone attempting to jimmy the deadbolt lock on the rear door of her 3rd floor flat, while they were living in the building she & my grandfather owned.

Her response? She yelled at the top of her lungs at the door:

"Joe! Get the gun! Get the gun! Get the gun, Joe!"

The intruder bolted, and as he attempted to navigate the turn on the back porch to the stairs, he ended-up breaking through the wooden railing and falling 3 flights down onto the cement below! When the police found him he was half a block down, crawling through the alley with broken ribs and a broken leg!

He had an extensive B & E record, but sued my grandparents claiming to be drunk and at the wrong house. His knife was never found, and the coppers suspected he may have tossed it down one of the alley sewers (they never searched the sewers for some reason). My grandparents dropped their charges (following their lawyer's advice) in exchange for the crook dropping his suit against their property.

But here's the deal: My grandfather was not home during the incident, and they didn't own a gun! Just my grandmother's quick thinking words alone, was enough to deescalate the situation! :mrgreen:grammar

Deescalate in the sense of breaking the guy's ribs and legs

 

[Chomsky]

Deescalate in the sense of breaking the guy's ribs and legs

I'd say that was an appropriate "deescalation"! :mrgreen:

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Once again, it is too early, and we have way too few details for mind reading.
You have no way of knowing if the homeowner felt threatened.

All cowards feel threatened. Knocking on a door violently shouldnt scare a 42 year old man so much that he needs to discharge his weapon through a door. He did not open the door like any real man would have done. I know I would have opened the door and asked why the **** they were knocking on my door so hard. The last thing on my mind would be to stand there and shoot first, after all it could just be some lost drunk teens. One look at the gun and they would have ran away. But that didnt happen because this guy was a trigger happy asshole.


People like this make gun owners look bad.

 

[Winchester]

Once he broke the glass after being told to leave the homeowner had every right to shot, he had several people trying to get into his home and felt in fear for his life and property. Justified. Now for the actual crime committed, they were at someone's home drinking in the middle of the day and were teens, how did they get the alcohol, someone needs to be charged. Tragic, yes, a crime to protect himself no, no jury in their right mind would convict him of anything.

I highly doubt (but don't know) that the window in the door could give the kids access to the home, so no the homeowner did not have every right to shoot.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Man has a right to protect his home. How stupid do you have to be to pound at someones home in the middle of night drunk or not?

Except that it was in the middle of the afternoon and there was no reason to shoot the kid.

 

[tres borrachos]

Man has a right to protect his home. How stupid do you have to be to pound at someones home in the middle of night drunk or not?

Here in New England 1:00 pm is in the middle of the afternoon, not night.

 

[ludin]

So someone breaks your window and that gives you legal justification to shoot them because you're defending your property? What's a window cost?

How about if they swipe my tootsie roll? Can I whack them for that?

Adsurdum arguement is just that.

 

[ludin]

I dont think that deadly force was needed to stop drunk teens from abusing a door. All the coward had to do was open the ****ing door and tell the kids to leave. But instead he apparently stood behind the door shaking and peeing (probably) his pants. And shot some kid through his door that also apparently had glass in it. Meaning he probably could see it was kids and like a cowardly asshole shot anyways. He is what he is a ****ing murderer. You dont just kill kids because they are knocking on your door too hard. He was pissed that they broke his door so he killed one. He was never under any real threat.

He was at the door according to the report I read.
He told them multiple times to leave and they refused.

He didn't fire till the beat his door so hard it broke the window in the door.
Then he fired the shot.

You are making assumptions you can't support.

I wonder if the parents will be charged for underage drinking
And contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

 

[longview]

All cowards feel threatened. Knocking on a door violently shouldnt scare a 42 year old man so much that he needs to discharge his weapon through a door. He did not open the door like any real man would have done. I know I would have opened the door and asked why the **** they were knocking on my door so hard. The last thing on my mind would be to stand there and shoot first, after all it could just be some lost drunk teens. One look at the gun and they would have ran away. But that didnt happen because this guy was a trigger happy asshole.


People like this make gun owners look bad.

We still do not know all the information, or what went on in the exchange of information.
Of course he should not have fired through the door, but that still does not mean he did not feel threatened.

 

[Gaius46]

Adsurdum arguement is just that.

It's not absurd. You've literally stated that defense of property is a justification for use of deadly physical force in your jurisdiction. Asking if there's a dollar value below which that defense is no longer valid - even if asked in an absurd manner - is a completely legitimate question.

And if it's lost on you the question was asked in an absurd manner because employment of deadly force in defense of property in the modern world where anything of value is insured is absurd - aside from being illegal in most of the country.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

He was at the door according to the report I read.
He told them multiple times to leave and they refused.

He didn't fire till the beat his door so hard it broke the window in the door.
Then he fired the shot.

You are making assumptions you can't support.

I wonder if the parents will be charged for underage drinking
And contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Knocking on a door (even violently) means that you are asking to come in. Knocking isnt breaking and entering. I bet that if the coward shot the floor the violent knocking drunks would have left. But instead the coward needlessly shot the kid killing him. All over violent knocking and a window. And no one was actually in danger except for the ****ing door. It was just stupid to shoot the kid and he will pay for being a stupid coward.

 

[ludin]

It's not absurd. You've literally stated that defense of property is a justification for use of deadly physical force in your jurisdiction. Asking if there's a dollar value below which that defense is no longer valid - even if asked in an absurd manner - is a completely legitimate question.

And if it's lost on you the question was asked in an absurd manner because employment of deadly force in defense of property in the modern world where anything of value is insured is absurd - aside from being illegal in most of the country.

No it just shows your dishonesty in the discussion.

So the whole thing is lost on you.
If you don't want to be shot by someone I suggest
Not walking to to their door continue to pound on it even after they ask you to leave and
Then start destroying their property.


I feel for these parents by why were their kids drinking?
They are 15 and must have been pretty hammered.