Armed Citizen: Teen Shot by Homeowner
- Thread starter verti89
- Start date
- Status
supergas452M
Moderator
Inappropriate personal noise - Nuked
GEM
GEM
Last edited by a moderator:
Wildalaska
Moderator
Response to noise
I fail to see how anything Wild said even implied what I quoted above...
Wild is smart, he plays the odds. Running outside and confronting a crack head increases the chances of an escalated situation. An escalated situation increases the chances of you being hurt or killed. Forget the legality, forget the morality, forget the bravado... Staying inside is just the smart call...
Unfortunately I cannot vouch that I'd follow my own advice, but I'd like to think that I would...
supergas452M
Moderator
If I lose my life protecting me and mine, I'll be dead. My family knows my make up. They love me as I am. I'll take a death of bravery over a life of cowardice.
I don't look for trouble but if it finds me, I'm prepared to face it. I'm not Chuck Norris but I like his attitude.
I don't look for trouble but if it finds me, I'm prepared to face it. I'm not Chuck Norris but I like his attitude.
supergas452M
Moderator
Maybe you are confused? I'm not discussing upsides. The scenario we were discussing before we got off topic was this man that was protecting his home against a criminal and a druggie. The criminal not only refused to leave, he made a move on the homeowner. A fatal mistake. I fail to comprehend where the homeowner was at fault.
The "do not escalate" folks were not there and it was not their house and home. Maybe the old man was just tired?
The "do not escalate" folks were not there and it was not their house and home. Maybe the old man was just tired?
Southern Rebel
New member
To each his own. What is "morally right" to some may be repugnant to others. It is enough of a challenge to figure out what is "legally right". I look upon life as I would upon wine - quantity will never override quality and both life and wine are not infinite and will eventually be gone.
"A coward suffers many deaths - a brave man only one."
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
Yeah, I am still bitterly clinging to my religion and my gunnypoo - whatever the heck that is supposed to be?????????
"A coward suffers many deaths - a brave man only one."
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
Yeah, I am still bitterly clinging to my religion and my gunnypoo - whatever the heck that is supposed to be?????????
This is for WILDALASKA (His name ID said in that thriller movie trailer voice).
Philosophically I think most responsible gun owners agree with your opinions on SD situations. I have read some of your posts and do not see much fault in them.
BUT! why do you have to add ridicule and smack talk to what would normally be a decent philosophy? That seems to be a form of chest thumping as well. And is actually counter productive to the forum. If you take a good philosophy and smear it with poop no one is going to want to hear it. Everyone loses.
There is not enough information in the story to form a good opinion. In fact there is such little information this could be a scenario.
Philosophically I think most responsible gun owners agree with your opinions on SD situations. I have read some of your posts and do not see much fault in them.
BUT! why do you have to add ridicule and smack talk to what would normally be a decent philosophy? That seems to be a form of chest thumping as well. And is actually counter productive to the forum. If you take a good philosophy and smear it with poop no one is going to want to hear it. Everyone loses.
There is not enough information in the story to form a good opinion. In fact there is such little information this could be a scenario.
I'm not confused. You clearly stated you would rather enter into a confrontation where you could be killed rather than appear to be a coward. I ask again, what is the upside to going into a confrontation and getting killed rather than avoiding that confrontation. I didn't really expect an answer and I wasn't disappointed.
If you cannot comprehend that it is better for an ill 69 year old man to avoid a confrontation with a known drug user by staying in his home and calling the police as opposed to voluntarily entering into a confrontation where he was forced to kill, I can't explain it to you. But I will ask this - what benefit did the shooter get from confronting and killing the BG?
WA seems to be war bickering. He jumps in with statements that immediately put people on the defensive before they can even think critically about the subject. This is not helpful.
I see him time and time again jump in and post THUMP THUMP THUMP.
Why should anyone listen to WA about being responsible gun owners if he cannot take responsibility for his aggressive posts?
this needs to be addressed. I do not disagree with his opinion on a lot of things but WA needs to bring it down a little. I am tired of a difference of opinion turning into tense conversation because WA busted onto the scene.
I see him time and time again jump in and post THUMP THUMP THUMP.
Why should anyone listen to WA about being responsible gun owners if he cannot take responsibility for his aggressive posts?
this needs to be addressed. I do not disagree with his opinion on a lot of things but WA needs to bring it down a little. I am tired of a difference of opinion turning into tense conversation because WA busted onto the scene.
Seriously Ken, what's your definition of a "good shoot"? You sit there and defend the tweeker while calling foul on the homeowner who was defending his property.
You are playing Monday morning quarterback. This fella had every reason to feel his life was in danger. He gave the kid fair warning... Should he have waited? Waited for the crack head to make another move? Would it have been ok to fire then?
This guy was well within his rights according to the law. I seriously doubt he WANTED to take a life and I seriously doubt that he was thumping his chest afterwards. The cracked out kid made the mistake, not the other way around. One less criminal to "rehabilitate"
You are playing Monday morning quarterback. This fella had every reason to feel his life was in danger. He gave the kid fair warning... Should he have waited? Waited for the crack head to make another move? Would it have been ok to fire then?
This guy was well within his rights according to the law. I seriously doubt he WANTED to take a life and I seriously doubt that he was thumping his chest afterwards. The cracked out kid made the mistake, not the other way around. One less criminal to "rehabilitate"
Wildalaska
Moderator
Thats what the report post button is for. I wont respond to the rest of your childishness, except as to note that if you cant stand the heat in the kitchen, don't plug in the waffle iron
For the record, where I have I defended the decedant.......and calling him a tweaker based on the shooters allegation that he "found" a crack pipe is a bit much at this point....
Now...Defending his property? Where do you see that? He had a confrontation with a teenager and when the teenager came back, he CHOSE to escalate the situation by introducing a gun and coming out to confront the kid, when he could have called 911...he had no biz going out with a gun on a trespass!
really? Got some facts to support that?
was he? Got some facts to support that?
Now really...really
...got some facts to support that? On the other hand, can we infer that by coming out with a gun against (as we understand it) an unarmed teenager he wanted to do a bit more than stroke the kids hair...read the article (FWIW) carefully by the way as to the psychosocial circumstances in that neighborhoodThumpthumpthump...you were doing Ok until you pulled off the mask...
Sorry sport, I don't consider good shoots to be looking to go out and start confrontations while armed and then gunning down unarmed folks.......you have a gun, you are the one who is responsible for its use...thats an awesome responsibility that demands circumspection, maturity and being man enough to back down..
Thas right boys and girls...REAL MEN have enough confidence in themselves and enough honour to back down, to turn the other cheek if necessary...
Some of y'all need to stop staring so hard into the abyss.....
Lots of lives at stake, including your own...life aint white hats, black hats and high noon
WildandifimpissingyouoffowellatleastyouarethinkingaboutitAlaska TM
PS I hope that some of you never have to experience the heartbreak of your little Johnny playing teenage mailbox busting and having some codger blow him away over it...never mind, mailbox busters are criminals, evil and deserve to die....especially in Texas
I think a person has every bizness going out the door to thier property with a gun especially on a tresspass above most other things. Also when you call the cops they sure don't show up with rubber chickens they pack heat. Even though in most instances the officer will never have to draw his weapon his presence with the weapon is mostly what threatens a person into submission.
Going out to your own property armed for a tresspasser isn't bloodlust chest pounding its a rightful threat of force.
This guy had a threat of deadly force and advanced on the owner anyways. The owner has to assume any conflict will be over his weapon and will be deadly.
The guy who was shot called bluff and he was wrong.
Last edited:
bamafan4life
New member
Theres one more thug off the streets. thats all that matters id congratulate him but the rest of america has sissy'd up instead of cowboy'd up. i mean seriously a little thug is killed by a hard working american for treaspassing and threatining the guy? so the old man is the villian instead of the hero? get over your self's would you won't that kid walking the same streets with you and your family?
Let's see here... we have 2 versions of the same story.
The OP described what appeared to be a simple tresspass with the teen leaving behind a crack pipe. Trooper's version says the teen was trying to B&E the homeowner's vehicle when he was confronted.
Fact: Homeowner is 69 years old.
IMO, whether he's on oxygen or reasonably fit and able bodied, he's still 69 years old. The body does not recover from trauma as easily, bones are more brittle and the body does not recover from organ damage very well.
Fact: The trespasser/attempted-thief is 17 years old.
Even if he is a habitual crack user, he is likely in much better physical shape than the homeowner. It is typically true that a 17 year old will be faster, more agile and think faster than the senior citizen too.
Fact: The neighborhood has had a rash of thefts and burglaries in recent weeks. This may have sensitized the area residents to the presence of strangers.
Fact: In one confrontation in the recent period a neighbor armed with a shotgun had a difficult time scaring away a burglar. This indicates that some of the criminal element is not easily dissuaded by armed confrontation.
Whether the initial confrontation was "wise" or "prudent", the fact remains that you're legally within your rights to tell a trespasser (or someone fiddling with your vehicle) to get off your property.¹ Trespass is a low-priority crime in most communities. Once the police are called, expect your call to be handled only when no other serious crimes are on the call-list for your area and surrounding beats where your beat officer might have to back-up another officer. That means response times between 15 minutes and 3 hours, if at all.
The teen was told to leave during the initial confrontation and the teen did leave. According to reports, after the confrontation, the elder man found a crack-pipe left behind by the trespasser. Now, whether in the yard or car, he found it on his property and is within his rights to hold or dispose of it.
The teen returned a second time. We do not have the exact sequence of events that unfolded. At some point, the senior armed himself with a .22 rifle. This may have been prudent -- we do not know the size of either man. An argument ensued² and the senior citizen ordered the teen to leave yet again. During this period, after being ordered to leave the propery, the teen started towards the senior citizen who had a rifle. We do not know if the senior citizen could have easily retreated in complete safety.
According to Trooper's report, the elder man used an oxygen tank to assist his breathing. This puts him at a serious physical disadvantage for obvious reasons.
We do not know the demeanor of the teen when he returned. However, having dealt with a few crack users myself and listening to local PD, it is less than likely that the teen returned and said "Golly, mister, I'm sorry to be annoying you once again, but I left a personal item behind that I would like to retrieve." It is likely the confrontation was tense and angry.
Given a 69 year old man with an oxygen tank to assist his breathing, he does not have a lot of easy mobility. Running any minor distance is probably very difficult. He's facing a teenager who is 4 times younger than he is. If the teen is of large stature, this furthers the disparity between the two.
Fact: The teen returned and apparenty initiated the 2nd confrontation³. He initially started to "walk away" but then, turned and "approached" the Senior from an unstated distance.
Thoughts:
Regardless of the prudence of either confrontation, the senior citizen was within his rights to tell the teen to leave. Telephoning the police would have been one way to handle the situation. But a low priority call for county sheriffs usually means a relatively long response time.
The largest gap here is the tone of the 2nd confrontation and the sequence of events. For instance, was the elder man inside his home talking through a loose screen door? Or on the front porch, rifle in hand?
The teen does not have to be physically imposing to be a serious threat to a 69 y/o on oxygen. But a "criminal-minded" teenager returning to trespass AND instigating a heated confrontation, THEN approaching a senior citizen holding a rifle, IMO, is a serious threat.
The teen is hostile, argumentative and undaunted by the presence of a firearm and he's decided to approach the elder man. That's not rational - most people would want to increase the distance between them an a gun wielding man. So he's hostile, argumentative AND irrational. Plus the senior is at a physical disadvantage in movement and physical stress.
I'm inclined to give the senior the benefit of the doubt here.
It seems to me that some of us are quick to question the wisdom of the elder man's choice to confront the teen and/or confront him whilst armed. Yet, there is no criticism of the youth's wisdom in confronting, arguing and then approaching an armed man on his own property. Nor of the teen's alleged possession of a crack-pipe. Or critical thinking of the disparity of force between the two men. There are several discussion threads about the dangers posed by an opponent who is up to 21 feet away being able to rush you before you can defend yourself. Yet, this danger is not even discussed, though it is relevant.
If threats were made by the teen during the initial trespass confrontation, then arming himself with the rifle may have been prudent for the senior citizen. The possession of the rifle, in theory, is to protect himself against attack, not to enforce his demands for the teen to leave. In this case, he believed the teens approach was a serious danger and used the rifle to stop that danger.†
¹ In fact, in some areas, police will not even respond to a trespass call until after you have told the person to leave.
²According to news reports.
According to the original news article.
I say criminal-minded in reference to Trooper's account of the teen attempting to B&E the vehicle.
† The evidence thus presented indicates as much. He fired only when the teen approached him. As opposed to taking a shot to "scare" the teen into leaving, or using multiple shots to kill the teen.
The OP described what appeared to be a simple tresspass with the teen leaving behind a crack pipe. Trooper's version says the teen was trying to B&E the homeowner's vehicle when he was confronted.
Fact: Homeowner is 69 years old.
IMO, whether he's on oxygen or reasonably fit and able bodied, he's still 69 years old. The body does not recover from trauma as easily, bones are more brittle and the body does not recover from organ damage very well.
Fact: The trespasser/attempted-thief is 17 years old.
Even if he is a habitual crack user, he is likely in much better physical shape than the homeowner. It is typically true that a 17 year old will be faster, more agile and think faster than the senior citizen too.
Fact: The neighborhood has had a rash of thefts and burglaries in recent weeks. This may have sensitized the area residents to the presence of strangers.
Fact: In one confrontation in the recent period a neighbor armed with a shotgun had a difficult time scaring away a burglar. This indicates that some of the criminal element is not easily dissuaded by armed confrontation.
Whether the initial confrontation was "wise" or "prudent", the fact remains that you're legally within your rights to tell a trespasser (or someone fiddling with your vehicle) to get off your property.¹ Trespass is a low-priority crime in most communities. Once the police are called, expect your call to be handled only when no other serious crimes are on the call-list for your area and surrounding beats where your beat officer might have to back-up another officer. That means response times between 15 minutes and 3 hours, if at all.
The teen was told to leave during the initial confrontation and the teen did leave. According to reports, after the confrontation, the elder man found a crack-pipe left behind by the trespasser. Now, whether in the yard or car, he found it on his property and is within his rights to hold or dispose of it.
The teen returned a second time. We do not have the exact sequence of events that unfolded. At some point, the senior armed himself with a .22 rifle. This may have been prudent -- we do not know the size of either man. An argument ensued² and the senior citizen ordered the teen to leave yet again. During this period, after being ordered to leave the propery, the teen started towards the senior citizen who had a rifle. We do not know if the senior citizen could have easily retreated in complete safety.
According to Trooper's report, the elder man used an oxygen tank to assist his breathing. This puts him at a serious physical disadvantage for obvious reasons.
We do not know the demeanor of the teen when he returned. However, having dealt with a few crack users myself and listening to local PD, it is less than likely that the teen returned and said "Golly, mister, I'm sorry to be annoying you once again, but I left a personal item behind that I would like to retrieve." It is likely the confrontation was tense and angry.
Given a 69 year old man with an oxygen tank to assist his breathing, he does not have a lot of easy mobility. Running any minor distance is probably very difficult. He's facing a teenager who is 4 times younger than he is. If the teen is of large stature, this furthers the disparity between the two.
Fact: The teen returned and apparenty initiated the 2nd confrontation³. He initially started to "walk away" but then, turned and "approached" the Senior from an unstated distance.
Thoughts:
Regardless of the prudence of either confrontation, the senior citizen was within his rights to tell the teen to leave. Telephoning the police would have been one way to handle the situation. But a low priority call for county sheriffs usually means a relatively long response time.
The largest gap here is the tone of the 2nd confrontation and the sequence of events. For instance, was the elder man inside his home talking through a loose screen door? Or on the front porch, rifle in hand?
The teen does not have to be physically imposing to be a serious threat to a 69 y/o on oxygen. But a "criminal-minded" teenager returning to trespass AND instigating a heated confrontation, THEN approaching a senior citizen holding a rifle, IMO, is a serious threat.
The teen is hostile, argumentative and undaunted by the presence of a firearm and he's decided to approach the elder man. That's not rational - most people would want to increase the distance between them an a gun wielding man. So he's hostile, argumentative AND irrational. Plus the senior is at a physical disadvantage in movement and physical stress.
I'm inclined to give the senior the benefit of the doubt here.
It seems to me that some of us are quick to question the wisdom of the elder man's choice to confront the teen and/or confront him whilst armed. Yet, there is no criticism of the youth's wisdom in confronting, arguing and then approaching an armed man on his own property. Nor of the teen's alleged possession of a crack-pipe. Or critical thinking of the disparity of force between the two men. There are several discussion threads about the dangers posed by an opponent who is up to 21 feet away being able to rush you before you can defend yourself. Yet, this danger is not even discussed, though it is relevant.
If threats were made by the teen during the initial trespass confrontation, then arming himself with the rifle may have been prudent for the senior citizen. The possession of the rifle, in theory, is to protect himself against attack, not to enforce his demands for the teen to leave. In this case, he believed the teens approach was a serious danger and used the rifle to stop that danger.†
¹ In fact, in some areas, police will not even respond to a trespass call until after you have told the person to leave.
²According to news reports.
According to the original news article.
I say criminal-minded in reference to Trooper's account of the teen attempting to B&E the vehicle.
† The evidence thus presented indicates as much. He fired only when the teen approached him. As opposed to taking a shot to "scare" the teen into leaving, or using multiple shots to kill the teen.
- Status