Armed Citizen: Teen Shot by Homeowner

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds to me this kid was turning into a little Ken McElroy. Anyone remember who he was and what happened to him?

I still would have called the cops and maybe then went outside just to keep him talking garbage in my yard. He would be there when the cops pulled up and then placed in jail. After that though there would probably be retaliation to deal with from the teen and his buddies. Who knows when it would come.
 
After that though there would probably be retaliation to deal with from the teen and his buddies. Who knows when it would come.
Click to expand...

Exactly ! This is why the homeowner did the right thing, instead of cowering "safely" inside his home, and waiting on police like a coward, he charged outside and protected his property!

And now those thugs Know that this guy means business. I'll bet they will think twice before trying any retaliatory strike on this old oxygen-deprived patriot.

:rolleyes:
 
I just have to say I don't think staying inside and waiting for the police should be automatically classified as cowering and being a coward. I mean going Clint Eastwood with your vintage garand is not always the best decision.
 
A few years back a friend of mine was leaving my house after a skins game and got jumped by three teenagers. He ran back to the house and my roommates some other friends and I came out and confronted the assailants. They stood in our yard cursing and yelling, there were shoves and punches thrown but once one of the girls let the dog out they left. A few hours later, my GF and I were smoking on the front porch when two of them showed back up in our lawn, cursing and threating us. Then one of them pulled out a knife and began waving it around. I shoved my GF in the door, locked it and my roommates called the police.

Now when this happened I was armed and the one waving the knife was about 20 feet away from me. I never once thought of pulling my gun or even sweeping my shirt over to be ready. My first thought was to get the girl through that door and to lock it. If I had remained outside allowing the situation to escalate and the knife wielder was shot as a result, I would have been fully responsible for that boys life.

From the facts we have, the old man was already safe inside his house. He was obviously armed and able to defend himself. He had access to a phone and from what I read its a high crime neighborhood so chances are a unit was near by. Age is not a factor here since HE confronted the boy the second time.

Also, I'm not buying the whole crack pipe story. I'm just basing that on my gut.
 
Yea I agree that the pipe should be pretty easy to produce and would help his story. The fact that there hasn't been much of an official statement yet is somewhat shady. Also from what I have read a neighbor tried to stop the bleeding, so did that neighbor witness and immediately run over, or just hear the shot (who goes outside after hearing a gunshot??). Maybe more details will come out but it sounds like most of us can agree that the older man probably SHOULD have stayed in side the disagreement is coming in whether he committed a crime or not. I personally do not think he did legally. Morally, well I can't judge another mans actions based on my morals, that is up to the man upstairs.
 
The Castle Doctrine is a wonderful bit of legislation.

2 men argued - - one man decided to escalate by advancing - - he died. The dead could have chosen to leave, diffusing the situation. He could have simple sat on the ground in an un-threatening manor. He could have made any number of decision, but he made the conscious choice to advance on what appeared to be a frail old man and got shot for it - - I've got no problem with the shooting - a moron made a idiotic decision to advance on a guy with a gun and got himself removed from the gene pool, that outcome is preferable to me than the old man becoming a victim.

I'm not advocating that you go around armed and confronting people, but if you are acting legally (and apparently he was) and are threatened by an individual (as reported) then I believe you should be able take any and all steps you feel you need to in order to defend yourself.
 
I'm not advocating that you go around armed and confronting people,
but if you are acting legally (and apparently he was)
Click to expand...

So it is okay to go around armed and confronting people as long as it legal, regardless of the potential outcome.

and are threatened by an individual (as reported) then I believe you should be able take any and all steps you feel you need to in order to defend yourself.
Click to expand...

Excluding, apparently, just staying inside which would have been the best way to defend himself.

Just because you are acting legally, doesn't mean you are acting prudently or reasonably.
 
I just have to say I don't think staying inside and waiting for the police should be automatically classified as cowering and being a coward.
Click to expand...

Nor do I, Did you see the little smiley guy on my post?

he charged outside and protected his property!
So a truck is more valuable to you then human life? That's too bad.
Click to expand...

Again I reference the little smiley guy rolling his eyes. :rolleyes:


The old man was wrong to go outside his home and confront the second time around. Stay inside, call 911, and protect your life from inside, while he likely will be legally OK, His decision is the reason this escalated to a shooting.
 
Sounds to me this kid was turning into a little Ken McElroy. Anyone remember who he was and what happened to him?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Why wait till they are teens...lets start executing bullies in 2nd grade:rolleyes:

The bloodthirstyness I see among gun owners is scary.

WildmaybeitscuzimolderAlaska ™
 
"So a truck is more valuable to you then human life? That's too bad."

Again he didn't shoot him for trying to steal his truck, he shot him for coming at him.
 
The bloodthirstyness I see among gun owners is scary.
Click to expand...


I think allot of it is fear based. It comes off as chest thumping bravado, all this talk of "defending me and mine", but anyone who would shoot a boy for being on their property is a very frightened individual. When it comes down to it, thats what it was. It was not an armed person, not a gang of home invaders, nope, just one boy and an alleged crack pipe. How that warrants a death sentence and how people come to that conclusion is beyond me.
 
Again he didn't shoot him for trying to steal his truck, he shot him for coming at him.
Click to expand...

But he went outside while displaying a weapon to confront the teen why? Not for coming at him since he was in no danger until he left the safety of his home to confront the teen and escalate the situation.

So let's take a look at the pros of going outside:
Possibly will prevent some type of theft.

Now the cons:
Possible injury or death to self
Possible escalation to the point of having to kill someone
Possible criminal charges up to and including murder
Possible retaliation either by the teen (if he hadn't been killed) or his buddies
Possible civil suit
Possible bankruptcy defending criminal and/or civil case
Possible psychological trauma brought on by killing or maiming someone
Possible confiscation of gun by police
Possible escalation of tension and bad blood in an already tense neighborhood

I'm sure I missed some, but you get the idea. Now tell me again why going outside was such a grand idea. I'm still not seeing it.
 
I never said it was a great idea, in fact said it was a bad idea, but it wasn't a crime.

Also a 17 year old is much closer to a man than a boy. He was definitely more physically capable than the old man. Let's not label this kid a child killer just yet.

I am not saying the guy was making the bst decisions in what he did, or even justified. But I don't think he should be condemned either.
 
No one on here can accuse me of being bloodthirsty. I am far from a raging loon looking for trouble. However, I would not sit in my home and allow a tweeker to damage or destroy my property. I work very hard to have the things I have and I am not going to lose them because some people think I should take the high road when confronted by someone with no regard for me or the things I own.

I would never walk out with an exposed firearm but I would confront the perp immediately after calling police if he was actively engaging in the act of destroying my property (if he is just standing in the street or yard yelling I can ignore that). At that time I would then only use whatever force was appropriate to the situation. If that only included standing between him/her and my personal property or maybe saying "get the hell out of here before I kick your a**" that is where it would stop. if the perp then decided to escalate events to the point here he was a threat to my life I would then respond accordingly.
 
Someone who won't leave your property is a trespasser, especially if they aren't armed. Trespassing equals a fine and maybe a few days in jail, not the death penalty.

Also, why weren't the police called after the first incident?

The homeowner may benefit from his reputation as a grandfatherly-type, however.

Finally, who's to say that the teen made any move whatsoever toward the homeowner? We only have one side of the story. Maybe gramps got tired of arguing and offed the kid.
 
I work very hard to have the things I have and I am not going to lose them because some people think I should take the high road when confronted by someone with no regard for me or the things I own.
Click to expand...

While I understand and agree with that sentiment, that's why I have insurance. I wouldn't "lose" anything, in fact in some ways the thug would be doing me a favor, since my insurance is full replacement cost I'd be getting newer, better stuff for "free".
 
While I understand and agree with that sentiment, that's why I have insurance. I wouldn't "lose" anything, in fact in some ways the thug would be doing me a favor, since my insurance is full replacement cost I'd be getting newer, better stuff for "free"
Click to expand...
I hate to break this to you, but insurance isn't free and rates go up and coverage is lost when you actually file a claim. If I let someone trash my car, I might just have to pay a deductible right now but I will be paying for it for a long time to come. That money comes out of my pocket. Why should I just allow someone to take money out of my pocket without any resistance?
 
I work very hard to have the things I have and I am not going to lose them because some people think I should take the high road when confronted by someone with no regard for me or the things I own.
Click to expand...

I just think its allot easier to just call the cops and let them know you are doing so. I would never get between a tweaker and anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top