Boy shot while tp'ing mans home

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heck, even charging outside with a paintball gun could end in tragedy....

But what if the home owner falls off his ladder while trying to clean up the mess the vandels left?

Another classic: Two Wrongs don't make a right. Unfortunatly, the man stepping outside and blasting away THREE times with a shotgun is far going to outweigh the vandal issue.... Paranoid gun owners are probably one of the biggest anti-gun arguments that we as law abiding citizens have to overcome, and this guy just fueled that fire BIG TIME.
 
the boy DID learn a lesson, even though it was a hard one.
Click to expand...
Hard lesson indeed and it may be that the homeowner learns an equally hard lesson.

Yup.... stupidity can be fixed..... too bad the price is so prohibitive.
 
TP'ing a house is considered criminal mischief and committing criminal mischief at night automatically a 3rd degree felony and is protected under Texas Penal Code 9.42 (Deadly Force To Protect Property) sec. (2)(A).
Click to expand...

and the first time a homeowner gets away with shooting a kid TPing a house based on that law you are going to see it changed. The result will be a whole lot LESS leeway for the reasonable homeowner to deal with threats.

Just because the law on the matter is fairly "liberal" in the traditional sense is not an invitation to be an idiot. Take advantage of that law enough and you will see it changed.
 
The facts.

The boy has been released...

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/most_popular_story.aspx?storyid=100049&provider=top

I will not comment on anything else, would be a job ending thing to do. But I agree that people should get all of the facts before deciding on which side of the fence to be on.

TP'ing houses is a common thing in this township, but of all of the things kids could be out doing I would rather have them TP a house than most things.

It is sad this all happened. However, that is the only personal comment i'll make. I will keep you updated as I hear FACTS that can be passed along.

Rich Hays
Solon Township Fire Captain.
 
Quote from HOYTINAK:

TP'ing a house is considered criminal mischief and committing criminal mischief at night automatically a 3rd degree felony and is protected under Texas Penal Code 9.42 (Deadly Force To Protect Property) sec. (2)(A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only partly true. The penalty for Criminal Mischief is based on the dollar amount of pecuniary loss (ie: How much money the owner of the damaged property is out.) The penalty has NOTHING to do with the time of day.

However, Deadly Force IS justified to prevent the actor's immenent commission of Criminal Mischief AT NIGHTTIME. So...yeah, you may get No-Billed by the Grand Jury, but the possible civil trial is another story.

***This is in Texas...your state may be different.***
 
I also agree that 3 shots pushes it over the edge of "I thought they were trying to break in." I think this clearly violates know what your target is and what is behind it. I would go out and shine a bright flashlight on them (or maybe turn on the flood lights surrounding my house. They would get the idea and beat it. Even most burglers would split knowing the howeowner was awake and expecting them. If I flipped on the lights and someone still tried going through my door (I would yell that I am armed and that the police have already been called), I would have NO QUALMS shooting them.
 
I gotta jump back in...

From the linked article:

"What I know of Mark , he's not a man who would just go firing a gun off if he saw teenagers toilet papering," says neighbor and friend Connie Fisk. "He's a very soft spoken man."
Click to expand...
Jeez! When have we heard THAT before? Goetz, Dahlmer, Berkowitz: the list is long.
"I don't think the guy should have flipped out if it was only toilet paper," says neighbor Jared Fisk. "Maybe if the guy was breaking stuff on his property."
Click to expand...
Lawd! You CAN'T shoot to protect property!

Kuncaitis shot out the rear window of their vehicle.
Click to expand...
That's a FOURTH shot. This guy had killing in his heart. You can't tell me he didn't. He flipped out 100% full-goose bozo, and should probably undergo psychiatric examination.

"Seeing as how they were vandalizing and on his property, I think if the kid got away with what he did, he is lucky," says neighbor Chase Fisk. "They should probably just drop everything. Both sides were not thinking right."
Click to expand...
Oh, the kid TPs some trees and gets shot three times for it and this guy wants to "just drop everything"?????????? "Not thinking right"??????? Can you say, "Attempted manslaughter"?

Now, before I get jumped...The kids were WRONG, completely WRONG. They should receive some type of punishment: community service, clean up the guy's yard, fines, after school home arrest, a good butt warming by their parents, being grounded until they're 35...but getting shot? Give me a break.

The people who condone this shooting scare me.
 
We don't know the whole story yet as others have stated but it does seem over the top based on the information at hand. This will be interesting to see as it plays out. I'm not sure about the state laws there but that last round through the back glass might get him in more trouble than anything else.

Anyway, the reason I wanted to post on this one was to help clarify something regarding bean bag and rubber bullet rounds. They are not considered NON-LETHAL projectiles, at least in every class I ever went to. They are considered LESS-LETHAL. The difference is very significant. Less Lethal still has the ability to kill such as a bean bag round to the face, etc. There is a fair amount of training that goes into using these and much of that covers legal issues, etc. One of the more common uses you will see is on an EDP or intoxicated person threatening themselves with something like a knife.

I am not condoning vandalism, and yes, that is certainly what they were doing. I am agreeing with others who thought this was a poor use of weapons and judgement. I have always felt that just because something might be legal, that doesn't make it the right thing to do and vice versa.
 
Ethical, Moral, or legal?

Maybe some more facts will come out, maybe one of the kids brandished a gun, who knows. Regardless of the whole story, there are a few lessons (and we've all seen these same lessons before) to remember here.
First - if you think there's a threat of GBH outside, you don't go outside! Let alone take a weapon with you. Arm yourself, stay inside, call 9-1-1. Stay on the phone, or have your spouse stay on the phone with them till the mounties arrive. Stay in your safe spot. Having a gun, let alone a CCW permit ,doesn't make you a vigilante and you imperil all our rights when reactionary people read stories about trigger-happy citizens. You just don't use deadly force for a property crime, especially something as innocent and prankish as TPing a house.
Second - If you don't think there's a threat of GBH, you don't pull a gun. Ever. Period. Still call the cops if they're vandalizing your property - if they're caught in the act, they'll probably have to clean it up, at the least, when the judge gets the case. If one of them has a gun, tell the cops and let them - the pros, by the way - do their jobs. But a TP job by youngsters? Just step outside and shout at them - they'll run like the dickens almost certainly. Of course then you're stuck with the cleanup.
Third - THINK! BEFORE! YOU! ACT! Most adults are capable of foreseeing consequences from their actions. This situation didn't call for violence at all, let alone gunshots. Right or wrong, guilty or justified, the entire thing was almost certainly avoidable. Even if the shooting isn't prosecuted, nobody needed to get shot at all.

and for those of you who condone this shooting, i strongly suggest you re-think your own reaction strategies. It's one thing to shoot a burglar in your home; it's the same thing to shoot a would-be mugger where weapons or violence is either explicit or easily implied; this isn't any of those things. If your plan includes reacting with deadly force to such innocent and non-threatening situations, you are courting disaster and needlessly endangering yourself and others. Consider reviewing the CCW and deadly force laws in your area. You should know them by heart anyway.
 
It looks to me that shooting was the first thing on his mind rather than somewhere down the list. This is Sparta... Oh wait, this is tactics & training! So, what does this teach us about threat assessment? How could this conflict be resolved differently?
 
Back many years ago when I was in high school some of my friends stopped by the local station one night and stole a crate of pepsi bottles. They then drove down the road seeing if they could hit the mail boxes with the bottles. there were quite a few mail boxes damaged the next day when the postman came by. The next night they did it again getting the rest of them on that road. This was also a teen age prank just like TP'ing a house wouldn't you say? After all everyone does stupid things when they are teenagers.

Except in this case they were caught and had to replace eveyone of the mailboxes to keep form going to jail. I was not in on it. :)
 
man who believed strangers were trying to break into his home.
Click to expand...
First and foremost rule of any gun handling(hunting, self defense, target shooting, military)
KNOW YOUR TARGET!!!!!!! It seems that this can't be stressed enough. People like this idiot are what really gives gun owners a bad name.

And as for what I would do: First assess the situation then the following Yell like crazy, rack the shotgun(not fire), shoot him with a paintball marker, egg him, maybe call the police(but it is just toilet paper), most likely follow him home tell his parents and demand that he clean it up.
 
TP'ing a house is considered criminal mischief and committing criminal mischief at night automatically a 3rd degree felony and is protected under Texas Penal Code 9.42 (Deadly Force To Protect Property) sec. (2)(A).
Click to expand...
Some people are doing some very selective reading of this law. They seem to be missing all the qualifiers in that penal code. You are only justified and protected if you meet a long list of requirements and conditions. This situation meets none of them.

I would suggest to everyone who lives in a state with castle doctrines or similar laws to familiarize yourselves with every word of them before falsely believing you have a blank check to shoot anyone that trespasses, vandalizes, or steals from you.

Also keep in mind simply "believing" something is a whole lot different than "reasonably believing" something. You better be darned sure of any situation before you go pulling a trigger. Shoot first and ask questions later is not a valid philosophy. I doubt a jury is going to find anything about this mans actions "reasonable" if he is charged.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm
 
I clarified the law, in bare bones format, in my post. I did not imply, suggest, or otherwise indicate that the man took the proper course of action. Without knowing ALL the facts, I won't make a judgement on that.

(For the TEXAS Penal Code section that was referred to)...He had to have reasonably believed that the property couldn't have been protected any other way and that force other than Deadly Force would have placed him at risk of serious bodily injury or death.

If those requirements were met (and reasonableness MUST be considered in the view of the facts and circumstances as HE saw them at THAT TIME...hindsight does not apply), then he was "justified" according to TEXAS Penal Code. (I realize that it didn't happen in Texas...that's the law that was thrown out there though).

"Legal" and "moral" justification aren't always the same. Like I said, I won't make an opinion or judgement until I know ALL the facts.


Edit: The first clue is that the article states that he believed they were trying to break into his home. If that's true, then in HIS mind, he wasn't shooting them for a simple prank. Did they have a ladder up against his house and when he came out, he saw them and thought they were trying to go in a window? How much toilet paper was visible to HIM to indicate what they were up to? Maybe they were just getting started and he didn't have the toilet paper to clue him in to their intentions. Maybe he is old and was scared of a group of teenagers...people who's age he couldn't determine in the dark? I'm just throwing these out there as a reminder that not everything is as cut and dry as a newspaper article makes it out to be.

For example: The mother of a dead suspect states to the newspaper that her son "was a good boy" and that he was shot for "resisting arrest." Well, you can't shoot someone for simply resisting arrest, so her statement makes it look bad. But then, you find out that "resisting arrest" meant the 16-year old attacked the officer with a hammer and struck him in the head during the fight. That changes things a little, doesn't it?

Get ALL the facts before proclaiming these wide-sweeping judgements.
 
If those requirements were met (and reasonableness MUST be considered in the view of the facts and circumstances as HE saw them at THAT TIME
Click to expand...
That is the wrong definition of reasonable. Him simply thinking it does not make it reasonable. Not even close. Such judgments are made based on the "reasonable man" criteria. His actions as described would not be considered reasonable.

What was his justification for believing they were breaking in to his home? Where the trying to enter a window? Force a door? If they were not his reasons are very questionable.

Guys like this trying to make up justification and then hide behind protection laws will cause one thing...the laws to be rescinded/repealed.

Plus, even if someone illegally enters your home you are not necessarily justified in using deadly force. There still is a long list of qualifiers.
 
My biggest concern here are the number that don't see anything wrong with vandalizing, and yes I consider TP'ing a house vandalizing, someone's home.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anyone here suggest that TPing a house is OK.

I've seen a fair number of people here saying shooting is not the correct response to some kid TPing a house. And I agree with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top