Child, 11, kills home invasion suspect in north St. Louis

a reply to: Vector99

No worries, I did it in my reply even.

Should of said 0.004 is 84 not 0.4 being 84

originally posted by: Ozsheeple
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

the kids 11, it will probably will mess him up

As well it should, it is no small task to take a life nor should it be.

Good for him and his family for preparing him to step up when the circumstances called for it.

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: Ozsheeple
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

the kids 11, it will probably will mess him up

I don't know ? Kids 11,12,13,14, and up to 20 killed their parents and anyone else Pol Pot told them to. They run the country or townships in Cambodia now.. Many People kidnap and brain wash the young to fight for a cause... Start them out early for political or religious B.S. with the killing to follow thereafter... At least this was a simple robbery in progress. Pretty cut and dried between right and wrong..

Interesting how things evolve. First the 20 year old was a criminal with a potential to harm those two kids, and at 20 he knew he was wrong, so yeah hurray dead criminal.

but then, the 11 year old should have no problems turning his life around, look at cambodia.

I dunno..

How about if the news item had read "6 year old girl accidentally shoots 11 year old brother" and the report goes on how she found the gun, obviously not under lock and key, not secured, and shot her brother thinking it was cool, as everyone shoots guns.

Would people then be saying "stupid mother should have locked the gun up properly." and "Stupid mother, leaving her two young children at home unsupervised." or are we now saying it's ok for legal gun owners to just leave guns laying around in houses with unsupervised bloody children?

I cant even.....

As usual, there's a lot of rushing to judgement here.

The knee-jerk reaction is to say "why wasn't the gun locked up?" but I started shooting when I was 6 years old and I knew how to safely operate every gun in the house.

The bigger question is "why were the kids home alone?" The mother just learned a very VERY hard lesson about reality and why you don't just leave your kids thinking "oh they'll be fine..."

Folks always think bad things only happen to other people. At least she had the common sense to get a gun.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sremmos80

re-read my last reply. The quote. 2.1 million burglaries reported, .004% resulted in homicide. The report actually contradicts itself in the same paragraph. .004% of 2.1 million is 8,400. Homicides were estimated around 16,000.

I think looking at home burglaries compared to homicide numbers is dishonestly representing the numbers.

A more honest comparison would be "in cases where the home was burglarized while someone was home, how many people were victimized?"

If someone breaks in while you're at home and your presence there doesn't scare them away, chances are it's going to come down to only one of you walking away unharmed.

People who think the "please just take what you want and leave" method will work are delusional. I want those folks to watch this video and realize that this outcome is much more likely if someone breaks into your home while you're there:

Skip to around 1:17 since YouTube posters are incapable of shutting up. I honestly think he was trying to kill her or harm her so badly that she wouldn't remember the incident. She never tried to attack him or stop what he was doing but he kept coming back to beat on her some more. Decent people don't burglarize houses and steal from people so the next time you think "well if I give them what they want, they'll go away..." I want you to remember this video and realize that this sort of thing happens all the time.

a reply to: Answer

The bigger question is "why were the kids home alone?" The mother just learned a very VERY hard lesson about reality and why you don't just leave your kids thinking "oh they'll be fine..."

This is the point I was trying to make from the start, my math was a lil flawed on the reported number, but the issue remains.

Why in any world you can imagine CHILDREN were left in charge of not only each other, but a gun ffs. You just DO NOT leave an 11 year old in charge of the house with a loaded gun. I do not care how trained you were as a child, or how well you train your children. GUNS are for ADULTS to use RESPONSIBLY. Not kid brother babysitting kid sister. No chance in hell is that ever ok with me.

a reply to: Vector99

I was taught how to respect all tools, especially the ones I didn't understand. I was taught how to properly use the ones I did.

I would say the fault lies with your presumption of an upbringing absent of any common sense education.

a reply to: greencmp

and I would say your personal upbringing closes your mind to the fact that not every child had the same upbringing as you, but DID have access to the same tools you did.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: greencmp

and I would say your personal upbringing closes your mind to the fact that not every child had the same upbringing as you, but DID have access to the same tools you did.

That would be an irresponsible upbringing, don't you agree?

a reply to: greencmp

Of course! Is every household an ideal upbringing? Do some of the bad ones contain guns? Kids shouldn't ever have access to guns, AND they should never need access to them.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Nothing?

Hardly. This is precisely why castle doctrine exists! A person whose home is being invaded should not have to spend precious moments they could be using to save their lives, wondering at the intentions of the invader. The invader proves their intention by entering the house uninvited.

There is no hand wringing to be done here. If the invaders intentions were good, then they would not have been breaking in, and it is not important what they were breaking in for. Violating the sanctity of a home is a vile offence in and of itself, and no one should be forced to defend themselves from it. Putting others in that position puts this squarely in the court of "suicide by resident", and no blame can be apportioned to anyone but the home invader. Not on the list? You get what you get.

As an aside, and response to the thread in general:

My mother used to leave my sister and I alone in the house on occasion when we were younger, because she knew she could trust me to look after things while she was out getting quick grocery bits, or nipping over the street or what have you. If someone had broken in, I would have been forced to defend myself with the contents of the drawers in the kitchen, or a cricket bat. I think this is one instance where a gun served very well, and I am glad the lad had both access to it, and the presence of mind to use it without harm coming to himself or his sister.

In short, the mother, the little boy, and his sister, are the victims here. They, all three of them, should be supported and counselled, and no one of them should endure any negative attention from the press or indeed the law.

The way I understand it, the 2nd amendment allows for just this sort of scenario. A physically weak person, faced with overwhelming threat, should have the means to defend themselves and their home against that threat. The factor which allows an eleven year old to defend his home against a pair of larger males is the gun. He would not have been able to do as good of a job with his hands, or a more improvised weapon.

This child, who will likely as not be known by the honorary title "Mommies little Equaliser" did what his mother would have had to have done, what anyone would have had to have done, in the same situation, and I for one am glad that the tools were there to allow him to safely defend himself and his sister, and for that matter his home, from intruders.

ETA: I just read another source stating that the deceased person became such due to not just a gunshot wound, but a gunshot wound to the head...

That is unspeakable badassery on the part of the defending child. Again, no one would wish the necessity on anyone, least of all a child, but none the less, that is astounding good work under pressure.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: greencmp

Of course! Is every household an ideal upbringing? Do some of the bad ones contain guns? Kids shouldn't ever have access to guns, AND they should never need access to them.

And this case is an example of a responsible upbringing, is it not?

Otherwise, your argument could be summarized by saying that burglars should not be breaking into their home.

We have already established that such threats exist despite the most sincere hopes of anti self-defense advocates.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Sremmos80


In short, the mother, the little boy, and his sister, are the victims here. They, all three of them, should be supported and counselled, and no one of them should endure any negative attention from the press or indeed the law.

The issue is the mother wasn't there. The 11 year old had to go find a gun.

At the very LEAST the mother should be charged with child endangerment. you just don't say to your 11 year old "here's a gun incase anyone comes in while I'm gone".

a reply to: greencmp

ONE. How many incidents do we see of children that age thinking a gun can't do what it can do. It kills people. Children are NOT responsible gun users unsupervised.

a reply to: Vector99

If this is the only successful case of a child defending himself and his family, I don't see the motivation to associate him with irresponsible children and their irresponsible parents.

Why chastise them at all?

a reply to: greencmp

in this case it is a rarity, if it is a lone case. the reality is most 11 year olds will NOT do the same. Allowing them acces to a firearm really could spell bad news.

Trust me, I like the outcome, #ing thug died. Awesome. But to EVER put a child in that scenario will not only cause them mental trauma, on the norm it will NOT turn out in this favor.

a reply to: Vector99

My mother is a bloody saint, and she left myself and my sister alone in our house fairly often when I reached eleven or so. We never had a gun though.

In the same situation as this kid, as damned good of a mother as my mother is, we would have been stuffed, because there would have been no reasonable manner in which we could have defended our home, or our lives if it had come to it.

The kids should have been fine on their own, and since no one got shot who should not have been shot, where, exactly is the harm? Someone would have had to have shot the bastards, and someone did. The home was not left un defended, no one of good intention died, and so I fail to understand your issue.

a reply to: TrueBrit

you misunderstand me brit, I am GLAD of the outcome. I'm saying the situation shouldn't be there in the first place.

Say it out loud.

"Hey son I'm going to work, incase anything happens here is the gun"

The child is 11, remember that.

The child should have never been left in that situation. 11 year old's cannot always react like this one did.

a reply to: Vector99

Surely the important issue is that this one could?

These things should be weighed against outcome, and against the capacity of those involved to deal with the circumstances prevailing. This child headshot an intruder. THIS child WAS capable. End of issue surely?

ETA:

The situation should not have been there... The part of it that should not have been there, left the back of the deceased intruders skull, at several hundred feet per second. The ONLY part of this situation which was wholly, and totally wrong, was the home invasion. Everything else worked just the way it ought to in a free society in my view.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The kids should have been fine on their own, and since no one got shot who should not have been shot, where, exactly is the harm?

Ok , i am replying to you TB but it could have been anyone . Did EVERYONE not read the link on the first page .

Jazmyne Clark, 18, said the 11-year-old was on the front porch when he called to the 16-year-old to approach him. She said the teen might have been seeking to sell the younger child a cellphone. When the 16-year-old reached the front door, Clark said, the 11-year-old shot him, with the teen falling forward into the open front door.

Then this .

But that narrative doesn’t square with Donna Jackson, who lives across the street.

She said she saw the 11-year-old shoot the 16-year-old point-blank in the head as the two were talking on a half brick wall near the home’s front door. “It was not a break-in,” said Jackson, 45. “He shot him in the head.”

Seems the 11 year old may not be quite the hero after all , just another evil little kid .

When asked if the police still stood by the home-invasion account, Schellman said: “Until we’ve talked to everybody, I don’t know if we can contradict or back off of that right now.”

Where are the gun advocates now .

SLIPPING ATS , read the links .
www.stltoday.com... l