15 Y/O Shot In Back After Throwing Rocks At Old Man....Can This Be Justified?

Wow, this is one moral dilemma to be reckoned with. On one hand its a teenager thats been shot doing stupid things teenagers do, and on the other hand its an old man being terrorized and vandalized regularly.

If it wasn't a teenager and a group of grown men, I have absolutely no problem if the aggressor gets a bullet between the eyes or in the back, in fact I not only condone it I encourage it. I hate aggressors, especially the ones who do it for fun.

I don't blame on the old man, its unfortunate that someone that young was killed, but the teen knew fully well what he was doing and that it was wrong.

You have an inaliable right to defend yourself, your home from intrusion, terrorism, vandalism and retain the right to defend yourself.

Dude got sick of tired of having his house and block vandalized and finally did something about it. Dude probally called the cops on numerous occasions while LE did jack squat but take a report with no follow through.

Vandals degrade, devalue and ruin the neighbourhood and since LE will only give them a "slap on the wrist" dude felt that he had no other option to defend his home and block. As a homeowner if I saw someone spray painting my 2 walls, my garage or my building you better darn well believe that I will knock someone out and spray the can in thier face so that they never forget. My house has been fined by the City for vandalism so why should we homeowners be forced to constantly pay to repair parts of our homes caused by others?

A strategically placed 4 oz rock can kill. The kid was running because he knew 100% that he did something wrong and was trying to get out of Dodge before he was caught as someone with no nefarious intent has a need to run away from any situation.

This is totally justified I care not how anyone tries to slice it. No one deserves to have anything thrown at them or have thier house vandalized. Dude here did not know if they were planning on coming back and possibly committing a home invasion or to attack him so he did what he felt was nessecary to stop the attacks once and for all.

Neighbourhood all across the nation and the planet are under constant attack by these thugs and the people are sick and tired of not feeling safe when they step out of thier front door. Community service is a joke in cases like this as it does nothing. Jail does nothing. The recidity rate for these thungs is north of 80% so by killing him more then likely prevented another kid from being murdered as it starts with vandalism and eventually leads to gang activity and murder.

This has nothing to do with responsible gun ownership. Morality has nothing to do with this either. As others have pointed out which I fully agree with is that if this thug wouldn't've been throwing rocks he would still be alive plain and simple.

The article doesnt elaborate, but was the kid one of them throwing rocks or was he an innocent bystander at the wrong place at the wrong time?

No matter what. the guy was wrong, esp for trying to HIDE the evidence....he should have left it where it was...if he wasnt guilty of anything, why try to cover your tracks?

Originally posted by Ahmose
little bastard should learn some fn respect.

How can he?
He'd dead.

- Lee

I wonder how many of these people saying the kid got what was coming can admit to their misdemeanours as young children? When I was young I did silly things like this a few times, does that automatically mean I should have been rounded up and shot? I don't think i'm a bad human being, i'm going through university now and don't go around the streets at night anymore throwing rocks. There is no information this kid has done anything like this before, and no information he did actually aim at the old man, or even that he was the ringleader (c'mon, as kids with friends its very easy to get persuaded). I am not doubting that what he did was wrong, but to be killed? He was 14, if anyone here claims they never did anything silly or against the rules in their younger years of equal culpability, then i'd dare to say you are lying!

reply to post by v3_exceed


I've been through a bit myself, had vandalism, my van window broken, and violence. I knew it was the teenagers for some of the stuff as well. Unless its self defense or defense of another, life and limb, you would never shoot anyone over property. This whole hologrpahic, interactive universe, is a school. And you don't leave until you learn love, the kind that turns the other cheek, walks in everyones moccasins, and would never harm a soul. When you wake up, you're the repsonsible one, you're the adult to the child. In this case, that was certiainly true. In all cases, we're all family. The more aware you are, the more responsible and grown up, and loving you must be.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

A couple of things jumped out with this case.

The old man was being terrorized by a band of punks, throwing rocks at his house and car. At several of the links you can see the picture of the old man.

Irrelevant in my opinion.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
This happened in the ghetto, a rotten dangerous part of this city (unfortunately there are few places left not touched by the punkage and violence we see here).

Again, in my opinion irrelevant. It justifies people being a bit more aware of their surroundings yes.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
The kid was shot in the back.

In my opinion, this is pathetic.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
My question is this.

Is shooting someone in the back ever justified?

Answer - Yes and No. Tennessean Vs. Garner states Law Enforcement cannot shoot a fleeing felon in the back unless we perceive the felons actions as an immediate threat to others in the immediate vicinity. Absent this justification, its not a justified use of force.

Civilians have more leeway in this area since they are not acting under the color of law. However, Kentucky has a version of the Castle Doctrine, which covers house, property and vehicles. Plus I am not seeing a duty to retreat anywhere in their statutes (I might be missing it, im not familiar with their laws). If a duty to retreat is part of KY law, then once the kid ran, their was no more perceived danger from that person, and deadly force should not be used.

Kentucky Statute - Use of Force

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
This old man was likely scared, and fed up, and we do not know if he was aiming at the kids back, or if the kid turned after the first shot was fired and caught a bullet running away from his criminal activity.

Interestingly, the old man, after shooting, picked up spent shell casings and tried to hide the gun.

Does that say guilty or scared?

It says innocent until proven guilty. However, if that is allowed in as evidence, it will be damning. Defense will most likely spin it as part of the confusion of the situation etc. Personally, the way the story describes it, and based on that description alone, it looks highly suspicious and would end up in my report.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I can see a scared terrorized old man fed up and desperate to stop a gang of punks from vandalizing and terrorizing his property. He has a right to live without fear. In this neighborhood/part of Louisville, calling the cops could get you killed. Could, excuse me, does.

Maybe he got scared and just started firing to scare them, and had bad aim. It was dark.

My opinions and comments are based on the article provided. I don't like to monday morning quarterback a situation like this because almost always there is more to the story than what the media gets. The media, when they are missing evidence, pull the leap of logic to finish the article, and sometimes they are way off.

with that in mind:


It is irrelevant in this case if it was night, daytime, raining, snowing etc. It was kids throwing rocks at a house. Using deadly force in this instance, based on description, is not valid. His life was not in imminent danger (unless rocks were being thrown at him, then it changes a bit). The guy could of just as easily went back inside and called the police (I saw where this has happened more than once, but resources are limited as we all know) while at the same time being a good witness.

He could of attempted to confront the individuals and "detain" them until Law Enforcement arrived. He could of attempted to detain just one person instead of an entire group.

What jumps out at me though is this guy felt there was enough of an issue to brandish a fire arm, which tells me it was not just a one on one fight. It also tells me he felt a confrontation could be dangerous. That tells me he should of waited for the Police to arrive, instead of taking action on his own.

As far as a warning shot goes. There is a reason Law Enforcement does not do this. You take aim and squeeze off a round, their is no intent to hit the person, but to warn them. What you don't / can't see is the old lady, baby, child, fellow neighbor, officer, firefighter, nun, just beyond the person you are trying to warn. You hit and kill them.. Now what.

Guns are used for one purpose and one purpose only. If you point it at someone, the intent is to stop the threat, not to wound, kill, etc, but to stop the threat. Every time you shoot and miss, you could be potentially killing someone on the other side of your target. Even capping off a warning shot into the air is dangerous, because we all know what goes up, must come down. Terminal velocity at a downward trajectory will still kill someone if they are hit.

As a private citizen this would annoy the piss out of me. Having kids throwing rocks at my house and damaging my property.

As a Law Enforcement Officer this is a nightmare scenario, and I don't envy the officer working it, the parties involved, or the issues this is going to create.

My personal opinion is life is worth more than property, no matter the damage. It was a bunch of kids with rocks, running away. No matter how angry someone is, they posed no threat to the community, or the person who shot and killed a child while he ran away.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
And, is shooting someone in the back EVER justified?

Yes - when a violent felony is being committed, where the felon is still armed and heading towards any place that can contain other people, shooting a threat in the back to end the possible threat towards others is justified under law. This is also one of the exceptions TN vs. Garner allows.

It does not matter if it is a civilian or Law Enforcement who observes and takes action. The imminent threat the subject is to others is of top concern, and action must be taken to stop that threat. (Check your local / state laws for this. Some states require civilians to retreat if they can, and any action taken against can get the good Samaritan charged).


Shooting a kid in the back for throwing rocks is a cowards way to end a problem. This is in no way a justified response to the issue at hand, and imo is not justified. I am curious to see if there is more to the story and how the PA deals with this.

My sincerest condolences go out to the family, both, who are now suffering in their own ways.

I never threw rocks at old people when I was a kid, and I was a little ass hole. I think his death will only do society good in the future. I am not saying it is justified, I would have preferred for him to be shot in the leg or something. Oh well, can't cry about it now. I see people get purposely run over and beaten to death on live leak every now and then and none of it is justified. This is everyday life.

NOTHING churns me more than gutter trash that prey on the elderly! alongside pedophiles.

Heres just a few from Australia.......

www.news.com.au...

au.news.yahoo.com...

au.news.yahoo.com...

www.abc.net.au...

If I ever reach an old age where I have little to be responsible for and I`m ever terrorized by thugs,I`ll no doubt spend the rest of my years behind bars.

The mother in this case calls her son a baby,others in this this thread have called him a child and a kid,where he is actually a young man,terrorizing the frail and fragil.

I could easily imagine this old fella was even afraid to sleep at night.

reply to post by gps777


He was a 15 yr old who threw rocks at a guy's house. The man could've easily fired a warning shot. That would scare the sh*t out of any 15 yr old brat.

But instead, he murdered the kid. Shot him right in the back. Brave, real brave....

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

But instead, he murdered the kid. Shot him right in the back. Brave, real brave....

This has nothing to do with bravery,this old guy was living in fear.

Oh but how brave of several young men,terrorizing one old man.

reply to post by gps777


young man maybe, but still a juvenile in the eyes of the law. It is a kid throwing rocks at and old mans house. Nothing in this story that has been reported justifies deadly force.

Nothing in this article even places this kid with a rock in his hand, or actually throwing the rock at this guys house.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

He could of attempted to confront the individuals and "detain" them until Law Enforcement arrived. He could of attempted to detain just one person instead of an entire group.

The dude would've gotten locked up for assault and unlawful detainment for putting his hands on the kid and let us not also forget to mention that in this age of child predators and pedphiles that all the kid could've easily said that he was being molested and dude's life is over. Cases like this a clearcut no win situation.

Dude had no way out, leave the kid be and watch dude's car get a brick through the windshield. Rocks are classified as projectiles and are seen as weapons as they can do damage. What if dude would've been in his living room idly watching tv and a rock the size of a Bic cigarette lighter comes flying through the window striking dude in the skull and knocking him out cold and killing him. When is enough enough? The law is designed to protect the criminals while caring not for the individual. Criminal cases of mischief in a clearcut majority of cases (95% or better) ends up escilating into something more violent.

A diecast model car strategically placed will bring someone to thier knees and can kill

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Not necessarily, although I am not well versed in Kentucky Law. Even in states where private individuals aren't suppose to detain, its not completely taboo if done appropriately, IE holding the kids there till the cops showed up.

I don't have enough information to see how this can end for him, or how his actions will be taken, so all if this is 20/20 hindsight, which Is not something I like doing for obvious reasons.

The article doesn't state if this kid was for sure throwing rocks. It doesn't say if they were throwing them at the old guy when he came out of his house. It doesn't say anything about a possible verbal exchange between the groups, it doesn't say anything about how many kids were there, where they were all at, and aggressive actions take by other members of the group, what the old guy perceived.

If it is dark, and the kid is going to throw something, and the old guy perceives a threat, then its gets goofy. Just because the kid was shot in the back, does not necessarily mean that was the intended target. If the kid turned as he squeezed off a round, etc etc.

My observations are based solely off the paper article, which we all know is always missing key info.

I'm gonna ask point blank:

do you think this kid deserved the death penalty for what he did?

Originally posted by 19872012
I'm gonna ask point blank:

do you think this kid deserved the death penalty for what he did?

If its directed at me based on the info I see-

Absolutely not. The guy who shot him should go to jail.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by 19872012
I'm gonna ask point blank:

do you think this kid deserved the death penalty for what he did?

If its directed at me based on the info I see-

Absolutely not. The guy who shot him should go to jail.

Agreed!!! I mean, the kid is an a$$hole, but what he did does not deserve any worse than juvenile hall and boot camp. i think people are just happy he's dead because he's not very nice, but if you think not being nice is reason to die, you are not very nice yourself, IMO.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by gps777

 

young man maybe, but still a juvenile in the eyes of the law. It is a kid throwing rocks at and old mans house. Nothing in this story that has been reported justifies deadly force.

I care less about the technicalities of the law,I doubt the old guy cares about them either.Whether he shot to kill none of us will probably never know,but hey in the heat of the momment I will now assume you will personally in a similar situation ask their intentions and age before making a rational decision in protecting your home from thugs.

reply to post by 19872012


If not being nice is a reason to die, then my shifts would be nothing but paperwork j/k

I understand the anger this guy has at constantly being harassed and having his property damaged. To me it looks like he completely lost it, pulled the gun, squeezed off a round, and realized, obviously to late, that it was a bad idea with consequences he didn't think about. Still doesn't justify it.

A man has the right to protect and defend his house and his property. period.

If that kid's mommy wasn't smart enough to teach her kid to bring more than rocks to a gunfight, that's her problem.

Now where do I send this Bail Money too?


don't bring rocks to a gunfight,
ET