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

Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out!

Throw a rock at me and I'll show you the point of a gun!

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Who seems more guilty of a serious crime here? Who seems more violent and intimidating? Who seems like more of a threat to the neighborhood?

Yeah rrrright

It was the old man continually throwing rocks all night at these young mens houses and property getting his jollies off in the process.

By the way,who is even argueing "Who seems more guilty of a serious crime here? "

How many times has an abused wife been found not guilty when she has had enough and kills her husband?

Who seems more guilty of a serious crime here?

How do we know how much this old man has taken and suffered over the years by these types of idiots who do these things for FUN!. If police were an answer to his problem here he would have called them and would not have put up with it all night continually confronting these thugs.

The boys threw rocks until they got a response, then they ran off and hid. Then they returned until they got a response, and then they ran off and hid. Then they threw rocks until he came out and murdered one of them!

Where is the imminent danger or evidence of escalation on the boys part? If escalation was their intention, why didn't they attack him on the first two occasions? If escalation and intimidation and predatory behavior and bullying were part of their plan, why did they flee?

Do you realise you contradicted yourself here?

Where is the evidence of escalation?????

They kept coming back to do it again! (all night) you answered it yourself.

reply to post by gps777


Continuing to do the same thing is not "escalation."

Who knows how much the man has suffered over the years? Well, the article didn't make any mention of any previous problems, the old man apparently didn't mention it, he only mentioned this one night, and the mother of the dead child said it was his first time ever staying the night with these boys. Therefore, with the information we have, he hasn't suffered anything over the years, and it only took 3 occurences for him to judge it worthy of the death penalty, in the back, on public property, and with a subsequent cover-up of the evidence. Ya, he sounds like a real upstanding guy?

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Good for you! Glad you had a system which worked for you as opposed to turning a deaf ear to you.

They didn't turn a deaf ear to me. The reason they didn't is because they knew I wouldn't stand for somebody being bullied. I would stand in the gap and fight side by side with the bullied. They didn't want try explaining why they suspended the kid that jumped in to save a gay kid being beaten by three people. I refused to be a victim of pushing by either kids or administrators. School wasn't rosey and it sure wasn't perfect.

As far as my home life growing up, you don't know anything about it. My dad never beat me or tried to kill me. That doesn't mean I didn't have terrible things happen. It doesn't mean that my life as a small child wasn't messed up in many serious ways. I don't bring up the bad things that happened to me for two reasons. One what happen to me does not justify me doing bad things to other people.I don't believe that being a victim changes the proper use and escelation of force.

I could cry about how horrible things were or the fact that I was a victim. It does not change the fact that what I have become is because of my choices. My father rose above the way he was treated as a child and I did hte same. Imagine that, we didn't complain about deaf ears or everybody being against us. We set our jaw and struggled to become better than our circumstances.

Yeah, and with all the elderly actually winding up dead from chavs terrorizing them over there in the UK...

I agree that the elderly should be armed for self defense. I think a disarmed populace is a horrible thing. Criminals are much less likely to attack people they believe are armed. Studys done in the 1980s and 1990s have shown that. Yet, disarmed British subjects have nothing to do with a kid shot in KY. The British government disarmed their people in spite of evidence that prohibition only effects honest citizens. This part of your post is pointless and is pretty much a non sequitur.

I'm sure that played into the process

How did dsarmed british pensioners play in to the process? This guy decided to gun down a running kid because he was showing solidarity with his English cohorts?

Once again, you don't seem to understand the cause behind this was the fact that the boy felt there would be no recourse in bullying the old man... that is the problem here, not the fact that the man shot the boy.

Well if the old man had called for help there might have been consequences. Especially if he handed the cops photos or video footage of the criminal act. Contrary to popular belief vandalism is still a crime and juveniles still get punished in the courts. These kids would have been looking at restitution and community service.

The fact that an old man decided to shoot at a group of kids when his life was not in danger is a problem. Sorry, but shooting at people, that are throwing rocks at inanimate objects, is not a acceptable behavior. Especially if they have not thrown a rock at you when given the chance. These kids didn't not attack the man.

They did not throw rocks through his windows. They did not throw rocks at him when he came out to run them off. They were pestering him. They were not "terrorizing" him. Being pestered is not a reason to kill someone. There is a serious problem when somebody believes it is reason enough.

As I mentioned... proper is rather subjective here.... from my perspective given the news reports of elderly dying due to terrorizing by chavs... I'd definitely think that phoning the authorities wouldn't matter...

Again, elderly people in England getting killed have nothing to do with an elderly man in a land locked state in the USA. Proper is not subjective. If proper becomes that subjective, then who is to say shooting your wife for blowing smoke in your face is wrong? Second hand smoke can kill you with cancer. Who would be able to say, If somebody stands on the sidewalk screaming threats at you it isn't okay to shoot them? I mean they would be "terrorizing" you. It would be much easier to shoot them than calling the cops, pressing charges for communicating threats, and getting a restraining order.

Proper would have been to gather evidence, call the authorities, and press charges. Then the kids are taught that actions have consquences, yet they get to live. If they continue the behavior then the courts will increase the punishment.

Then you start a civil action in small claims court for restitution. If the kids don't learn the parents will. Especially when they have to cough up a few hundred to pay for fixing dents and scratches.

You seem to be coming from the perspective of what could the man have done to prevent this,

Well since he was the victim of vandalism I assumed he would want to stop it. I mean the fact that he chased them off twice is evidence that he wanted it too stop.

I have said how if the old man would have done his part it would have aided in stopping the boy in the future. Your only advice on how to stop the kid is to kill him. I don't have anyway to tell you how amazingly deranged and idiotic that is.

I don't understand why you are blaming the victim... the old man.

I don't blame him for the vandalism. I blame him for over reacting and murdering someone. He pulled the trigger on someone that was not physically attacking him. That means he made the kid a victim.

Right... it may not be the best first action... but in a situation where the state is failing miserably at dealing with this...

Well he didn't call the cops according to the article. So, he didn't give the "nanny state" a chance to deal with anything. You can not blame the outcome of this on anybody but the man that pulled the trigger. He mad the choice to use lethal force against people that were not attacking him.

Murder is not a right first action unless your lfe is in danger, you fear grave bodily injury, or violent sexual assault.

Actually that's where your wrong... Florida has changed this... if someone breaks into my house in Florida I have the right to gun them down where they stand.

That is because there is an assumption that a person forcibly entering your house, while you are there, isn't coming to play bridge. They are intending to steal from you and probably plan on harming anyone inside that attempts to stop them. A home invasion is entirely differnt than having a rock thrown at your door.

I understand the Florida statute. If somebody walks past the two parked cars in my drive way, passes the two sets of motion detecting flood lights, and then decides to kick in my door, I will shoot. At that point it is safe to assume that they are not afraid of being seen or the people inside. However, if I get home and find my front door open , shooting the person is not the right way to react. I will fall back, call the cops, take pictures, and verbally warn them. If they escelate things, then they do so at their own risk.

However, both of those situations have nothing to do with this situation.

reply to post by MikeNice81

How did dsarmed british pensioners play in to the process? This guy decided to gun down a running kid because he was showing solidarity with his English cohorts?

Maybe?

Old men get a little crazy, and if they think their days are numbered or they have nothing to live for, maybe he did decide to take one for the whole team!

It doesn't excuse his actions, he is certainly going to prison, but like I said in an earlier post, maybe he decided it was worth it, and maybe the whole ordeal will serve some greater purpose.

reply to post by gps777

How many times has an abused wife been found not guilty when she has had enough and kills her husband?

Actually most of the women on death row are there for this. Past violence does not excuse murder. There must be an immediate threat.

If fifty different people have done something to you it doesn't mean you can use excesive force against the fifty first person. So, what he suffered at the hands of others in the past is pointless unless we are searching for ways to forgive murder.

Do you realise you contradicted yourself here?

Where is the evidence of escalation?????

Escalation

To increase in intensity or extent.

There was no evidence of escelation. They did not go from vandalism to assault at any point. They did not start aiming for his home windows. They kept pestering him in the same way. If he had called the cops they might not have come back. We will never know because he did not call the cops, the kids parents, or the neighbors for help. He chased them and then he killed one of them.

He escelated things to the point of lethal force.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Continuing to do the same thing is not "escalation."

What you have never heard of stalking,badgering to continually repeat and harrass,yeah I know who you think are the real heros here, a pack of gutless thugs,yeah they didn`t want to escalate anything.

As I said we dont know how long this old guy had been putting up with this.He didn`t shoot first ask questions later,he confronted them a number of times before shooting.Tormenting anybody isn`t a smart thing to do.

Its especially disgusting when its the vulnerable.

I would have some respect for the mother if she gave just an ounce of consideration of being in the old mans shoes that night caused by her son and his accomplices.

reply to post by gps777


You are ignoring the facts.

THere is nothing any any of the 3 articles I have read that says they bothered him before this night.

There is nothing in any of the articles that says he was "vulnerable."

He was obviously healthy enough to go outside, confront them, chase them away twice, and fire a gun with enough accuracy to hit a fleeing teenager in a lethal spot. All evidence points to him being plenty healthy, aggressive, and fearless.

The use of lethal force is reserved for instances where you fear for your own life or the life of another. Going outside a safe home to confront someone on public property is exactly the opposite of that facet of the law!

I never called them heroes. I said they were stupid kids, they were misbehaving, and they should have had the cops and/or their parents called.

Here is a scenario. ATS LOVES to HATE cops! What if this was a responding police officer? What if the man called the police, the police showed up, saw 3 fleeing teenagers, he knew the crime was "vandalism" and he chose to shoot them in the back as they ran? Would you still be defending a police officer for this action? Do you want to live in a world where the guy with the gun is always right? I carry a gun 100% of the time, so in your world, my opinion is more important than yours!

reply to post by gps777

What you have never heard of stalking,badgering to continually repeat and harrass

I think they are all crimes that can be punished by law in most states. File a criminal complaint and get a restraining order. Then get you a can of pepper spray and a gun. If they try to make it physical then you respond with appropriate force.

yeah I know who you think are the real heros here, a pack of gutless thugs,

Wow, maybe you should read the thread before insulting people or impugning their character. At no point did Getready, or anybody else say the kids were heros. Neither did anyone say they were in the right.

What has been said is that the kids were wrong, but the old man was wrong for using lethal force. Maybe you should slow down and actually read the thread.

As I said we dont know how long this old guy had been putting up with this.He didn`t shoot first ask questions later,he confronted them a number of times before shooting.

He failed to follow the proper escalation of force continuim. If he felt he needed to use force the steps he should have used are pretty simple.

First you make your physical presence known, then you verbally ask them to leave, (call the cops if they refuse), then you can use "soft hands" to remove them from your property. (If they still refuse to leave call the cops again.) If at that point they escalate things or refuse to leave you can use "hard hands." Only after hard hands fail to get the job done can you use a weapon of any kind. The first weapon allowed is a chemical agent like pepper spray. (If it has escelated to this point call the cops immediately.) The second weapon class is blunt/clubbing weapon, and the third is lethal weapons such as a gun.

When dealing with kids it is probably best to call the cops before even taking the first step. If you feel that you have made it to the point soft hands are necessary, you should call the cops.

In short he completely failed to take the proper steps and ended up killing a kid. The kids were guilty of vandalism and harrasment. The old man is seemingly guilty of murder. The first should not be solved by the second.

Originally posted by MikeNice81

If fifty different people have done something to you it doesn't mean you can use excesive force against the fifty first person. So, what he suffered at the hands of others in the past is pointless unless we are searching for ways to forgive murder.

Who is trying to forgive murder? I`m sorry that the old guy was put through all of this for these guys entertainment and the outcome of it all.The old guy didn`t instigate this they did repeatedly.

But hey you even know what they were trying to hit with rocks,but but dont give the old guy the same courtesy at what he was shooting at.For all you know they may have been trying to throw a rock through his window to hit and kill/murder him.

They kept pestering him in the same way. If he had called the cops they might not have come back. We will never know because he did not call the cops.

How do you know what this man has done in the past.If police were an answer he would have called is also a possability that you leave out.

He escelated things to the point of lethal force.

Yeah I know its alllll the old guys fault here,he shouldn`t have been old alone or there at the time and breathing,being a disruption to no one.

But at least there are three thugs who wont do this again,well, two of which will think twice about it in the future,it wouldn`t surprise me if they learnt nothing out of this,other than how to play the system better next time.

Who knows.

reply to post by MikeNice81


And so many people on here have said that the cops don't respond, or that they take too long.

Obviously the cops responded. The old man didn't even try, but after he shot a kid, somebody called, and the cops showed up, and they arrested the old man.....appropriately.

If he had called the cops, they would have responded, end of story. If they don't respond, you continue to call, you get yourself on the 911 tapes, you establish the seriousness of the situation, and if you ultimately have to defend yourself, then you have all the evidence in your favor, and you now have the added benefit of a lawsuit against the cops!

You can't tell me that the cops won't respond to an old man calling 911....especially if he really is afraid for his own safety, and he relays that to the operator. If he was truly scared enough to use lethal force, then the 911 call would have said, "there are 3 men attempting to enter my home and kill me, I have a gun, I hope you get here before they get inside!" If he could honestly make that call, then he was justified in shooting them, but if he couldn't even make that call, then he certainly should not have used lethal force!

reply to post by gps777

But hey you even know what they were trying to hit with rocks,but but dont give the old guy the same courtesy at what he was shooting at.For all you know they may have been trying to throw a rock through his window to hit and kill/murder him.

Do you really think that 15 year old kids can't hit a window with a rock on multiple attempts? There was no damage reported. If they intended to damage, then there would have been damage. If they were aiming at windows, there would be broken windows. If they intended to hit the man, they would have continued throwing rocks when he came outside instead of fleeing. If they intended to "escalate" then they got their wish the first 2 times he came outside. Why didn't they hit him with a rock? Why didn't they attack him? If he was so scared, why did he leave the safety of his home and approach them on public property?

The only aggressor here was the adult. The kids were being kids. Bad kids, but still kids, not murderers, not thugs, not breaking and entering, not robbing someone, just throwing some rocks to irritate an old man!

reply to post by getreadyalready


three times..............they had no business on his property.

These young punks came to his property not vice versa................get your priorities straight.

You come onto my property throwing rocks and I am sorry, that is threatenig.

I am lucky where I live, all the young people are so nice to me.

But this poor old guy, he was clearly threatened.

You have no empathy.

Wait until you are 67.......................you will see.

reply to post by JonInMichigan


Amen and I will watch your back as you watch mine.

reply to post by ofhumandescent


I am not defending the boys. Maybe a little, because I did stuff like this as a kid, but they deserved a "punishment." NOT DEATH!

Why does everyone assume he felt threatened? He left his home and pursued them outside! Who feels threatened the pursuer, or the pursuee?

I'll slow down.....HE....LEFT.....the..... SECURITY......of his home!
He.....CHASED.....the kids away! The kids......FLED!
On the third attempt, he was tired of chasing, so he SHOT AND KILLED one of them!

He shot them....on public property (not his lawn), he shot them in the BACK, he attempted to hide the evidence, he NEVER called the police!!!

reply to post by gps777

But hey you even know what they were trying to hit with rocks,but but dont give the old guy the same courtesy at what he was shooting at.

There was no report of damage to the windows of the home. There was no mention of the kids throwing rocks at him when he came out to confront them. Most importantly there was no report of him calling the cops and asking for help.

However, as I have said before, if you pull the trigger you must accept the fact that the person on the other end may die. You do not shoot at anything you do not plan to kill or destroy. Bullets are lethal and once they leave your gun you are responsible for whatever happens. It doesn't matter if you're aiming for somebody's butt or a tree stump, if somebody dies it is your responsibility.

For all you know they may have been trying to throw a rock through his window to hit and kill/murder him.

Well considering when he came out the first two times they stopped and ran I doubt this. It is a lot easier to hit and kill somebody when they are standing in the open. If they wanted him dead they would not have ran the first two times.

How do you know what this man has done in the past.If police were an answer he would have called is also a possability that you leave out.

I don't know what he has done in the past. How do you know he thought the police wouldn't help? It seems to me they showed up when somebody called about shots fired. A frightened old man calling about being terrorized repeatedly probably would have brought some level of response.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Well its obvious that you are a lot more logical than this human...

I still think this incident gets lots of mileage and I for one am showing it to my son as a reminder to what can happen if you are doing disrespectful things.

I think you can agree that this is definitely a deterrent.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Old men get a little crazy, and if they think their days are numbered or they have nothing to live for, maybe he did decide to take one for the whole team!

It doesn't excuse his actions, he is certainly going to prison, but like I said in an earlier post, maybe he decided it was worth it, and maybe the whole ordeal will serve some greater purpose.

This is what I believe as well and said along the same lines in an earlier post.

But what I see more and more everyday is the younger people being more disrespectful to the elderly,even up to the extent of bashing raping robbing them as in the links with pics in the first post I made in this thread.

We dont have guns everywhere here in Australia as in the USA and I`m truly disgusted by people taking advantage of the elderly and vulnerable here.

I think the laws should be much more harsh in relation to the weak and vulnerable,that may be an deterent for some of these young thugs.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

Well its obvious that you are a lot more logical than this human...

I still think this incident gets lots of mileage and I for one am showing it to my son as a reminder to what can happen if you are doing disrespectful things.

I think you can agree that this is definitely a deterrent.

That part is for certain!

I hope all the other mothers in this neighborhood and other bad neighborhoods across the nation use this story to scare some sense into their kids. I hope the mother of this dead teen uses her time in the limelight to instruct other mothers on how to do a better job. I hope Rick Pitino uses this story to warn all his other thuggish recruits to be more careful with their talents so that he can present a scholarship to them instead of a basketball to their grieving mothers.

I hope that the gun critics do NOT use this as evidence for why guns are dangerous. People are dangerous, not guns.

IMO the first blame should be put on the Mother for dropping her 15 yr old son off in a bad neighborhood. What did she think he was going to do there, play bingo? Secondly the old man was being harassed and this boy was involved. A rock can easily kill someone especially an elderly person. He may not have meant to kill the youth as it was dark and his aim may have been off. I hate to hear of any youth loosing their life but I do think the shooting was justified.