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

Originally posted by Brood

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

His actions make him one, in a gorup/gang, terrorizing an old man, throwing potentially deadly weapons at him en mass, that is thug behavior not the behvior of a good kid.

It's the behavior of a bad kid -- bad kids deserve to live and regret their bad decisions that were made in their adolescence, not be shot by a reckless 62 year old vigilante for pelting his car and front door with rocks.

how often do you see bad kids regretting their acts ?

bad kids usually become worse, you know.

Originally posted by naroblas

how often do you see bad kids regretting their acts ?

bad kids usually become worse, you know.

I don't see them anymore -- not since highschool. I do, however, get the odd phone call from the now-adults with a sincere apology for the way they treated me, even though I have long since forgiven them because I know they were simply children, and simple minds at that age. Discipline is the only thing holding them back in their youth; the parents are responsible. Kids grow up, parents don't. Don't act like there's justice in shooting a 15 year old child; he is too stupid to know what he is doing, the parents have a few more decades of experience under their belt. Shoot them.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

Police don't carry .22s because they need quick stopping power. They need to be certain that an advancing criminal does not keep advancing. They don't fire "to kill" even though they are trained to fire at the center of mass which typically means killshot. They fire to "stop" somebody in their tracks. Police also do not carry 9 mm any longer, because of the risks of pass through, ricochet, and not enough stopping power.

In Canada, Police carry 9mm, 10mm and .40 cals. They really do shoot to kill, not wound but they don't normally approach every circumstance expecting to use deadly force. (Toronto and Vancouver excepted)

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I'm not advocating 22s, I like my .45 1911 the best, but I carry my .380 and my wife carries a .25. I am only saying that we cannot use the caliber of the gun as a defense for the old man. Obviously the 22 was enough to kill the teenager.

The .25 Cal is prohibited in Canada, but is a nice weapon for a lady. I also like the Springfield 1911 .45 as well as the STI .45 Trojan. Nice very tuned gun. Any weapon can kill a person, in the case of the .22 the old guy was very lucky/unlucky that the bullet actually killed the teen. In 99% of the cases the bullet wouldn't have hit with near enough force. Depending on the load, distance and clothes of the youth.

The moral of this story is that if you don't want to get shot, don't intentionally mess with people. You simply don't know what they are capable of or what they might have already gone through in their lives. Maybe this old guy was victimized previously, we just don't know.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
If you are a rational adult and you don't want to get shot, then don't intentionally mess with people. If you are a stupid teenager, you do not fully understand consequences yet. You still feel invincible, and you are more interested in impressing your peers than your parents. You are more worried about your "cool" status than your resume. If this was a 30 year old man harassing his neighbor repeatedly, then maybe you shoot him, but you don't shoot a kid!

I have seen 6'4" teenagers here that would easily drop most adults. I have also seen teenagers at 15 that could easily hold their own mentally with a 30 year old. So their age factor isn't as large a contributing point as the circumstance to me. I agree that one doesn't just shoot wildly at kids, especially in the city. The risk to the neighbors is too great. Not having all the information is what makes me feel the need to reserve judgment on the old guy. I know that when I reach his age, I would expect that I earned the right to be left alone. Without the history on this situation it's really hard to tell how it played out or why he felt compelled to actually shoot.

I still feel that the youths had control over the situation. They could have left and gone to play b-ball or whatever they do. Many a 15 year old has been tried as an adult because they had control of their faculties as an adult.

..Ex

I dunno I don't blame the old guy.
I figure he shot the guy in the back cause his back was towards him.

reply to post by Brood


Why does being 16 give them a pass on teror behavior? If an elderly person has a weak heart this kind of attack could have caused a heart attack and death in the old man. In this case my empathy goes to the old man, not the gang of thugs. I see too many of them in this city and it is not some harmless prankage, it is pointed focused terroristic behavior that fits gang profiles. The rocks should be taken as lethal weapons in this case.

So that is an armed gang attacking an old man, and one of the gang members ends up dead.

reply to post by v3_exceed

I still feel that the youths had control over the situation. They could have left and gone to play b-ball or whatever they do. Many a 15 year old has been tried as an adult because they had control of their faculties as an adult.

But they did leave! They were off his property and obviously moving "away" from him when the lethal shot was fired and hit in the back.

Now, I don't know if there were other shots fired and maybe that was why they ran, and I don't know how many other nights they had tormented the old man, so I agree that we need more information to pass judgement, but if the mother can be believed and this was the first night, and if the story is accurate and 1 shot was fired at a retreating teenager, then the guy is definitely guilty. I'm glad I am not the defense attorney.

reply to post by v3_exceed

In Canada, Police carry 9mm, 10mm and .40 cals. They really do shoot to kill, not wound

As far as I know, no police ever shot "to wound." BUT, they also don't shoot "to kill." They shoot to stop a threat. They shoot toward the largest center of mass to ensure maximum stopping power and largest target. That also happens to coincide with lethality, so many shootings are in fact lethal. I don't think we can say the "shoot to kill," even though that is often the result of their training, it isn't the motivation. The motivation "should" always be to stop the threat. They usually call for an ambulance as soon as the suspect is down and disarmed, so obviously "killing" isn't the intention.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by Brood

 

Why does being 16 give them a pass on teror behavior?

Why does being 62 and in your house give you the pass to play God and decide the fate of a child?

If an elderly person has a weak heart this kind of attack could have caused a heart attack and death in the old man. In this case my empathy goes to the old man, not the gang of thugs.

My empathy goes to none of them, they're all immature morons, but at least the kid is actually a CHILD and has an excuse for being irrational.

I see too many of them in this city and it is not some harmless prankage, it is pointed focused terroristic behavior that fits gang profiles. The rocks should be taken as lethal weapons in this case.

They would be, if they were hucking them at the man, but they were using it to destruct his property. Vandalism in all of its definitions. Vandalism will never justify this extremely vigilant form of capital punishment.

So that is an armed gang attacking an old man, and one of the gang members ends up dead.

No, it's a bunch of children hucking rocks at an old man's house who probably stole their basketball or something stupid. Is it right? Absolutely not, I'm not defending these dumbass children, I spent my adolescence telling them how retarded they all were. Do I condemn them to death? No, because I'm not a barbaric lunatic.

reply to post by Brood


Why do you assume he stole their basketball?

x1news.com...

The above link has a huge round up of new articles on this case. It will take a while to go through them, and it looks like some national news media are covering it like msnbc.

Anyway in one of the articles, it mentions Christopher 2x, our local go to guy any time a black person is involved in anything. What a media spectale this is going to be locally.

The kids grandpa was all defending him calling roclk throwing stupid but basically expecting people to accept it as normal behavior for kids supposedly on the way to the store. The dead kid had one dollar in his pocket.

Even in the ghetto drinks are more than a buck, what was he really on his way to do?

www.lex18.com...

Above, where I got the information. The link came from the round up page above.

reply to post by v3_exceed


My own 14 yr old is visiting me for fall break (he resides elsewhere for the school year). He is over six foot tall and 200 lbs. If I did not know and love him I might be seriouslt frightened of him if he were tossing rocks my way.

These are adult sized people we ar talking about harrassing a small old man. Yet in my city we already have 2X involved, making this gang like terroristic behavior a nonissue, and focusing all on a scared old man who did not deserve what these punks did to him.

I am really saddened by the lack of empathy my community is showing its elderly, and sickened by the posthumous sainthooding of a common street thug.

I may be moving out of this place sooner than I had planned, are all cities this bad?

I got two kids, NEITHER would engage in this behavior, and I know for a fact they would not, I know I raised them better than that. I would never tolerate a child of mine doing this, throwing rocks etc.

This behavior did not just crop up that night the kid died, it had to be displayed from toddlerhood. You cannot tell me a normal non bad kid could be pressured by two other friends to engage in this behavior. I will never believe this is the first time the kid acted like this, and I only hope this incident scares the survivors straight.

But with Pitino legitimizing the bully behavior, it becomes cceptable and all kids are going to do is see that they can get away with more and more against adults.

I consider this a bully death only this time the bully bit the bullet.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Thanks for the additional info. I agree that going to the store with 1$ these days is more like a shoplifting spree and a real trip to the store. I think we need to look at the information presented objectively as what I read in the first artical was so sensationalized that I really wanted to barf. I have yet to see a victim who from the ghetto who wasn't an honor student on their way back from church.

..Ex

Ok, just read that drivel in the link, more slanted "journalism" family wants the death sentence, gawd.
This was an aggravated shooting at best, not even close contender for the death sentence. Let excuse the actions of the black youths, but if it were white youths terrorizing an old black man..well then it's hate crime.

..ex

reply to post by getreadyalready


I disagree!

I myself would LOVE to fight and defend this case, it would be a great challenge. I know I am going to try and follow it closely, but lots of times these cases disappear after the rush of publicity. I may go to the courthouse and see what I cnt find out, maybe see if spectators are allowed at the trial.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


One thing that I have not seen mentioned in this thread yet is that sometimes it is difficult to see which way someone is facing when it is dark. Perhaps the punk kids throwing rocks had just turned around to terrorize someone else or to leave. The only thing the old man would have been able to see is human form in the dark. Being frightened it would be easy to start shooting.

I don't know how dark it was, I am just throwing this out there for everyone to think about. BTW, I believe if someone comes on my property and damages it in any way or does not leave when asked, I have the right to remove them by any means I see fit. Typically I think a 12 gauge shotgun is in order.

Reply to post by v3_exceed

Let excuse the actions of the black youths, but if it were white youths terrorizing an old black man..well then it's hate crime.

I didnt know the 'races' involved until this post.

I'd love to see it reversed. Two white kids hurling rocks at an old black man. No doubt, being elderly, the man would have at some time in his past been part of some civil rights march or something.

We wouldnt have crotchety old white guy kills mischievous minority honor students on their way to church. We'd have elderly civil right pioneer defends himself and his neighborhood against rampaging skinheads.

The call for the death penalty would be replaced with candlelight vigils and cries for freedom.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

If a little punk vandal is throwing rocks at my property, (house & car folks, that's property, not a person) he probably deserves an ass kicking or to be held until the cops arrive, he doesn't deserve to be killed, or shot, period. That's BS, how about toilet paper, or lawn job, should that carry a death penalty too?

Also, the notion that you or I have the "right to live without fear" is just stupid, whether you are fearful or not is a response that you as an individual are responsible for. Ultimately it's a decision folks.

For example; If you decide to take an action that will most likely result in your death, it's also your decision to be fearful or not. It happens all the time and goes by the labels of heroism or stupidity, or any number of things we glorify or mock.

Imagine it was your kid, killed for vandalizing property, whatever the circumstance, it's not justified, and you are damn sure not going to say, well, I guess he deserved it, after all someone was fearful and their property was damaged.

Originally posted by russ212
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

BTW, I believe if someone comes on my property and damages it in any way or does not leave when asked, I have the right to remove them by any means I see fit. Typically I think a 12 gauge shotgun is in order.

Calm down, George Bush, "This land is our land".

reply to post by Brood


Naw, "Our" land is off my property on public streets and sidewalks, "OUR" land ends at my property line.

reply to post by Zot Twady


Finally a logical post.

Yes, the kids were doing something wrong. Yes, maybe the man was scared. Yes some 15 year olds are large. So what? It is a stretch to even call it vandalism. I didn't read about any broken windows or permanent damage. So we are now prescribing the death penalty for minor vandalism?

According to this thread a number of you missed dozens of opportunites to murder me and my friends. My wife and kids thank you for not living in my hometown. My job and the residents of Florida thank you as well. So do my parents and grand parents and in-laws. I must have been really, really lucky to have lived in a place where they don't kill you for being young, naive, and hyperactive.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Wondering...did you ever return to the houses you vandalized to make restitution when you grew up?