1911Forum banner
1 - 20 of 60 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,911 Posts
I'm a firm believer that anyone concerned enough about their personal safety to possess a firearm, should likewise seek out training to go with it.

Shooting someone for ringing the doorbell is sheer stupidity, but we're only hearing one side of the story. The news article just goes to show what to expect when you have to shoot a real criminal: "He (or She)" will be the best church-going, philanthropic, model citizen do-gooder Victim their family, friends and colleagues can make them out to be for the Yellow Press. The jurors for your civil trial will be picked from the YP's readership...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
The story doesn't entirely (if at all) tell us quite what sort of "prank" these kids were up to and how it may've prompted the gun-owner to react. If, however, the gun-owner shot the prankster in the back he may be liable for shooting a fleeing criminal, something frowned on here in Oregon if the criminal has stopped committing the crime, whatever it was, and is leaving the premises (and not shooting back AT you, for instance). The shooter here might well be charged with some hefty civil liabilities, thanks to the age of the prankster and the sentiment already generated. I'd sure like to know what it WAS these kids did to him, though, before I pass judgment.
:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
I am not sure why the fact that the shooter had a CCW permit was pertinant to this story. The weapon was not being concealed or carried.

SIG Lady has a point, that we don't know what the victim was really doing, but I suspect the shooter is in big trouble.:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
925 Posts
SiG Lady said:
The story doesn't entirely (if at all) tell us quite what sort of "prank" these kids were up to and how it may've prompted the gun-owner to react. If, however, the gun-owner shot the prankster in the back he may be liable for shooting a fleeing criminal, something frowned on here in Oregon if the criminal has stopped committing the crime, whatever it was, and is leaving the premises (and not shooting back AT you, for instance). The shooter here might well be charged with some hefty civil liabilities, thanks to the age of the prankster and the sentiment already generated. I'd sure like to know what it WAS these kids did to him, though, before I pass judgment.
:confused:
You are kidding me right????
First of all shooting someone in the back is a big no-no. Legal or otherwise. I think the only way I would do that is if I were to catch someone hurting a family member who decides to run away.
ie: I were to catch some a hole physically hurting one of my kids and decides to run. Then I am afraid he would be one shot in the back, dead, running mother flower! Call it revenge, payback, whatever he/she would be dead.
I don't care what those kids did or how bad the prank was, you just don't shoot [email protected]!! Christ! And in the back?
He should be locked up already! Nothing those kids did deserved getting shot and killed. Nothing!
Have you kids of your own?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
CCW NOT "involved"

I think the author of this article (as well as the author of a subsequent editorial in the same paper) are clearly anti-gunners. The fact that this guy had a CCW permit had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident. The author of the editorial, however anti-gun he may be, did make valid points mentioned previously in this thread (shooter could have called the police, didn't have to open the door if he really "thought it was a burglar", etc.) Clearly exceptionally poor judgement. I have difficulty imagining a scenario in which this guy won't go to prison. Avoid confrontation if possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
Shike said:
You are kidding me right????
First of all shooting someone in the back is a big no-no. Legal or otherwise. I think the only way I would do that is if I were to catch someone hurting a family member who decides to run away.
ie: I were to catch some a hole physically hurting one of my kids and decides to run.
First of all, what was the kid doing? The key here is if the homeowner was under circumstances where he would be in fear for his immediate safety if he did not use deadly force.

Second, even in clean self defense shoots, it is entirely possible for someone to be shot in the back. Reason? It only takes about .09 seconds for someone to turn with a drawn gun and fire a shot in your direction. That's roughly the time it takes to blink.

If a person turns and fires in your direction and takes off running, and you have a gun aimed at them, by the time you pull the trigger, they will be in full flight--AWAY from you.

Not saying this was right, or that it was a clean shoot...

but let's get all the facts before passing judgment
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
We're also assuming here that the kids are telling the truth.

What if they were going around testing doors under the guise of their game to figure out who to rob?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
...Like I said, I want to know what these kids were REALLY up to before I totally pass judgment.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
925 Posts
Powderman said:
First of all, what was the kid doing? The key here is if the homeowner was under circumstances where he would be in fear for his immediate safety if he did not use deadly force.

Second, even in clean self defense shoots, it is entirely possible for someone to be shot in the back. Reason? It only takes about .09 seconds for someone to turn with a drawn gun and fire a shot in your direction. That's roughly the time it takes to blink.

If a person turns and fires in your direction and takes off running, and you have a gun aimed at them, by the time you pull the trigger, they will be in full flight--AWAY from you.

Not saying this was right, or that it was a clean shoot...

but let's get all the facts before passing judgment

Yeah let's! The fact is that a kid is dead because apparently someone got trigger happy! Would you and siglady be so non-chalant about it if it was your own kid?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
I remember what I was like at 16.

If some responsible adult would have shot me, it would have been my fault for being an idiot.

The mere fact that a "child" (and I use quotes to indicate the dubious nature of the statement, like "CHiPs" in quotes to indicate the dubious nature of the show) at the age of 16 is shot when the homeowner believes they are a burglar warrants more investigation.

This isn't a guy who loaded up on guns and went down to the Tasty-Freeze and opened fire. This is someone at home, who at minimum is being harassed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,062 Posts
gklugie said:
I am not sure why the fact that the shooter had a CCW permit was pertinant to this story. The weapon was not being concealed or carried.

It's a news story. The reporters like that type of info in a possible wrongful death type of shooting. That way, it makes us as a whole look more irresponsible. Just my .02.

Still a tragedy no matter which way you look at this.:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Yeh, I remember... all too well!!

"I remember what I was like at 16.

If some responsible adult would have shot me, it would have been my fault for being an idiot."
AMEN.

I was a totally naive jerk at that age.

The whole incident is just damned unfortunate... and inevitably reflects badly on ANY gun owner, especially the responsible ones.

There are--as sad and nasty as it is--very young kids out there all over the country commiting unthinkable crimes and we hear a constant stream of "news" about this kind of thing. It's on our minds. Without condoning the shooting, this kind of thing may've been on the homeowner's mind, too. How can we tell which kid is just being a jerk and which is plotting a crime......? Not easy these days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
283 Posts
There are several good points here, and I can see this issue ging either way. But something is telling me that due to the fact that the local PD is going to further investigate this incident means there's more to this story then what we've read. If it was a "bad shoot" they would have jacked the guy up by now. Sounds to me that even the local PD has their doubts.
Yes, lets get the whole story before we condemn or condoin this man. I am sorry that a young man was shot and killed. I am sorry that a man used lethal force. But I still have one question that no one here has broached yet. Where were the teenagers Parents? I mean this kid and his friend are out after midnight ringing door bells and the parents are where? I'm not blaming the parents just thinking out loud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
Shike said:
Yeah let's! The fact is that a kid is dead because apparently someone got trigger happy! Would you and siglady be so non-chalant about it if it was your own kid?
Would I be so nonchalant? Of course not. But, the fact that I am far removed from the scene allows me to ask questions with a cool head.

First of all, if it was a totally bad shoot, why is the guy still free?

Second, what was this kid doing that put the homeowner in the shooting frame of mind?

It is definitely a sad state of affairs, to be true--but let's look at both sides of the coin first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
In such cases, he said, homeowners have a right to defend themselves if they believe their physical safety or their property is at risk. The general rule is that level of force must be only what is needed to counter or neutralize the threat.

That means "if somebody is standing on your front porch and smacking you, it would be an escalation of force to pull out a gun and shoot them," he said.


What are you supposed to do in this situation, smack them back?

Dial 911? "Excuse me for a minute while I go dial the phone..." yeah right.

I'm not saying I'd shoot somebody who was smacking me but I don't think pulling my gun would be all that un-appropriate. I f someone was on my property assulting me, I'm getting a weapon, it's that simple.

Right or wrong that's what I'd do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
He was just giving an overly simplified example of parity of force.

Obviously if you are being assaulted and you can show that you had reason to believe your life was in danger or you were at risk of being seriously injured you can drop the hammer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,108 Posts
Shike said:
You are kidding me right????
First of all shooting someone in the back is a big no-no. Legal or otherwise. I think the only way I would do that is if I were to catch someone hurting a family member who decides to run away.
ie: I were to catch some a hole physically hurting one of my kids and decides to run. Then I am afraid he would be one shot in the back, dead, running mother flower! Call it revenge, payback, whatever he/she would be dead.
I don't care what those kids did or how bad the prank was, you just don't shoot [email protected]!! Christ! And in the back?
He should be locked up already! Nothing those kids did deserved getting shot and killed. Nothing!
Have you kids of your own?
I think the man should have the right to shoot them just for trespassing with criminal intent.
And before you jump in with that self-righteous "what if they were your kids" BS, let it be known that kids are just as smart, if not smarter, than us "adults", and if they do something and get shot, killed, blown up, poisoned, or whatever, they get the same sympathy from me any other victim of Darwin does... NONE. I don't care if they're mine, yours, or my cat's. Actually, I might be sympathetic toward the cats. I like cats.
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
Top