Stay off the lawn!

[Doboji]

People can't really say that shooting a 15 year old to death for walking on your grass is ok. Thats just insane... yell at him... sure... sic your dogs on him... punch him in the nose... but KILL HIM?!?!?!

You've got to be fvcking kidding me.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Zebo
The kind of community that realizes decent people snap when punk ass kids run all over them and a respected war vet- 2nd degree at best.

If you get someone like me on there - who thinks tresspassing should be a capitial offense - may not get a conviction at all.

The ONLY evidence that the boy OR his folks were bothering the man at all is the testimony of some lunatic who measures his lawn and shoots people who walk on it.

Sounds REAL credible to me. More likely, the kid went on the lawn once five years ago to get a ball, the man yelled at him, and the kids parents told him to take it easy. Five years later the kid touches the lawn again...presto! Five years of harrassment! Obviously worth shooting someone over.

Not to mention the kid didn't have much of a choice about where to walk...this is an area with no sidewalks! If he'd walked in the street, he would have gotten run over by a car, and you would have posted about stupid kids playing in the street.

Boy you are assuming a lot. Likewise, how do you kid did'nt lundge at him in the past, this time, or make otherwise threatening gestures where "Castle Doctrine" takes full effect?

I hate to judge before all the facts are in.

 

[sygyzy]

I love how everyone says the shooting is unjustified in this thread, but in any other thread with the same scenario (illegal trespasser, young kid, etc) then the NRA nuts are all over it. What's the difference here?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Falcon39
The fact that people are defending this asshole makes me sick. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

You don't know all the facts. Neither do I. I'll just say if this man is at all respected in community as he seems to be it will be very hard to get a conviction.

What kind of community would support the obvious murder of a local teenager with a shotgun by a cranky old man?

The kind of community that realizes decent people snap when punk ass kids run all over them and a respected war vet- 2nd degree at best.

If you get someone like me on there - who thinks tresspassing should be a capitial offense - may not get a conviction at all.

I think we should move Dick Cheney and Charles Martin next door to you and see what happens.

Bring em on I love to hunt. BTW I have been shot several times with Buck shot.. happens when quail hunting a lot since they stay so damn low... theres a lot more stuff involving real lives and real money to blame cheney for besides a benign hunting accident.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I hate to judge before all the facts are in.

But you had no problem assuming this kid was a "punk ass" and "ran all over" the shooter, who was a "decent" man and "a respected war veteran."

What's the difference? I'll tell you - his assumptions refute your opinions, while yours supports them. Ergo, your assumptions are valid, and all others are not. Nice. :roll:

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I love how everyone says the shooting is unjustified in this thread, but in any other thread with the same scenario (illegal trespasser, young kid, etc) then the NRA nuts are all over it. What's the difference here?

Yup POW was actually saying it was OK to shoot a kid in the back as he's leaving your property.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I love how everyone says the shooting is unjustified in this thread, but in any other thread with the same scenario (illegal trespasser, young kid, etc) then the NRA nuts are all over it. What's the difference here?

Yeah, isn't it also funny how in some threads about apples, people claim they are red, but in other threads about oranges, they say they are orange! WTF!? Damn hypocrites! :|

:roll: Try again, troll.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Zebo
I hate to judge before all the facts are in.

But you had no problem assuming this kid was a "punk ass" and "ran all over" the shooter, who was a "decent" man and "a respected war veteran."

What's the difference? I'll tell you - his assumptions refute your opinions, while yours supports them. Ergo, your assumptions are valid, and all others are not. Nice. :roll:

What else would make a 66 yr law abiding citizen react this way? Not like we are dealing with a career crimminal here. No I don't think I'm too far off. He would have been in jail long before reaching adulthood if he was as loose a cannon as the others discribe him as.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I love how everyone says the shooting is unjustified in this thread, but in any other thread with the same scenario (illegal trespasser, young kid, etc) then the NRA nuts are all over it. What's the difference here?

IF the kid was trying to break into the house or steal property then yes i am all for shooting him. BUT the kid was walking on teh lawn (remember there was NO sidewalks avaiblable) when this bastard shot him TWICE.

the kid was not breaking any laws or hurting this guy in any way. This old nutcase deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life.

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I love how everyone says the shooting is unjustified in this thread, but in any other thread with the same scenario (illegal trespasser, young kid, etc) then the NRA nuts are all over it. What's the difference here?

Yeah, isn't it also funny how in some threads about apples, people claim they are red, but in other threads about oranges, they say they are orange! WTF!? Damn hypocrites! :|

:roll: Try again, troll.

Hypocrite? Are you kidding me? Go do as search for my name. I am not a NRA member. I hate all of you "Do I have enough mags for my AK-47?" nuts. But make no mistake about it. There is a huge difference between being crazy and supporting gun ownership. I seem to be only one on this forum who thinks you shouldn't shoot people for some random reason unless you perceive a threat. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of OTHERS this time. How is this any different? All other threads on ATOT go like this:

"Guys, so there was this guy..."
Did you know him?
"Uh no, let me explain.."
No need. .45 to the chest, double tap, one to the forehead. It's your RIGHT as an American!
"Wait, I couldn't see his forehead, he was running awa.."
Better yet, into the back
"But wait, he was in my house. But I don't think he stole anything. Besides, it looked like it was just a neighborhood kid. I didn't even see a weapon"
Doesn't matter. He TRESSPASSED on your property. He deserves to DIE!

 

[Horus]

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: Amused
Irrelevant. The man did not fear for his life, therefore he has no right to take another life. Period.

How is shooting the kid any different than keeping visicious guard dogs that would rip the kid to shreds if he encroached?

Because the kid could reasonably expect the vicious guard dogs to tear him to shreds if he encroached, whereas no one would reasonably expect the old coot to fvking shoot them just for walking on his lawn.

Originally posted by: joedrake
I'm sure the kid was warned.

W/e: I don't think that he should have shot the kid, but you have to cut the man some slack. I mean what if someone was doing something to PISS you off for FIVE years? You'd get pretty PISSED off, no? No reasonable kid would continue to walk on some old man's lawn, after REPEATED warnings. I don't know the whole story, but I'm guessing this kid was some kind of smartass and deserved some kind of punishment.
Lets say you know someone that has a gun and doesn't like a certain thing. You're not gonna do this "certain thing" CONTINUOUSLY for five years and not expect to get shot.
I say Darwin FTW.

Umm. I think I should have the right to go wherever I please without the FEAR OF BEING SHOT. Are you THAT stupid?

Boy setting house on fire= Possible reason for shooting
Boy WALKING ON GRASS = NO POSSIBLE REASON FOR SHOOTING.

 

[Noirish]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
LMAO I just now saw the picture of the yard:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/US/03/20/boy.shot.ap/story.yard.ap.jpg

Looks like he needs to work on it a little more.

Viper GTS

that can't be the yard!
i was expecting something very vivid green, picturesque.

 

[Powermoloch]

Originally posted by: waggy
whoa. ok thats just a little off the deep end.

 

[Banzai042]

As a gun nut I'm gonna add my voice to the crowd saying "This guy is friggin insane, had no right to do this, and should be in jail for a looooong time." I was under the distinct impression that most gun nuts think something along the lines of "safety first", and "responsible use", that is if somebody is in a situation where they could be genuinely threatened, like by a robber in their house for the second time in a few months, or somebody is coming at you with a knife, yea, open fire and defend yourself. If you aren't in any sort of danger, don't even pull the freaking gun out to begin with. In this situation, call the cops every single time the kid trespasses.
Also, i have not seen this in the thread so far, so does anybody know if the guy had "no trespassing" signs up? If no then the second that comes out in court any defence that this guy could have made goes right out the window (not that he had much of a D to begin with).

 

[JDrake]

And BTW, after re-viewing that image:
No sidewalk my ass.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Horus

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: Amused
Irrelevant. The man did not fear for his life, therefore he has no right to take another life. Period.

How is shooting the kid any different than keeping visicious guard dogs that would rip the kid to shreds if he encroached?

Because the kid could reasonably expect the vicious guard dogs to tear him to shreds if he encroached, whereas no one would reasonably expect the old coot to fvking shoot them just for walking on his lawn.

Originally posted by: joedrake
I'm sure the kid was warned.

W/e: I don't think that he should have shot the kid, but you have to cut the man some slack. I mean what if someone was doing something to PISS you off for FIVE years? You'd get pretty PISSED off, no? No reasonable kid would continue to walk on some old man's lawn, after REPEATED warnings. I don't know the whole story, but I'm guessing this kid was some kind of smartass and deserved some kind of punishment.
Lets say you know someone that has a gun and doesn't like a certain thing. You're not gonna do this "certain thing" CONTINUOUSLY for five years and not expect to get shot.
I say Darwin FTW.

Umm. I think I should have the right to go wherever I please without the FEAR OF BEING SHOT. Are you THAT stupid?

Boy setting house on fire= Possible reason for shooting
Boy WALKING ON GRASS = NO POSSIBLE REASON FOR SHOOTING.

While this is Ohio, Texas does'nt agree with you.

§ 9.41. (a) A person . . . is justified in using force against another . . . to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the [person's] land or unlawful interference with the [person's] property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed . . . by another is justified in using force against the other . . . to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession . . . .

§ 9.42. [Deadly force may be used in the above situations] . . . to the degree [the actor] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Horus

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: Amused
Irrelevant. The man did not fear for his life, therefore he has no right to take another life. Period.

How is shooting the kid any different than keeping visicious guard dogs that would rip the kid to shreds if he encroached?

Because the kid could reasonably expect the vicious guard dogs to tear him to shreds if he encroached, whereas no one would reasonably expect the old coot to fvking shoot them just for walking on his lawn.

Originally posted by: joedrake
I'm sure the kid was warned.

W/e: I don't think that he should have shot the kid, but you have to cut the man some slack. I mean what if someone was doing something to PISS you off for FIVE years? You'd get pretty PISSED off, no? No reasonable kid would continue to walk on some old man's lawn, after REPEATED warnings. I don't know the whole story, but I'm guessing this kid was some kind of smartass and deserved some kind of punishment.
Lets say you know someone that has a gun and doesn't like a certain thing. You're not gonna do this "certain thing" CONTINUOUSLY for five years and not expect to get shot.
I say Darwin FTW.

Umm. I think I should have the right to go wherever I please without the FEAR OF BEING SHOT. Are you THAT stupid?

Boy setting house on fire= Possible reason for shooting
Boy WALKING ON GRASS = NO POSSIBLE REASON FOR SHOOTING.

While this is Ohio, Texas does'nt agree with you.

§ 9.41. (a) A person . . . is justified in using force against another . . . to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the [person's] land or unlawful interference with the [person's] property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed . . . by another is justified in using force against the other . . . to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession . . . .

§ 9.42. [Deadly force may be used in the above situations] . . . to the degree [the actor] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

Thats why we have texas, so all the insane gun nuts can go there and shoot each other. The problem is they keep leaking into other parts of the country.

 

[Tom]

This thread is about one thing for me.

A fifteen year old has been cheated out of 50 or 60 years of life, for what ?

For nothing.


What I hope for the old man is, that he has a human heart, and every day until he dies he is haunted by what he has done.

I kind of have a feeling he doesn't though.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I shot my neighbors dog on his property. SOB would'nt stop barking. Cops did nothing.

I think I'd let this guy off if I were on the jury.

???????????????????????

Human Life > Grass

I say fry his ass

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I love how everyone says the shooting is unjustified in this thread, but in any other thread with the same scenario (illegal trespasser, young kid, etc) then the NRA nuts are all over it. What's the difference here?

Yeah, isn't it also funny how in some threads about apples, people claim they are red, but in other threads about oranges, they say they are orange! WTF!? Damn hypocrites! :|

:roll: Try again, troll.

Hypocrite? Are you kidding me? Go do as search for my name. I am not a NRA member. I hate all of you "Do I have enough mags for my AK-47?" nuts. But make no mistake about it. There is a huge difference between being crazy and supporting gun ownership. I seem to be only one on this forum who thinks you shouldn't shoot people for some random reason unless you perceive a threat. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of OTHERS this time.

Wow. Just wow. Lack of reading comprehension, FTL! :roll:

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Zebo
The kind of community that realizes decent people snap when punk ass kids run all over them and a respected war vet- 2nd degree at best.

If you get someone like me on there - who thinks tresspassing should be a capitial offense - may not get a conviction at all.

The ONLY evidence that the boy OR his folks were bothering the man at all is the testimony of some lunatic who measures his lawn and shoots people who walk on it.

Sounds REAL credible to me. More likely, the kid went on the lawn once five years ago to get a ball, the man yelled at him, and the kids parents told him to take it easy. Five years later the kid touches the lawn again...presto! Five years of harrassment! Obviously worth shooting someone over.

Not to mention the kid didn't have much of a choice about where to walk...this is an area with no sidewalks! If he'd walked in the street, he would have gotten run over by a car, and you would have posted about stupid kids playing in the street.

Boy you are assuming a lot. Likewise, how do you kid did'nt lundge at him in the past, this time, or make otherwise threatening gestures where "Castle Doctrine" takes full effect?

I hate to judge before all the facts are in.

I wasn't saying that's what happened, I was posting an alternative scenario that would result in the exact same news headline. The idea being to show that you couldn't draw very many assumptions from the little data we have.

YOU hate to judge before all the facts are in? Do you even read what you POST?

Originally posted by: Zebo
What else would make a 66 yr law abiding citizen react this way? Not like we are dealing with a career crimminal here. No I don't think I'm too far off. He would have been in jail long before reaching adulthood if he was as loose a cannon as the others discribe him as.

Argh, your reckless assuming is hurting my brain. Please stop thinking.

Are you aware of what the word "senile" means? Do you believe senility doesn't exist? There are absolutely no differences in the mental faculties of a man of 40 and a man of 90?

 

[Baked]

Don't think a fense would have prevented the kid from messing w/ the man's lawn. I would've spray the kid w/ my garden hose.

 

[latino666]

/will never walk on people grass ever again

 

[HamburgerBoy]

My opinion on the matter depends. If this was just an innocent kid walking on the edges of the lawn (no sidewalk, after all) then the old man should be shot. If the kid is a little brat and was harassing him, I fully support the shooting. In fact, it's a shame that the kid got to enjoy such a quick death. If the kid is guilty of harassment, they should put his head on a spear and show what happens to spoiled bastards.

 

[Zebo]

Argh, your reckless assuming is hurting my brain. Please stop thinking.

LOL

it's unlikly a 66 yr old law abiding citizen is just going to haul off and kill a kid unless he had it commin' - we shall see in coming months as more facts come to light.