Man Shot At Teenagers Who Were Toilet Papering His House, Do You Agree?

[FeatherDaemon1]

I talked to this Russian black market dealer. I think he goes by "Lucky" Chekov. He'll get you the good ones: The blue globby kind they shot back in the '60s.

Since a photon torpedo could probably level the entire North East and a photon launcher is probably the size of your house its a good chance you will be incinerated in the blast. A phaser rifle is probably all you'll need to vaporize those threatening (key word) joggers in your back yard. 😉

 

[Cbarton]

I just set the laser rifle to disrupt. No body, no evidence, no problems...

 

[P[a]pi]

Not necessarily. Just because someone has serious bad stuff planned doesn't mean they won't laugh. People have been known to laugh when they're scared or angry, or just plan being a menace. That's how we found out about the first drug deal behind our house in Akron. We heard someone out back laughing.

Then we bought the shotgun.

CJ

So a drug deal went down behind your house in your backyard? That's very odd. Usually drug dealers don't go in other people's backyards or front lawns to deal drugs.

 

[RedMan01]

By that same logic, if a soliciter pulled up to my house and I had no idea they were there to sell me magazines, I can start blasting away. That is awesome! I'll never have to deal with another annoying door-to-door salesman again!

What about insurance salesman, any ideas for them Sammi, because I gotta hand it to ya you have a very good idea here :laughing:

 

[Sorcerer Lance]

or girl scouts, those insidious leeches who'll stop at nothing to get your money whether you want their stuff or not o_o

 

[TyrantRaveAB]

This case falls under the Castle Doctrine since he was on his own property. If he felt that his life was threatened then he has every right to self-defense. Can you prove that he was not fearing for his life or the lives of his family. He gave a warning shot, yes. The key part of the case which we do not have evidence for is the kids reaction after the warning shot. We can't really decide until we set aside the hearsay. However, I personally will err on the side of people defending their families and property.

that seems much too self-subjective though. what if someone feels threatened by boy scouts going door to door?

if i read the article correct it made it seem like after he fired the warning shot the kids ran for the car and drove away.

although, im sure one could argue that he was unaware they were driving off and could actually be getting arms for themselves.
fine.

but then one must wonder how long after his "warning shot" did he allow for them to actually react before opening up on them??

what if a boyscout comes up on my lawn and i feel threatened and fire a "warning shot" into the air, and while he is fleeing off my lawn or if i even give him any time to flee, i begin to open up on him?

so although im for the protection of ones self, family, and home. from how the article made it sound the kids werent even by his house. they were around an unattached garage. which was deemed not part of the home unit. now if the kids had been trying to/did break directly into his home, i would be on your side of this.
not to mention that the lights of their car was on. so im sure that he could at least get an idea of who or what he was firing at.
but once again, that just comes back to the self-subjective term: "threatened"

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

what if a boyscout comes up on my lawn and i feel threatened and fire a "warning shot" into the air, and while he is fleeing off my lawn or if i even give him any time to flee, i begin to open up on him?

Don't do yourself a disservice by veering off into the ridiculous. You'll be hard pressed to prove your case to judge by claiming a boyscout made your fear for your life or that of your family. A group of rowdy teens on your property in the middle of the night is far different.

As I said earlier we do not have any forensic evidence of the case. We only have a bunch of hearsay.

so although im for the protection of ones self, family, and home. from how the article made it sound the kids werent even by his house. they were around an unattached garage. which was deemed not part of the home unit. now if the kids had been trying to/did break directly into his home, i would be on your side of this.

What is defined as home is different by state. It does not necessarily have to be physically in the house. Your property is your property. In Texas a man got into a similar situation on the property of a neighbor and the law defended his action.

not to mention that the lights of their car was on. so im sure that he could at least get an idea of who or what he was firing at.
but once again, that just comes back to the self-subjective term: "threatened"

The lights of a car could very well have made it more chaotic. They do throw off more glare looking at them than from behind.

He just better not go jail for failing to ask the assailants "Are you going to kill me, rob my house and rape my wife? Wait... do you have a gun? Am I allowed to shoot you or not?" Yes I am being a little too off here myself, but the courts have a tendency to put the burden on the defender while coddling the criminal. It just pisses me off to no end.

No hard feelings either. I just need to say my piece on this. 😉

 

[anon0907]

The lights would only illuminate for the homeowner as long as the kids were a fair distance in front of them. The closer they got to the lights, the hardr it would be to make them out, and you can't see anything at all behind the lights. Next time you're driving at night, look at the oncoming car, and see if you can identify it's make and model before it gets up next to you.

Just don't stare too hard...lol

CJ

 

[Kalamos]

They weren't in his home according to the article. The warning shot should have sufficed before calling the police. I wouldn't consider a fleeing person, probably screaming to death, to be enough of a threat to fire a second or third shot directly at them.

I don't think he deserves jail time for this case. However, he should pay for any medical bills incurred and also attend a gun safety course. The punk kids should be ordered to do some community service hours as well. I'm not siding with either of them, just pointing out the misuse of deadly force shouldn't be overlooked.

That sounded sane, suitably neutral and collected.
I would go with it.

...

My own stance of course might be a bit different, but luckily I don't get out often enough.

😉

 

[melanie2]

what is a photon torpedo? must i google it?

seriously you are missing the point here..if they had invaded inside his home, he would be justified...as it was, he could easily have faced manslaughter..

again...i am sooo against homeowners owning guns..

 

[anon0907]

So a drug deal went down behind your house in your backyard? That's very odd. Usually drug dealers don't go in other people's backyards or front lawns to deal drugs.

Not A deal. That was just the first we knew about. There were two confrontations, about 2 dozen nights with a shotgun in my lap, and multiple instances of a crack ***** from a local dive. More than once per night for her if there was a heavy snow.

It was our location. The back yard was pitch black, the house next door was abandoned, and our street dead-ended into railroad tracks. There was a way into our yard thru a knocked down fence in the abandoned place's yard, and both yeards butted at the back to a 25 foot tall concrete block building. The project was at the north end of the block, the crack-dealing bars were a couple blocks on the other side of the tracks south of us. So we were the thru-way. They had cover, and high traffic. Sometimes one party would even park in front of the next door house. That's where both confrontations happened, as they were walking down our driveway to the street out front.

In the Akron area, its hard to escape. Even the high end homes have deals going on within sight. Cops would come by when we called them, except a couple nights when the snow was about 2 feet deep, and they never ran a plow on our street due to the dead end. But they were never really fast, or seemed to care much. Same story from everyone we talked to up there.

A bit odd in most areas, I guess, but standard proceedure in the land of Mordor.

CJ

 

[Wade1]

I don't know if the homeowner's actions were legal, but they weren't right.

And frankly, I judge him for firing the warning shot in a populated or residential area--bullets have to end up somewhere. Hollering that he had a gun should've been enough. Predicating our actions on the assumption that everyone we don't recognize is a sociopathic and heavily armed terminator isn't good for society or humanity.

 

[anon0907]

I don't know if the homeowner's actions were legal, but they weren't right.

And frankly, I judge him for firing the warning shot in a populated or residential area--bullets have to end up somewhere. Hollering that he had a gun should've been enough. Predicating our actions on the assumption that everyone we don't recognize is a sociopathic and heavily armed terminator isn't good for society or humanity.

Depending on where you are and who youre dealing with, shouting that you got a gun will get you shot. Firing a warning shot startles, and throws the other guy off balance. And he's a lot less likely to return fire after hearing it. He knows for sure you have one, and you've not only proven it, but you've proven you're willing to pull the trigger.

If his garage was 60 yards away from the house, it probably wasn't terribly residential.

CJ

 

[JimBoy]

again...i am sooo against homeowners owning guns..

It is not my intention to start a debate but do you mind me asking why?

 

[Wade1]

Depending on where you are and who youre dealing with, shouting that you got a gun will get you shot.

Depending on where you're standing, sure. I'd recommend not doing it under a floodlight wearing safety orange.

Firing a warning shot startles, and throws the other guy off balance. And he's a lot less likely to return fire after hearing it. He knows for sure you have one, and you've not only proven it, but you've proven you're willing to pull the trigger.

He also doesn't know if it's a warning shot or if you're opening fire on his ass, in which case you may just have escalated a potentially harmless situation into a potentially deadly one. If the person you're confronting is a dumb scared teenager, proving that you're armed and wiling to pull the trigger will frighten him away (but then, so will flipping on your yard lights); if it's the heavily armed psycho that we're hypothesizing it could be, proving that you're armed and willing to pull the trigger could mark you as a dangerous wild card that needs to be dropped.

If his garage was 60 yards away from the house, it probably wasn't terribly residential.

But he lived there, which means it was populated. And bullets have a pesky habit of traveling pretty far, especially (but not solely) when unleashed by agitated yahoos.

 

[ThePrescientOne]

no castle law.

bad.

flight precludes threat.

 

[chicag0]

I might've agreed with the warning shot. Toilet paper is a bitch to get out of trees and gutters and such, but to actually aim at the kids, in my opinion, was a bit out of line.

 

[Cbarton]

again...i am sooo against homeowners owning guns..

Gun ownership is a constitutional right. Without it, the colonists would have had no weapons to use to get the freedom we now enjoy. If you disarm the populace, a tyrannical gov't or group can easily overrun the take away the freedom you now enjoy.

Nothing easier to take out than an unarmed enemy...

 

[Journia]

why you makin' me judge dis guy?

 

[TyrantRaveAB]

Don't do yourself a disservice by veering off into the ridiculous. You'll be hard pressed to prove your case to judge by claiming a boyscout made your fear for your life or that of your family. A group of rowdy teens on your property in the middle of the night is far different.

As I said earlier we do not have any forensic evidence of the case. We only have a bunch of hearsay.



What is defined as home is different by state. It does not necessarily have to be physically in the house. Your property is your property. In Texas a man got into a similar situation on the property of a neighbor and the law defended his action.



The lights of a car could very well have made it more chaotic. They do throw off more glare looking at them than from behind.

He just better not go jail for failing to ask the assailants "Are you going to kill me, rob my house and rape my wife? Wait... do you have a gun? Am I allowed to shoot you or not?" Yes I am being a little too off here myself, but the courts have a tendency to put the burden on the defender while coddling the criminal. It just pisses me off to no end.

No hard feelings either. I just need to say my piece on this. 😉

the example of the boy scout was used more on what his timing was inbetween his warning shot and him open firing. and "rowdy teens" seems a little too undefined in my opinion. once again, were the teens wrong for being there? yes. did it warrant a warning shot? sure. does the article lead me to believe they were fleeing after said warning shot? yes. at which point why didnt he call 911? even if they were about to go get their own guns i think it wouldve made more sense to call 911 instead of trying to take on X amount of gunmen. or why did he not call 911 in the first place? they werent even by his living quaters. unattched garage. what did he have to lose? a lawn mower? regardless it could have been handled better instead of potentially killing or serious injurying a teen. im not trying to coddle and criminals, what BOTH parties did was wrong, but, one party would get minor law infractions, while the other could've potentially killed someone for something quite trivial. im not against ppl defending there home/family/self or anything but did it ever occur that maybe, just maybe, he overreacted??? watching too much damn hollywood shit.
and how the "home" is defined state to state is not the concern here. its already been defined. unattached garage is not part of the home.
and whose to say the car lights were beaming in straight at the man? if anything that! it said the kids were around his unattached garage, so wouldnt logic say they may have directed there car lights pointing at the unattached garage? not at his front door/ side door/ back door. especially since the teens claim they believed noone was home.
and i would hope that he wouldnt go to jail either for failing to ask such silly questions. regardless a little more discretion could have been used, or he could have at least have chased them down to Texas and then shot all of them where im sure this wouldnt even be a topic of debate...

no hard feelings either. i just think on a more basic level its wrong that a teen could've died for a trivial crime b/c of a gun weilding man thats watched too much hollywood shit and bought into american paranoia.

 

[scorpionldr]

No, they shouldn't be allowed to press charges they were on his property without his permission at an unreasonable hour & he had every right to shoot at them. So yes I hope they learned their lessons b/c people dont play.

sounds like a Joe Horn supporter here.

 

[anon0907]

Depending on where you're standing, sure. I'd recommend not doing it under a floodlight wearing safety orange.

Dude...what??? What the hell does what you're wearing have to do with that?

He also doesn't know if it's a warning shot or if you're opening fire on his ass, in which case you may just have escalated a potentially harmless situation into a potentially deadly one. If the person you're confronting is a dumb scared teenager, proving that you're armed and wiling to pull the trigger will frighten him away (but then, so will flipping on your yard lights); if it's the heavily armed psycho that we're hypothesizing it could be, proving that you're armed and willing to pull the trigger could mark you as a dangerous wild card that needs to be dropped.

Well, you're assuming yeard lights. And if he's not scared beforehand? Yup saying you have a gun may scare him. may make him say "whatever", may give him a chance to draw if he's carrying. If it's a harmless situation, they'll take off like they're on fire. If you say you have a gun to the armed psycho*, he's still gonna try and drop you. He can't take the chance that you're telling the truth. Again, the report of the gun tells him not only will you drop HIM, but you've already go it out, safety off and ready to go. reduces his odds of feeling lucky.

*Course if he's a real psycho, won't matter either way, you're going to have to shoot AT him, because he simply isn't afraid of your gun.

But he lived there, which means it was populated. And bullets have a pesky habit of traveling pretty far, especially (but not solely) when unleashed by agitated yahoos.

Dude....if he didn't LIVE there, this wouldn't have happened at all. No toilet paper, nothing. That's like saying "The heart attack wou'dn't have been fatal if he didn't die". That's...that's.....dude. It doesn't even make sense!!!

We don't know how much property the guy had. A garage 60 yards away indicates a pretty fair chunk. A shotgun firing shot as opposed to a slug has a pretty limited range. He may have had enough property that it all landed at home. If he shot nearly vertical, it could have landed within the 60 yards. the aimed shots would have petered out pretty quick beyond 60 yards, and weren't even enough to cause life threatening injuries at the range they were hit in. I'd say likely from the pic, it was birdshot which isn't terribly lethal at 20 yards, much less over 60. Yeah, I know, broken window, but I can do that with my boot.

I'm leaving this thread. Getting too political, and one of the reasons I come here is to avoid political.

CJ

 

[dentrag1231]

By that same logic, if a soliciter pulled up to my house and I had no idea they were there to sell me magazines, I can start blasting away. That is awesome! I'll never have to deal with another annoying door-to-door salesman again!

Except they arn't their at one in the morning.

 

[Wade1]

Basically, the guy who fires the first shot, whether it's a "warning shot" or not, is responsible for escalating the situation into something dangerous. He's the one who has increased the likelihood of someone else getting hurt, or--if the trespasser does turn out to be armed--of getting hurt himself. If the trespasser has a gun, how does the sound of bullets flying not increase the chances of his using that gun to defend himself?

Just because someone is on your property without permission, that doesn't exempt you from responsibility to society at large. By firing bullets into the air in a populated area like a high-strung Yosemite Sam, you're endangering others, endangering yourself, contributing to the deterioration of the social fabric, and creating a situation that threatens to restrict the very laws that allow gun ownership in the first place. It doesn't help anybody.

By firing a warning shot--and then firing on a bunch of unarmed douchebag teenagers, no less--this guy wasn't taking a reasoned and sensible approach to solving a problem; he was letting his terror and fear make choices for him. He should've grown a pair and handled it differently.

 

[JimBoy]

The Verdict Is In...

In case anyone is wondering the "toilet paper shooter" got one year probation.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081106/METRO/811060453/1361