11-year old Alabama boy shoots home intruder: "He started crying like a little baby"

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: windword

The child was in fear of his life at the criminal who verbally threatened to murder him during his second break in to this families home. I am thinking the child was in fear of the criminal who just verbally threatened to murder him would return a third time with a sexual emergency.

But good luck trying to prosecute the child

Who leaves a gun out for a child to make those determinations?

The kid knew where to find the gun. Probably safe to assume that wasn't the only time it was available to the kid. Only ... it happens to be the one time the kid needs to gun-down a thief. Props to the parents.

I just feel we are all lucky the gun didn't go off all by itself and start shooting innocent bystanders. /sarc

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

A parent who has trained their child in the use (maybe needs a bit more training) and does not want their child raped or murdered in the comfort of his own home while they go out to run errands. The original article I read on Fox said he went into the parents room to retrieve it. I don't see that written anywhere anymore though. I am just glad the child was not harmed by the repeat offender who was trying to make the family habitualized victims.

a reply to: Snarl

yea that does happen a lot, well at least in the minds of people that hate the constitution anyways.

Damn. Idiot parents. Now that he shot someone who knows... Another School murder spree.. I am serious. Kids should have no guns. What if he killed the invader? 11 and already a murderer.

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone
Damn. Idiot parents. Now that he shot someone who knows... Another School murder spree.. I am serious. Kids should have no guns. What if he killed the invader? 11 and already a murderer.

I think the wording you are looking for is Justifiable homicide, it is looked at totally different than "Murder"


RA

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Alabama is a stand your ground state with no duty to retreat. The actions of the suspect met several conditions for use of deadly force to a T. The guy running away would not be a consideration, imo, since he threatened to kill the kid. For all we know he was hiding his loot and was going to come back and finish the kid off. The other consideration is what the kid perceived at the time. My guess would be sheer terror since the guy threatened to kill him.

Moral of the story -
Don't break the law and threaten to kill kids.

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone
Damn. Idiot parents. Now that he shot someone who knows... Another School murder spree.. I am serious. Kids should have no guns. What if he killed the invader? 11 and already a murderer.

Is that sarcasm? Someone enters your home the gloves are off I'm sorry. How do you know Mr innocent crack head wouldn't break in to another home and find an 11 year old girl and assault her?

I highly doubt the kid is going to have mental issues due to this. If you take in on yourself to break into a family home and threaten to kill a child, you deserve nothing less than your skull getting hollowed out.

I do agree with the point made about 11 missed shots though they could have ended up in worse places than a crack head's leg.

a reply to: slider1982

It is not that simple. If it was, anyone that ever used a firearm would have an easy defense.

a reply to: Snarl

Again, the laws are not that simple. That may be how you understand it, but it is much more complicated.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: slider1982

It is not that simple. If it was, anyone that ever used a firearm would have an easy defense.

a reply to: Snarl

Again, the laws are not that simple. That may be how you understand it, but it is much more complicated.

Actually it is that simple given the laws in the state of Alabama.

Show me a law that says the right to self defense only applies to a person over a certain age. Show me where the laws restricts the items that can be used for self defense. The kid had no duty to retreat.

originally posted by: introvert
Again, the laws are not that simple. That may be how you understand it, but it is much more complicated.

No matter what you believe, the kid was being interviewed on TV. That's a pretty good indication the cops told his parents he's not going to be charged.

And ... if you look it up ... the law in Alabammy pretty much is just that simple.

originally posted by: CraftBuilder
1) Shoots person while walking away from property

2) Says suspect "cried like a little baby" after being shot

There's some good future American cop material right there.

lol..Criminal invades home and you cast the victim as the aggressor. You and people like you are pathetic and destined to be slaves.

Moral of the story : don't break into houses and you won't get shot.

originally posted by: CraftBuilder
1) Shoots person while walking away from property

2) Says suspect "cried like a little baby" after being shot

There's some good future American cop material right there.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: AmericanRealist

If Odin is real, surely these kids are worthy to be in Valhalla.

You get to Valhalla by being DEAD.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Does Alabama law state that you can shoot someone for committing crimes against property, not person?

In many states, making a threat against a person is not a felony and is not considered a crime against person. Therefore it would be illegal to shoot them because it was a crime against property.

Self-defense laws throughout the nation see crimes against persons differently than crimes against property. In most states, you can shoot someone committing a felony crime against your person. In no state may you shoot someone committing a crime against property. The difference is usually straightforward. Crimes against persons are where someone is threatened during the crime. They include: murder, rape, robbery (either armed or strong-arm robbery), carjacking, home invasion, arson of occupied building, kidnapping, aircraft or boat piracy, bombing (either thrown or planted), purse-snatching, assault, and battery. [Note that the last two might not be felonies. Minor assault (an idle threat) and minor battery (an uninvited touch) are not felonies, so it would be illegal to shoot the offender.] Crimes against property are where no one is threatened. They include: sneak-theft, car break-ins, hub-cap stealing, tire stealing, burglary of unoccupied buildings, pickpocketing, counterfeiting, scamming, and fraud. Dr. Sweet’s grandfatherly advice: Do not shoot anyone committing one of these crimes.

ccwvslaw.org...

Like I said, it is much more complicated and it would depend on the law in the state.

Edit:

One final word regarding Texas. At the start we said, “In no state may you shoot someone committing a crime against property”. Texas statute Penal Code 9.41 explicitly makes it legal to shoot a thief if they are on your property stealing something at night. Do not believe this! Texas courts have consistenty defied this law and imprisoned those who followed it. We discuss this in a separate essay.

a reply to: Snarl

I don't believe he should be charged, I'm just trying to discuss the laws behind such actions.

Many people do not know what their rights are in these situations and this topic provides a chance to talk about it.

So an adult breaks into a home, threatens to kill a kid and gets dropped like a bad habit and people can't see it as being black and white as it is written there? That is the end all and be all. Criminal does criminal thing, criminal gets shot. End of.

a reply to: introvert

Alabama Code - Section 13A-3-23: USE OF FORCE IN DEFENSE OF A PERSON

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

While growing up we had hunter safety classes in school. You needed them if you wanted to deer/small game hunt before the age 16 or something like that. You got certified. You carried your card on you while you were in the woods. I don't know if they still have those classes or not.

a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

Ok, fair enough..Im not going to jump for joy over this..shooting a guy climbing a fence seems a bit not right but neither is breaking into a home and threatening the occupant. Call this one even.

a reply to: Snarl

Thanks. It would appear that the kid was justified in his use of the firearm.

These are the discussions we need to have because many, including 2nd amendment supporters, do not actually understand their rights and limitations on when they can or cannot use their firearm.