It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boy, 7 mistaken for trespasser and shot!

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Boy, 7 mistaken for trespasser and shot!


au.news.yahoo.com

A seven-year-old boy who was allegedly shot in the head by a couple who thought he and three other people were trespassing on their property died on Saturday, authorities said.

The boy, his five-year-old sister, their father and a family friend were off-roading near a residential area about 65km northeast of Houston when they were shot after stopping so the children could go to the bathroom

The Houston Chronicle reported that a sign in front of the suspects' home reads: "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be reshot!! Smile I will."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 10 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I apologise is this has been done before, but i couldnt find it in search.

I find this terribly disturbing, and i know it will stir a few people up and the gun debate will continue. But regardless of what side you are on surely this is a disturbing event. The fact that the suspects have that sign up proves the intent of inhabitants. Bloodlust comes to mind, surely if you can see good enough for a headshot you can tell its only a child.




au.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 10-5-2009 by pazcat]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I was done before by a dude with an earthworm jim avatar... But he wanted to know what all the gun nuts thought... So with-in moments several folks came out and said the idiot that pulled the trigger should not of been a gun owner.. blame the people not the gun

Edit to add the mods removed the story....I forgot to mention it but you can click click my profile to look for the original article that got removed.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by titorite]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 



Ah ok, then the tread can be removed if needed.

I agree the people are to blame entirely, it seems they were intent of shooting anything that moves before thinking, and surely they are not the only ones around with that mentality.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Sounds like homicide to me, and premeditated at that. They even stated their intent and mindset in a sign. There have been cases of people shooting their own children in their own homes having mistaken them for an intruder. This however, sounds like someone trying to take advantage of the law to commit murder. If you don’t want people 4 wheeling on your land, you can put stuff in the road to blow their tires out, put up a gate, etc. If the law doesn’t see that these child killers get justice, God certainly will.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
It is common knowledge that people who have no trespassing signs in their front lawn are likely to be drug dealers drug producers or are taking part in an extremely illegal activity on or near their property. They most likely will have a large intimidating looking guard dog as well.

My guess is these people were defending their illegal drug growing or manufacturing operation. The action of shooting the kid would be attributed to the effects and constant mindset they would have to have in order to continue their illegal activities.




Signs of a Meth Lab
• Chemical odours coming from a house, garage or detached building
• Windows are blacked out or curtains always closed
• Paranoid, odd or unfriendly behaviour by occupants
• Excessive amounts of trash, particularly solvent and chemical containers
• Extensive or unusual security measures or attempts to ensure privacy (no trespassing signs, high fences, guard dogs)
• Frequent night activity

www.pssg.gov.bc.ca...

In no way am I certain this is the case in this situation, it is only a strong educated guess.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by wiredamerican
It is common knowledge that people who have no trespassing signs in their front lawn are likely to be drug dealers drug producers or are taking part in an extremely illegal activity on or near their property.



Hey there George Bush, since when do you post on ATS? I mean seriously!, just because I have a no trespassing sign I must be a criminal? Implied thought crime because I want to be left alone....

That is a sick attitude

You do me a favor. You stay on your ranch in TX and I won't trespass there.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Sounds highly illegal. I do not believe there are any states that allow you to shoot someone for trespassing. The use of deadly force requires that you feel your life is being threatened, or they are trying to break into your home (which equates to a threat on your life/family).

That guy sounds like a nut and I am sure he will be prosecuted. This has nothing to do with gun rights if the act was illegal.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610
Sounds highly illegal. I do not believe there are any states that allow you to shoot someone for trespassing. The use of deadly force requires that you feel your life is being threatened, or they are trying to break into your home (which equates to a threat on your life/family).



I'm going to take this one step further by saying that, most, if not all, states require substantially more than even breaking and entering to justify the use of deadly force. Imminent danger must be present (ala weaponry of some sort) and even then it can be a bit murky.

Clearly this guy will be prosecuted and, most likely, face the death penalty for his actions.


AB1



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Man I hate playing devils advocate but here I am. Their are some states that allow deadly force to protect private property.

Yes in Texas you can shoot someone for trespassing.

And yes the murderer here in question who can not tell the difference between a 7 year old boy and an intruder is wrong....

[

[edit on 10-5-2009 by titorite]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
I'm going to take this one step further by saying that, most, if not all, states require substantially more than even breaking and entering to justify the use of deadly force.


Some states, not all (assuming the resident is IN the house at the time, you can't shoot someone breaking into an empty house in most states). I can say that here in Georgia if someone breaks into your home you have every right to shoot them. Happens pretty frequently here and it is all over the news and the citizen is hailed as a hero.

It has even happened by mistake and no charges are every filed (i.e. mistake meaning drunk lost his key, tries to crawl in the window of "his" apartment and is shot to death by the apartments inhabitant when it turns out it was the wrong one).

Makes perfect sense too, if someone breaks into your home are you going to have a discussion with them to figure out if they are dangerous? You gonna turn the lights on to see if they have a weapon? You gonna ask them "hey do you plan to slaughter my family"? LOL. Not likely.


[edit on 10-5-2009 by Sonya610]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Recently a guy in my province shot someone for trespassing. Guy was going to steal an ATV. But instead he ran away. Which means that they guy shot him in the back.

People like this are insane.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


No, no discussion, but they do have to present some type of imminent danger...simply breaking into someone's home doesn't necessarily intimate that.

Like I said, it really depends on the state you live in. As an example, in New York, if you wake up and find someone roaming around with a weapon, it is reasonably assumed that he/she intends bodily harm, thus justifying the use of deadly force. In stark contrast, if you come home and find a burglar climbing out of your window with some of your electronics it is NOT justifiable to use deadly force, simply by his/her desire to leave poses no imminent threat.

Hawaii has even more strict laws from what I can remember.



AB1



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
He had an obvious NO Trespassing sign on his property. The child decided to ignore it anyways, and was shot. As far as I'm concerned, he was well within his rights to defend his property against trespassers. Anybody, child or not, dumb enough to ignore such an obvious warning deserves what he gets.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
More proof that stupid and guns don't mix.

Too bad, they can try to restrict the purchase of firearms all they want, but they can't restrict stupidity.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Surely, there is an interesting point to make here .. We all seem to agree that those people should not own guns. However, those kind of people (with the lust for blood) are the very first to own guns.

There should be some kind of law that requires the front lawn to be inspected before anyone gets a gun.. just to avoid these 'obvious' events?



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
He had an obvious NO Trespassing sign on his property. The child decided to ignore it anyways, and was shot. As far as I'm concerned, he was well within his rights to defend his property against trespassers. Anybody, child or not, dumb enough to ignore such an obvious warning deserves what he gets.


The kid wasn't even on his property. People like you just want an excuse to murder seven year olds to prove your can.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
He had an obvious NO Trespassing sign on his property. The child decided to ignore it anyways, and was shot. As far as I'm concerned, he was well within his rights to defend his property against trespassers. Anybody, child or not, dumb enough to ignore such an obvious warning deserves what he gets.


In addition.. Are you playing the devil's advocate here? If not, I doubt there is any way to activate your emphatic faculties. If you think a child getting shot in the head is A-OK just as long as some idiot writes it on a stupid piece of wood, there is really nothing I could say, except - stay away from my children.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
No, no discussion, but they do have to present some type of imminent danger...simply breaking into someone's home doesn't necessarily intimate that.


In Georgia it surely does. And any state that valued its honest citizens over its criminal population would agree. If a criminal is breaking into a house it is NOT reasonable nor safe to expect the innocent resident to figure out if the danger is "imminent".

They are already at a severe disadvantage. The criminal has all the advantages (possible weapons and total disregard for the law). The best way to handle that situation would be sit and wait for them, or shoot through the walls, but in either case it would NOT be possible to gauge their risk of "imminent threat" without risking your own life in the process. They surrendered their rights when they broke in.

If they don't want to risk being shot then they shouldn't break into peoples homes.

(Though shooting them in the back as they are trying to flee can be a problem, I agree with that part).

[edit on 10-5-2009 by Sonya610]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   


DeFoor said Sheila Muhs then called 911 and told the dispatcher: "They're out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them."

DeFoor said the levee belonged to the subdivision and was not private property.


Seems they weren't even trespassing.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join