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: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Laws in farm and cattle areas are pretty lax when it comes to shooting trespassers. When I was a kid it was fairly common to get shot at by the farmers and ranchers if they caught you around their property at night. I have even had people I know get shot this way, and luckily they didn't die.

When we were out and up to mischief, it was an expected risk. I even know of a kid (teenager) that was shot by a farmer while bashing his mailbox, when the kid recovered, the kid was arrested for a felony. The farmer was not charged.

I agree that a head shot indicates a good view of the target, and no one has the right to shoot a 7-yr old. They make mistakes, they get lost, etc. This was clearly an anti-social individual hoping to be able to shoot someone eventually.

On another note, the game warden's can come onto your property at anytime without warrants. If this guy had shot an officer, he would be in serious trouble.

He may not be charged, but if the community is anything like the one I grew up in, there will be justice. I suspect jail is the safest place for him about now; he is in for a lot of unfortunate 'accidents'!




posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Yet another stupid and unfortunate incident in Hicksville.


Paging Prez Obama, rush AWB now please!!!




posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by scraze
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.



Not really. Cases like this are rare compared to the number of guns owned. Hardly a case for collective blood lust.

Having said that if this were my son I would have certainly returned fire with the intent to kill, his property or not.



[edit on 10-5-2009 by Logarock]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


I disagree with how the laws are structured honestly, as much as anyone, I guess what I'm trying to say is that it can be an incredibly grey area on what is considered imminent danger and what isn't. Sometimes there's far too little clarification.

However, with that in mind, on the topic, in any case, a 7 year old presents no imminent danger to anyone. So if you are right or if I am, is really somewhat moot in this particular case I think. The reality of it is, that (and according to the guys sign) if the land owners wisdom prevailed, if the kid slipped off his bike OR someone pushed him into the yard, then the property owner would have shot him and been well within his rights to do so. THAT is egregious.



AB1



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
I disagree with how the laws are structured honestly, as much as anyone, I guess what I'm trying to say is that it can be an incredibly grey area on what is considered imminent danger and what isn't. Sometimes there's far too little clarification.


See I don't, and fortunately I chose to move to a state that mirrors my belief system. I am a 130 lb female, if some thug breaks into my home I am not going to ponder whether it is imminent danger. I am going to kill it. If it turns out it wasn't carrying a weapon too bad (as if that matters).

There are some things that comprise your survival. Breaking into other people's homes is one of those things. Do it and you risk being dead. Very simple.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


I think you misinterpreted what I said..

I meant that most of us agree that those people, the couple that shot the 7 year old, should not own guns.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
As miserable as this story may sound, the law is the law and if it states trespassers can be shot then the shooter is within the law.
if you don't like it...CHANGE THE LAW!



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by scraze
reply to post by Logarock
 


I think you misinterpreted what I said..

I meant that most of us agree that those people, the couple that shot the 7 year old, should not own guns.



Ok. By the way did you mean "first to use guns"?



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Well in all fairness, if there were several tresspassers in clear view, why would the guy shoot the 7 year old? I mean realistically even if he WANTED to shoot trespassers why aim for the smallest in the group if it was a clear shot?

Doesn't make sense. The father would have been the obvious target if visibility was good. Maybe it was a badly aimed warning shot.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610
Well in all fairness, if there were several tresspassers in clear view, why would the guy shoot the 7 year old? I mean realistically even if he WANTED to shoot trespassers why aim for the smallest in the group if it was a clear shot?

Doesn't make sense. The father would have been the obvious target if visibility was good. Maybe it was a badly aimed warning shot.

Non of this matters. What matters is that the law is faulty and this should be a wake up call to have it changed. This guy is gonna walk.
law.onecle.com...



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


Well, from your perspective I agree with you, pondering is not the answer to such a situation.

However, my background is one of assess before action. Hell, for all I know someone could be breaking into my home because they ARE being threatened by another individual and are seeking shelter or perhaps a phone to call the authorities.

I have many many various types of firearms, and am well versed in them all. Am a very light sleeper, and it would take someone pretty skilled to get the drop on me such that I couldn't assess the situation beforehand and use critical thought.

To be clear, I'm not making an attempt at trying to sway you or change your mind, in fact, in your circumstance I'm sure I think you would take the best course of action (assuming you live alone, as I do). I just have a deep respect for life (yes my own as much as any other) and find it counter-intuitive for me to throw my critical thinking to the wind simply because I know that I can.


AB1



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by wiredamerican
Please tell me you were not serious about people with no trespassing signs.

That is the most asinine statement I've read this week.

I pay a lot of taxes on my property and will not tolerate idiots killing the wildlife and dumping trash.

When I catch them I hold them at gun point and call the police and press charges against the trespassers that come to kill the wild life or dump trash.

I am not a mean old hag and will gladly share the fishing pond with the people that have manners and ask permission to fish.

It's the no class butt wipes that come to do harm or damage that I have a problem with.

I have No Trespassing signs but no meth lab or illegal substances growing.

Please, deny ignorance.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by dizziedame]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I wonder how many postmen he's shot?

But really this is a tragic event.....how can you shoot somebody without looking properly at them first?

This is the typical shoot first ask questions later, very hostile attitude.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by _Phoenix_]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Ok. By the way did you mean "first to use guns"?


Well yeah, they're most likely to use guns - but to use guns you need to own them.
What I meant is actually very simple - people who would like to shoot someone ("Smile I Will") are very likely to pick up a gun, while for example pacifists aren't. I wouldn't want to extrapolate that to normal people, but it's the violent psychopaths that scare me.. If they want a gun, who's stopping them? Even with an obvious sign like that - noone, apparently.

[ alternate article with mugshots: www.msnbc.msn.com... ]

[edit on 10-5-2009 by scraze]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaoneHowever, my background is one of assess before action.


In public "assessing" may be prudent to a reasonable extent. Breaking into my house? No. I do not live in an isolated country side, this is not a horror movie where the only house in sight is survival.

Real world is stuff happens, people die everyday. People also get tortured and raped and killed by home intruders. I have fetched my escaped dog from a neighbors backyard and realized I was taking a risk, I would NEVER break into someone's house without realizing it could mean being killed. That is common sense.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


Alllllrighty then....again though, there are sometimes more sides to a story than simply entering for nefarious means. While YOU don't live in the countryside, it doesn't take a horror movie to find yourself in a bad situation far from others, and if you happen across a house, try to get someone inside to respond (while they may be asleep) have no luck, and decide to use YOUR survival instincts the best way you know how, then I find it only proper that if *I* were the homeowner inside, I would assess what was happening.

If the intruder were wielding a weapon, you're damn straight I would take him down, no questions asked (AND not necessarily shoot to kill, but enough force to abate the threat). However, lacking that, I WOULD use good judgement and question him/her first knowing that I am the one locked and loaded and have the advantage.

In your example, it's almost a catch 22....one could also pull into question that, if it is such common sense to NOT B&E in Georgia for fear of being killed, then why is the prevelance of it so high?



AB1



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
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 likewise I suppose the state, or the Government, can put that person in jail if the shooting is lethal? Rights tend to go both ways.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizziedame
I have No Trespassing signs but no meth lab or illegal substances growing.


Would you tell us if you had?



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
first post from a long time reader..

First off, I feel they will be convicted of a lesser charge than murder. I do feel they were criminally negligent in his death as well as in injuring the three others. But as usual there is more to the story that is being left out of the cut and paste news summaries flying around.

1. It was about 1 1/2 hours after sunset, which was at approx 7:50 that night, shooting was after 9pm. so it was dark.
2. They had been on the levee prior to the incident but pulled into the dense brush at the rear of the defendants property to use the restroom.
3. Shotgun was used from 40 yds away. That is why 4 people were hit out of the group. the spread from 40yds is fairly large with most shells.
4. The police do not deny they were on the defendants property at the time of the shooting. They simply mention the levee is not private property, in regards to the 911 call stating they were tearing up the levy. Had they been on public property when they were shot they would have immediately been charged with four or more counts of attempted murder, plus several lesser charges.

Again I must state I feel they are wrong and guilty of causing the death and injuries. But these are facts that the MSM is brushing aside to shorten the story and to obscure some of the facts. And I am just wanting to inform some who may not have read enough about this story to find out these tidbits.

And as for all of the people saying they are protecting their meth lab or their growing operation... Surely you know that the property was searched during the arrest and any of that would have been in the headline.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:00 PM
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.


This has been in the Houston paper for a few days. The issue here is weather or not the boy, his sister (5), their dad and a friend of their dad were infact trespassing. The other issue is that the two involved in the shooting have had the Police out to their place several times in the past years, they shot one time each into the dark without seeing whom they were shooting at- at over 40 yds away...striking the boy, his sister, the family friend and the jeep with pellets. They were riding up a levee in an area where people do this quite alot.

I do not think that the Texas Castle Law will protect the shooters in this case-but they were still out measuring where they were in relation to the property lines and shooting took place.

As previously stated you can shoot people in Texas for violating your no trespassing sign and we also have the fore mentioned Castle Law.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join