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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:02 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.


Um, no. Neither he nor anyone else in his party was trespassing.


Anybody, child or not, dumb enough to ignore such an obvious warning deserves what he gets.


Uh huh. "Trespassers" is a word that a Grade 2 student can read.




posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
The law in certain areas may ALLOW you to use deadly force to defend and protect your property, and I won't argue that as it's a determination that a state has made.

But shooting anyone under the age of 12 is completely irresponsible on two levels.

If the dumbass just shot at movement, and shot the boy, that should be manslauhter. Reckless manslaughter.

If the SOB identified his target, picked his shot, and then shot a child less than 12 years old, then that's murder.

No one knows what his history was, he could have been recently robbed, or even shot at himself, and we don't have a lot of details.

Each year, folks are shot by supposed "hunters" who stupidly shoot at "movement." Completely irresponsible, as you should not only identify your target, but should be good enough to actually place your shot. Which again, implies positive identification.

To shoot a child, unless somehow he is shooting at you, which is very unlikely, is at best manslaughter, at worst murder.

No excuse.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:29 PM
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.



lets take this message one more step! there are several us government bases that warn people against the use of deadly force. so if people know not to enter a base without getting shot, why not have the same respect for a citizens privacy?

i do not agree that this man should of killed this kid, just saying,society needs to realize there are dangers out there.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


Please refrain from making statements that attempt to cast my Great State of Texas in a less than noble light. The use of deadly force is NOT justified in the cae of "trespassing". There are other requirements that must be met. We (the citizens of Texas) do not, as a whole, condone the implied 'blast away' mentality of your post. Here is the law:

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Source:

tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us...

With that cleared up, on to addressing the OP. Some people should probably not own firearms. Just like some people should not procreate and some people should never get behind the steering wheel of a two ton weapon. However, it is unfortunately up to the individual to determine their own eligibility. Some people ( and I fear the number is ever increasing) are stupid.

It is said that 90% of the laws are written for 10% of the people. The rest of us know what is right and what is wrong. The couple in this story, obviously, fall within the smaller number.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by WTFover]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 

WTF, thanks for that post. Of course, I would personally, never speak in disparaging tones anything about the great state of Texas.

In any rural portion of the country, as in any city, you can find some absolute retards. They hate, they fear, they're too stupid to know the difference, and on occasion, they pull something like this.

I don't give a tinker's damn what the sign says. That sign assumes that one can see it, which would be difficult coming from the opposing direction, it would assume that no one would have an emergency and need to ingress or egress across a property line, it assumes that a child willingly and knowingly defied the sign.

I've done some really rotting **** in my life I'm not real proud of, hunting men for a living. But even then, we had a few rules of behavior that enabled us a "track" back to civilization.

Only an indifferent retard would be stupid enough to fire at "movement." The truth is, they were filled with hatred, jealousy, fear, dominated by ignorance and disregard for others, which compelled them to just take a couple shots.

A crappy outlook on life is no justification for spreading your misery on others.

Damn them both.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
This bothers me. It makes gun owners look really bad. Jumping at the first chance to shoot someone indicates something seriously wrong. I hope these people are put away for a long time.

The only reason I would ever shoot that quickly is if they were armed, and aiming towards me.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Read the full story and you will see it was at night. The law you cited makes provisions for that occurance since in the dark you cannot tell the intentions. Sad story but not murder unless the victims truely were not on the defendants property.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by scraze
 


There is a great deal of room between owners and users. The twitchy trigger fingers are small in number compared to all owners. This case doesn't confront the massive number of responsible gun owners. This case is more like what drunk driving is to driving.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
guns don't kill people.. bullets do.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


I agree with this.

The unfortunate part of the "castle doctrine" however is that violent clowns like this take it to mean "I can shoot anyone who steps foot on my property or looks at me funny" - we've already seen that view expressed in this thread, in fact.

That's not what the law says, and the right to bear arms does not equal the right to shoot at seven year olds that had to pee


Hopefully these people will be tried for murder.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:34 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.


I've been on these forums for over a year now, and I don't think I've ever read anything quite as disgusting as this.

It was a 7 YEAR OLD CHILD. And you are defending the idiot who shot him? What, pray tell, was a 7 year old going to do on his property that justified the couple murdering him?




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


Absolute brilliance.

Backwards-ass rednecks like these are the reason our civil-liberties are at stake. Thankfully this happened in Texas; hopefully these two will be sitting on the electric chair before long. I don't normally advocate the death penalty, but taking the life of a child is something that "gets to me".



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by dizziedame
 


Please forgive me, but I think you misunderstood me, I am saying, people who have (NO TRESPASSING) signs in their immediate front yard are the people I am referring to. Not the people who post them on the boundries of their property to keep poachers /fishers/atv'ers off their property.

There is a difference between people with the signs right at their front door than people with it on corners of their property reminding people.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
My question is what are they hiding that they have to have a sign like that in their yard? Are they making illegal substances or what? This person clearly shouldnt own a gun if his mindset is to just shoot anyone who comes on his land. What a horrible event. I hope that guy spends the rest of his life in prison.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
These two need to be locked up, forever. They fired blindly at people who weren't even on their land. One fired, then they passed the weapon, and the other fired. If you reasonable believe your life is at risk, you aren't going to take the time to pass the weapon off to the other person so they can take their shot. These two are homicidal psychopaths.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tatersalad
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.



lets take this message one more step! there are several us government bases that warn people against the use of deadly force. so if people know not to enter a base without getting shot, why not have the same respect for a citizens privacy?

i do not agree that this man should of killed this kid, just saying,society needs to realize there are dangers out there.


You basically contradict what you say. First you say he deserved what he got then you say you dont agree....So the way I see it you think a SEVEN year old child deserved to get shot and killed??! Wow that just amazes me. The kid was 7! How do you know if he could read that sign? The man that shot that kid deserves whatever is coming to him. He imo murdered an innocent child who just wanted to use the bathroom. I guarantee if someone shot and killed his 7 year old child under the same circumstances he would be singing a different tune.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Yet again a misinterpretation..

What I'm saying, is that the 0.001% of the population that are likely to be a danger to the fellow men, can just as easily pick up a gun as the next guy. Even if they have a sign in their front lawn which clearly states their intent.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by uncommon-sense
 


I haven't read anywhere in the article what time the shooting occurred. However, the law states that the shooter must, "reasonably" believe that deadly force is the only alternative. The article did say they had a telephone, with which they could have requested assistance from the authorities.

Don't take my explanations of the law the wrong way. I, firmly, believe no one is guilty until proven so by a judge or jury. Particularly on the merits of a newspaper article. All of the facts are not made known there.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by uncommon-sense
 

Where in the article does it mention what time of day this took place? And if it was after dark then how could the shooters tell exactly where the people actually were in the first place.
"Authorities said the couple fired after they mistakenly thought the group was trespassing on their property."
And when he called 9-11 he didn't say that they were tresspassing on their land he said:"They're out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them."
And they took turns firing at an innocent little boy. Why?:
Liberty County Chief Deputy Ken DeFoor said Sheila Muhs fired a 12-gauge shotgun once, then handed it to her husband, who also fired once.
That to me sounds like they just wanted to see how it felt to shoot another human being.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenton1234
reply to post by uncommon-sense
 

Where in the article does it mention what time of day this took place? And if it was after dark then how could the shooters tell exactly where the people actually were in the first place.
"Authorities said the couple fired after they mistakenly thought the group was trespassing on their property."
And when he called 9-11 he didn't say that they were tresspassing on their land he said:"They're out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them."
And they took turns firing at an innocent little boy. Why?:
Liberty County Chief Deputy Ken DeFoor said Sheila Muhs fired a 12-gauge shotgun once, then handed it to her husband, who also fired once.
That to me sounds like they just wanted to see how it felt to shoot another human being.




I think the only justice for what they did would to be give the parents the couples shotgun, release the couple (shooters) into a caged area, but with room to hide, and then the parents slowly stalk them, and at the end of the day blow their heads off.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by kenton1234
 


It is in almost all of the articles, the shortened versions ommit that info but the full version from the local papers and news shows discuss it. the call was made "shortly after 9pm". below is a link to a local newscast of the story.

For the record: I feel they are guilty but the facts have been obscured to try them in the media before their trial even gets a date.Here is a link



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join