It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:44 AM
I still find it incomprehensible and reprehensible that there are people here still advocating that this 7 year old DESERVES what he got, no less advocating that it's OK in general.

With all of the stretches of the imagination flowing here, among them has to be these:

1) we have to assume the child could even read.

2) we have to assume that he KNEW he was on PRIVATE property and was actually trespassing.

3) we have to assume that if number 1 were true, that he knew what trespassing was, and had a clear understanding of the consequences laid out by the sign, keeping in mind number 1 and number 2 are still true.

4) we have to assume he had line of sight TO the sign (since it seems it was only in front of the house) that would keep numbers 1,2,3 viable

And, he was 7....SEVEN....G.I. joe falling into the sandbox from the top of the slide on his jungle gym is tantamount to DEATH when you're SEVEN, not a shotty tearing a hole in you that you can drive a mack truck through.

At times, I can hardly believe I entertain talking back and forth to some of the personalities here.


[edit on 12-5-2009 by alphabetaone]

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:52 PM
In the scenario I was talking about, I was speaking of a person that was in fact trespassing and I was speaking of the fathers responsibility in this matter. I thought I'd made that pretty clear. Would the father not be in any way responsible?

OK I'll play devils advocate. "IF" it turns out that the group really was trespassing, shouldn't the dead boys father be somewhat responsible? I know I taught my children to respect other peoples private property and that trespassing is illegal. If the property owner wanted to share his property with every Tom Dick and Hairy, there wouldn't be a sign posted? Whatever gave this father the idea he had the right to disrespect someone else's home without consequence?

I was playing devils advocate as I said. I personally would never shoot a 7 year old. But... I should have, and do have the right to defend my person and property. If it says no trespassing and you trespass and get shot, you're responsible for what happens to you, not me. Again I'll ask why it's so hard for people to take responsibility for their actions.

And to answer digital desire...

I prayed that one day your son or daughter (below 7 of cause, why raise them to more than 7 just to be shot in the head for trespassing) will somehow trespass some nut's property and get shot..

I wouldn't expect anything less from a Christian...

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:04 PM
I think that both of the shooters will see very long jail time for this.

It was unclear if the victims were in fact trespassing. There was clearly no threat of harm posed by the children.

If you couple that with the sign in front of the shooters home, I think that most juries will find them guilty. The sign will lend credence to premeditation. They intended to shoot someone for being on their property. They were not defending themselves.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:42 AM
Just a bit of an update.

Well a bit of good has come out of this tragedy. The parents of this seven year boy have donated his organs. Despite the mistakes and poor judgment in this whole incident, hopefully some one's life will be better and these parents will know their son helped another in his worse moment.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:58 PM
Not sure if anyone is still interested in this topic but

The couple has been indicted...

A Liberty County couple has been indicted on murder and other charges after police say they shot a boy to death when they opened fire on his family during an outing along the Trinity River last month.


Gale and Sheila Muhs, both 45, were each indicted Wednesday on one charge of murder and seven counts of attempted murder in the shooting that happened south of Dayton about 9 p.m. May 7.


The group was returning from riding near a levee and swimming in the Trinity River and had pulled over on a road near the Muhses’ home.

The road runs between the Muhses’ house and the levee surrounding a lake. Investigators said the public has access to the road and levee.

Houston Chronicle

Appears the people were not on private property at the time of the shooting.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:20 PM
Good to hear.

These clowns should be locked up, permanently.

Anyone who thinks the Second Amendment allows you to shoot at little kids is out of their mind.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:13 PM
I don't really think they knew who they were actually shooting at, a small boy, but your point still applies. A person shouldn't just shoot at people blindly in a rage. It wasn't life threatening for the shooters.

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in