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.


15 Y/O Shot In Back After Throwing Rocks At Old Man....Can This Be Justified?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:00 PM
My city has murders every day, our youth in Louisville are at risk and die every day. Here is the latest sad tale from Louisville, Kentucky.

Mother Wants Justice For Son Shot In Back By Old Man Son Was Terrorizing

Metro Police say 62-year-old Archie Ashley shot Elliott in the back after Ashley's home was vandalized by a group of teens Saturday night near Shawnee Park.

Ashley had complained that groups of young people had been throwing rocks at his home and car all night. But Elliott's family says that doesn't justify his actions.

His mother says he didn't normally hang out in that neighborhood. She says, "When I took him down Saturday to spend the night with his friend, that was that. I told him to be a good boy. His last few words, he said, 'I love you Mama,' and I said, 'I love you too.' That's the last words I have from my son."

More from the article, Rick Pitino, our U of L basketball coach, donated a basket ball to the fallen teen after hearing of the death.

Some more links about this story, so you can get a more complete picture before I give my thoughts on this topic.

More details, picture of victim at this link...Wave3, Lou. KY

Friends and Family Mourn Teen, Want Justice

A couple of things jumped out with this case.

The old man was being terrorized by a band of punks, throwing rocks at his house and car. At several of the links you can see the picture of the old man.

This happened in the ghetto, a rotten dangerous part of this city (unfortunately there are few places left not touched by the punkage and violence we see here).

The kid was shot in the back.

My question is this.

Is shooting someone in the back ever justified?

This old man was likely scared, and fed up, and we do not know if he was aiming at the kids back, or if the kid turned after the first shot was fired and caught a bullet running away from his criminal activity.

Interestingly, the old man, after shooting, picked up spent shell casings and tried to hide the gun.

Does that say guilty or scared?

I can see a scared terrorized old man fed up and desperate to stop a gang of punks from vandalizing and terrorizing his property. He has a right to live without fear. In this neighborhood/part of Louisville, calling the cops could get you killed. Could, excuse me, does.

Maybe he got scared and just started firing to scare them, and had bad aim. It was dark.

I would love to hear what others think on this case.

Gun rights, right to protect your self and property, the perception of the old man this was a gang of youth out to possibly kill him, shot in the back.

And, is shooting someone in the back EVER justified?

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:02 PM
Shot first! Ask questions later. Well I know for an old person it would be difficult to control a teenager. Yet! I can understand why in self defense he would of shot him. Rocks hurt! If someone is hurting you you have to get them off of you.

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:06 PM
yes. if they're running to reinforcements. if they are trying to escape though, then no.

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:09 PM
If some one is hurling rocks at you by all means shoot them. Rocks are a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law which would mean your life is technically being threatened.


Is shooting someone in the back ever justified?

Not unless they turned their back on you to go attack somebody else.

Trouble is, once you make a stand you're inviting more trouble. You may deter an act or send a criminal running and that criminal may very well return prepared with some of his criminal buddies to get that gun they now know you have. Certainly should that happen you are more than justified to shoot to kill during that crime. But you'll have a harder time protecting yourself during that retaliatory event than you would have if you stopped the criminal earlier. Of course killing the criminal earlier could always incite revenge from the criminals affiliates.

No real way to be 100% certain of the outcome of any action.

Shooting somebody in the back is a definite no for me unless they are headed out to attack another in front of me. Pre-emptive strikes are only "justified" if you're a government.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:15 PM
I can think of instances where shooting in the back are still justified to keep the public safe.

However, it is not justified to use lethal force in response to rock throwing and pranks! If the old man was known to be grouchy and the kids got a kick out of riling him up, then I am sure he was overly frustrated. The old farmers in my town would have used shotguns full of rock salt. That is teaching someone a lesson without killing them. Also, the old man could have repeatedly called police until they were as frustrated as he was and they finally did something about it. Using a gun in response to a rock thrown at a house or a car is not appropriate, and it is sad anytime someone's kid has to die.

I am all about gun rights, and rarely do I criticize someone that seemed to be acting in self-defense and fear, but from what I know on this case so far, this guy was completely wrong and should go to jail!

+23 more 
posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:26 PM
little bastard should learn some fn respect.

I dont think it's cool to shoot someone in the back,
But I do think it's cool that as awful, and disrespectful as kids are today,
that one old man stood up and and said " NO, This doesnt fly"

Rude little a-holes,
throwing rocks at people,
especially older people.. wtf...

The Universe just balanced things out, thats all. '

If this mother is soo concerned now..
why did she not raise her child to have some fn respect.

Bummer, s*** happens.

All of this would have been non-existent if one child knew how to fkn behave.

Crap in your own backyard...
dont cry when you step in it.
(or when it shoots you for abusing it) lol
edit on 13-10-2010 by Ahmose because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:29 PM
If he shot the kid after the attack was over then he was in the wrong. If the kids were not throwing the rocks at the shooter then it is not justified.

A 2 pound rock can be a deadly weapon if thrown at a person. However, if he was inside he should have stayed inside and called the cops.

Let us not forget one thing. Nearly everybody becomes a saint when they die. What I mean is you rarely hear the mother on TV saying, "I knew something like this was going to happen." Usually the kid was a loving, caring, future ceo, with nothing but love in his heart.

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by MikeNice81


I want to see one of those where the family steps up and says, "he was always trouble, I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner." That would be priceless!

Here is the issue though. Nobody ever threw rocks at the old man. Just his car and his house. There was no danger, and especially no immediate danger, and especially no immediate, grave danger.

Friends and family are saying goodbye to a teen apparently killed over an act of vandalism.

Ashley had complained that groups of young people had been throwing rocks at his home and car all night.

Who hasn't gone out and tried to annoy the grouchy old man in your neighborhood? Hell, I still do it, and I'm 37 years old now! Nobody should get shot for "vandalism."

This man will certainly go to jail, he was in no danger of bodily harm, so the shooting was not justified, plus he tried to cover up the evidence afterwards. GUILTY!

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:34 PM
I grew up believing that all old men sat in a rocking chair on their front-porch with a bottle of Jack Daniels and a loaded shotgun telling punk kids to stay off their gosh-darned lawns. Every neighborhood always seemed to have at least one cantankerous old man like that. The kids would torment the old man, and the old man would always threaten to shoot them. What is a humorous stereotype to begin with does sometimes turn ugly when it goes to it's eventual conclusion.

The use of Deadly-Force in Self-Defense is acceptable, morally and under law, when one is protecting themselves (or another) when their lives are in immediate danger. Roman law used to include Protection of Property as acceptable use of Deadly-Force in Self-Defense, but almost all jurisdictions in the United States do not consider this to be acceptable, limiting the Protection of Property to Non-Lethal Force. In either case, despite Castle Clauses, you can not use Deadly-Force to shoot a burglar in your own home unless they pose an immediate risk to the life of those in your house. In your yard, you have even less of a defensible position legally in which to use Deadly-Force as you have the ability to retreat within your own house.

In this particular situation, he used Deadly-Force outside of the confines of his home (so Castle Clauses absolutely do not apply under any circumstance). He used Deadly-Force when his life was not in immediate danger. He used Deadly-Force on an unarmed person who was retreating. The law is clear on this. He had no right to use Deadly-Force under the circumstances.

Hiding the spent casings and the gun shows that the shooter was trying to cover up his wrong-doing. If he confesses his guilt, he is going to get the leniency of a jury, but if he doesn't admit to his guilt and wrong-doing, then the jury is going to see that as being remorseless and throw the book at him. He's looking at either facing financial culpability in a Civil Suit or doing time in a Criminal Case...either way, he's boned.

If you are cantankerous old man sitting on your front-porch with a shotgun who likes to goad the young whipper-snappers to get off your gosh-darned lawn, then at least have the sense to load non-lethal rock-salt or bean-bag shells! If this man had shot the kid in the back with a bean-bag round, they would have been awarding this guy with a handshake and a medal...but using Deadly-Force when it was not justified instead gets a pair of handcuffs and a trial date.

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:36 PM
Reply to post by MikeNice81

Nearly everybody becomes a saint when they die.

Aint that the truth. Crack-head gangbangin' Johnny "neva was gunna hurt nobody" after he gets killed by the guy whose home he just kicked the door in.

Sure Johnny has a rap sheet a mile long but this time, this one time, he just wanted a sandwich because he was so hungry. There werent even any bullets in the gun he had. Well, not in the chamber anyway.

Like the mothers of these 'kids' are always shocked and amazed by the end result of the childs lifestyle choice?

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by hotbakedtater

The kid expressed his free will by throwing stones.
The man had a gun and he expressed his right to use it.

I wouldn't allow guns to be legally held but it's not my counrty, it's yours.

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:47 PM
Well, he won't be throwing rocks a old people anymore. It's a shame he had to ruin the old mans life with his nonsense, but at least he learned his lesson, permanently.

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

I remember a case, a few years ago, where the disconnect between the guys past and the comments was jarring.

He was nearly 30 years old, had spent 8 years in jail, had been convicted of stalking, assault, larceny, and armed robbery. He was shot twice during an attempted armed robbery. His mother and brother were on TV "seeking justice." According to them he was just a gentle soul that was misunderstood. He never meant anybody any harm and was trying to get his life on track.

I guess waving a gun, and screaming give me the money, is the new rehabilitation method.

Anyway, back to the OP. I agree that this looks like a clear cut case of murder. However, none of the details of the incident are really out there. I think trying to hide the shells does signal guilt. It could just be that he freaked afterwards and reacted in a bad way. There needs to be more information before I make a conclusion.

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:56 PM
Can sympathize with most persons in this thread.

Tragic tragic thing. I've been in situations where kids are throwing pretty large rocks at myself or persons I know, or the kids themselves are stealing from out the front of my house. What do you do?

They know to a degree they are invulnerable because you can't use your full force against them. They know the police won't arrive in time and won't take it that seriously *unless* someone is seriously injured.

People take advantage sometimes of persons graces and then one day they meet someone with a little less grace and a shotgun. It's sad because you'll never know how that kid was really going to turn out. Deserved it? We'll never know.

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 03:11 PM
Bottom Line~

Respect other human beings,
Dont treat them like $^!t~ or the Universe will treat you like $^!t.

It is called balance.
aka, Karma.

So what? One less a-hole in the world to disrespect and treat others like $^!t.

Too many a-holes in the world.

I think it would have been better if the old man simply choked the hell out of the kid and put some fear into him,
but hey... who am i to argue with the plans of the Universe?

It was meant to be.
Simple as that.

So, the old man is terrorized by rude, little a-holes,
he stands up for himself and protects himself,
and now his life is ruined....

All because "adults" do not how to raise their fn children with even the slightest amount of respect or courtesy.

Honestly, i hope the old man gets off, scott free.

and I dont care what anyone thinks about my feelings.
So save it. lol

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 03:12 PM
reply to post by fraterormus

That is the stereo type I was referring to!

Your Castle Law doctrines need to be updated though. In Florida it does apply to protection of property in some cases, and it also applies to your personal space outside of your home. In other words, they got rid of the retreat clause. Used to, if a retreat were available, you had to take it everywhere except inside your own home. With the current law you are never required to retreat. You can use lethal force to protect yourself or another from grave danger anywhere.

Nobody was throwing rocks at the old man though! He was not in any danger. He wasn't even protecting his property. The article doesn't claim any type of damage was done to his house or car. They were just pestering him for giggles, and now someone is dead. This is tragic, and the guy needs to be in jail.


posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 03:18 PM
Moral of the story....have some damn respect for others and don't terrorize people...especially the the elderly.

Overkill? I think yes.

Do some people have to learn the hard way? Probably.


posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 03:23 PM
reply to post by hotbakedtater

I have only partially read your opening post.
There is never a reason to shoot another
person in the back.When a person is fleeing,
they are no longer considered a threat to you.
You can't shoot anybody for stealing your property
or verbally abusing you.You have to be in danger
of losing your life or bodily harm.

Proud gun owner and member of the USCCA!
edit on 13-10-2010 by mamabeth because: added to post

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 03:25 PM
Thank you for all the replies. I will be back later for more in depth response, but forgot to touch on this.

Why in the world is Rick Pitino rewarding thug behavior and getting involved in this? It disgusts me, he was just involved in a very sick scandal which includes cheating on his wife. I find it really sends the wrong messge for a college coach to be drawing attention to and rewarding as such thug behavior, and reflects poorly on the university.

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 03:26 PM

Originally posted by CX
Moral of the story....have some damn respect for others and don't terrorize people...especially the the elderly.

Overkill? I think yes.

Do some people have to learn the hard way? Probably.



new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in