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

reply to post by intrepid


Why were the kids terrorizing him in the first place? A rock is considered a deadly weapon. Try terrorizing and throwing rocks at a police car/police person like this and see if you don't also end up shot.

Every day we see the deterioration of our society. We see parents unable or unwilling to discipline their children, we see elders and kids abused by those that can. At what point did this old guy deserve to be terrorized? How are we to know what really happened? In a state of fear, protecting his home and life sure he pointed the gun which I already said was stupid in an earlier post, but he may have truly feared for his life. The people who had the most control over what went down in this situation were the kids doing the terrorizing. They could have chose not to in the first place. Perhaps he did call the police, and was waiting the 3 hrs for a response.

As for your drunk person analogy, drunks are ALWAYS at fault in an accident as they should not have been there in the first place. So in kind, if these kids weren't terrorizing the old guy in the first place, then none of this would have happened. A certain amount of responsibility MUST fall on the youths. One thing for sure, the other 2 youths will think twice before terrorizing another old person.

..Ex

reply to post by v3_exceed


Terrorizing? Man, you guys really like that word. It's used for everything and to justify everything these days. They were throwing rocks at his house and his car. I can hardly see how he could "fear" for his life. Unless his house was made of paper.

He had a gun, right? He obviously knows how to use it. He shot the kid, outside and in the back. He's guilty and he'll do time. To try to smooth this over under the auspices of "terrorism" is insane.

reply to post by intrepid

Sorry to hear about your experience but it has nothing to do with this issue. I can hardly see where it relates. Different people. You would be projecting your thoughts and feelings to this incident. That's not logical.

Actually it is logical. I am also an old person being harrassed by a young person. The only difference city vs country.

I have also been pelleted by rocks by a bunch of thugs. Luckily I was 22 yrs old and fast while they were only eight or nine, So I can certainly relate to the experience... and the blasted bruises.

reply to post by crimvelvet


Like I said, you are projecting your thoughts and feelings into a situation that is different.

Lastly, I have to go for a bit, if he had shot the kid in the face and on his property I would have more empathy for the guy. He didn't. He shot the kids off his property and in the back. If people can't see the difference I can't help you out there.

reply to post by intrepid


Are you even familiar with what that word means?
Terrorize: to fill (someone) with terror; to terrify; to coerce (someone) by using threats or violence.

A group of youths outside of your house, pelting your car and house with rocks, no doubt shouting obscenities and threats would be a clear definition of terrorize. The guy had a .22, try to stick to the facts here. If his intention was to find an opportunity to shoot someone I'm sure he could have done much better, especially in the USA.

Look at the neighborhood, this wasn't the suburbs with nice picket fences, this was a crap side of town. Those kids knew what they were doing, they took their chance and got what what potentially could happen at any time.

The USA might see a terrorist under every rock, at every corner, but true terrorism is when you are helpless against a mob or group victimizing you for their own enjoyment. I hope this never happens to you, or anyone you know. Changing your opinion isn't worth the grief you would go through if it were to happen to you.

..Ex

reply to post by crimvelvet


Then you are part of the problem.

If you are 22 years old and physically fit enough to be "fast," then you should have made an example out of some 8 and 9 year olds. They need guidance, not bullets and cowards! You ran away? From 9 year olds with rocks? So, when those same kids are 15 and some old man shoots them it will be partially your fault.

I would gladly walk into the middle of a dozen 9 year olds, grab one up, give him a whooping, and a lecture, and ask for all of their parent's names.

Kids need lessons, not death penalties.

For the sake of my sanity, I'm going to pretend you neanderthals don't readily condemn human beings to death at the age of 15 as if they are the ones responsible for their actions when the law clearly sees their actions accountable by their parents -- the rational people will fully developed brains... until they buy a gun and develop a superiority complex that somehow rationalizes shooting people who threw rocks at you. This man was not defending himself, he was being a vindictive idiot and he will most definitely die in a cell. Anyone who condones his actions is the definition of a psychopath, a mental disorder that cannot be diagnosed properly in a 15 year old because they are too young and impressionable; making it impossible to tell whether their actions reflect their actual thoughts or just their desires to "fit in".

— n
Also called: sociopath a person afflicted with a personality disorder characterized by a tendency to commit antisocial and sometimes violent acts and a failure to feel guilt for such acts

I agree, kids these days are out of control; that doesn't mean we can shoot them when they annoy us. If anything, we should be shooting their parents -- they are the ones legally responsible for the terrors they pump out. But, can we even really blame the parents? It's obvious that ridiculously strict laws of corporal punishment have created a HUGE incline in the amount of brats on this planet. Children are pathetic vandals because we don't spank them; positive reinforcement does not replace discipline -- without discipline it creates egocentric brats. If this mother disciplined her child properly, he would not be dead right now -- this is true, but it does not justify this stupid rednecks trigger-happy vindication of the situation.

Originally posted by v3_exceed

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

A .22 is absolutely as deadly as any other gun. What is the difference what size the gun was? Now rocks on the other hand. Rocks thrown at a house or a car are not deadly. There was no reported damage to the house or the car, there was no report of another gun. There was just some annoying teenagers and a cranky old man that decided to take a life.

I can't help but get the feeling your trolling. Had he pulled a .44, then the old guy was in some dirty harry fantasy and gunning to shoot someone. If you think rocks aren't deadly please visit some "Woman stoned to death in Iran" threads. How you can take such a position without any information about what really happened except that one sensationalistic artical is beyond me.

A .22 is very seldom deadly, unless you get a really lucky shot, or shoot someone in the eye at an upward angle allowing the bullet to enter the brain. Not only that, the average .22 is made with such shoddy tolerances that unless this is a competition weapon your really lucky to actually hit the target. Seeing as it was a handgun, it wasn't a competition weapon.

So when the day comes that you get swarmed by a group of teenagers out to beat someone for the entertainment factor, I will be sure to express that they were just having fun. In this case as I already stated we simply don't have enough information. Troll on..

..Ex

You must not have any experience with guns? .22s are typically very accurate, unless you buy some cheap, mistreated thing off the street. If you buy a decent 22 from a gun store, it will be very, very accurate. .22's are also known to be more deadly than 9mm and other high velocity weapons, because the bullets typically fragment and ricochet off bones and causing extra damage. Larger rounds have more "knockdown" power, but that does not always equate to tissue damage. Personally I carry a .380 because it is very light, very accurate, easy to conceal, and I buy special fragmenting bullets similar to what Air Marshalls carry, because those rounds do maximum damage without risk of a "pass through" that could hurt an unintended target.

No, I am definitely not a troll. I am an avid gun enthusiast, and I carry my concealed weapon on me every day, and I get extremely annoyed at all the tough talk from people that either carry a gun for the wrong reasons, or they know nothing about guns but like to jump on the bandwagon and make us all look crazy!

Key points:
1. Property is NEVER more valuable than life.
2. Guns are never for show or warnings, they are always for killing.
3. Carrying a gun is an extreme responsibility, and it is not for everyone.
4. All adults have a responsibility for mentoring our youth. This guy had a million options that did not include killing anyone.

I applaud the guy for having a gun and being willing to use it. He should have waited til morning and approached the kids parents or caught them individually, or driven down to the police station. He should have waited until they were attacking him personally or trying to enter his home. He should have been happy when they left his property and had their backs turned. He had already won, why shoot?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by crimvelvet

 

Then you are part of the problem.
I would gladly walk into the middle of a dozen 9 year olds, grab one up, give him a whooping, and a lecture, and ask for all of their parent's names.
Kids need lessons, not death penalties.

There was a swarming by teenagers not far from where I live a short while ago. A fellow who was getting off of work building a liquor store at the local mall, business owner that kind of thing. Anyways a group of teenagers saw him locking up about 9 ish at night. Very quickly these teens unprovoked attacked the guy who was in his late 40's, early 50's. he had done nothing, the teens were bored. He ended up going to the hospital seriously messed up, the teens just ran off. They attacked him with nothing, no rocks, no sticks.

Now if teens without rocks and sticks can send a guy to the hospital like this, what do you think teens WITH rocks etc can do? By the way...in your example there, you would be charged with assault on the 9 year olds, of course..your not a woman either. At 15, kids know what they are doing. At 16 they can be easily tried as an adult. So really..there is no excuse for their actions. It would be extremely easy for the youths to get caught up in the moment and kill this guy. I said it before, the youths could have stopped this anytime just by leaving, the old guy was at his residence, so couldn't leave.

..Ex

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I would gladly walk into the middle of a dozen 9 year olds, grab one up, give him a whooping, and a lecture, and ask for all of their parent's names.

Sure, and you would have have been arrested and probably done time for beating a kid, not to mention the lawsuit that would follow. It's a different world than the one you grew up in.

While it's tragic that a 15 year old lost his life, I can't help but think that if more people over the last few decades had acted in similar fashion to this old fella, we would have a lot less trouble with roving bands of predatory children robbing, killing, selling drugs, etc. Kids join gangs and start comitting these crimes at younger and younger ages. 10 and 12 year olds are killing people regularly, and nothing of substance is being done about it. Gangs just keep getting bigger, to the point of pretty much needing an army to take them on.

reply to post by v3_exceed


You are correct that a woman would have a tougher time, and might be more likely to retreat. Still, I can't imagine retreating from 9 year olds. My wife is a 95lb white girl, and I can't imagine her retreating from a group of 9 year olds. Quite the opposite, I have seen her wade into a group of 9 year olds not much smaller than her and rescue a kid on a playground.

Now, the shopkeeper is another story. In that instance using his gun would have been justified. He was physically attacked and injured. Of course it is ok to defend yourself with as much force as necessary. They guy in the OP was not attacked, nor physically injured, so in his case it was unacceptable to shoot at a retreating teenager, off his property, with his back turned.

I am not saying that swarming teenagers are never dangerous. Each incident is unique, and sometimes force is called for. I think there is a thread on ATS about a grandmother that shot and killed a teen, and I was on her side the whole time.

reply to post by subject x


It is certainly a different world, I agree. BUT, I refuse to cave in to political correctness. I would still act that way regardless of the consequences. Luckily I have very little that can be taken in a lawsuit, I have friends in law enforcement, and I don't mind whooping some kids parent if necessary as well. Therefore, my antiquated actions typically go unpunished.

I think more people should be willing to do the "right" thing regardless of PC consequences.

reply to post by infolurker


There was more than one kid. Maybe the old man aimed at the kid running toward him missed and hit the kid running away. Of course this puts an end to the terrorizing the punks were doing, and explains why the old man tried to cover up the shooting.

This case is far from being a slam dunk with a decent defense attorney.

I cant help feeling sorry for the old man and not for the kid, its almost a got what you deserve thing. Which is awful, but with people dying of random violence, this killing right or wrong, is understandable, and one of those well, if you had not been terrorizing anothe rhuman maybe the other human would not have snapped.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Ok I'll bite. In what world is a rimfire .22 more deadly than a 9mm? If this were the case, police would use a .22 rather than a 9mm, 10 mm and .40's. Seeing as police never fire to wound. 22 bullets are the cheapest pieces of crap made. They are also the only rim fire bullet produced anymore as it is a seriously flawed technology.

Ok, I am Canadian, secondly I have a license for restricted and non restricted firearms for possession and acquisition. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Canadian gun laws, but there are several tests you need to go through to get a PAL for restricted weapons in Canada. This means I am completely aware of what guns can, and cannot do. I personally own a Beretta FS96G .40cal. I have owned several .22's and several rifles.

Based on the extremely slanted sensationalistic articles presented we cannot determine how many shots were fired. As I pointed out when you pull a weapon on cowards they will typically run, so he may have fired a warning shot which may have caused the guys to turn and run, hard to say as we aren't given that information. We also don't know if they were pelting him with the rocks when he confronted them. As I said, until we have more information I'm reserving judgment on the old guy.

However, to defend the youths without regard for what the old guy may have gone through is just inane. He was at his home, the youths were not. He couldn't just leave the situation, the youths could. He may have felt his life was in danger, how are we to know what he felt? How can anyone say what he should have done, or what he felt was at risk? I just cannot understand how people can be so judgmental with so little information.

The moral of this story is that if you don't want to get shot, don't intentionally mess with people. You simply don't know what they are capable of or what they might have already gone through in their lives. Maybe this old guy was victimized previously, we just don't know.

..Ex

reply to post by getreadyalready


Yes, and if the corvette guy tried that crap in the neighborhood where this crime occured, he might well have been shot and killed on the spot by the other kids or the child he man handled in the first place.

Some streets are not safe for kids to play on period, because they ar too dangerous.

Throwing rocks at an old mans house hard enough to embed in the front door IS antisocial behavior in my book. It is pathetic and I am saddened that our youth in this city have nothing else to do than terrorize old people.

And when one of them gets shot, does society say well, you should not have been throwing rocks at an old man?

No my city rewards the punk behavior with our illustrious coach Pitino gifting the mom with a basketball!!

That is disturbing.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Hold up, since when have rocks become nonlethal?

I am sure quite a few Middle Eastern women would disagree with you there, if they were still alive to do so.

reply to post by v3_exceed


Police don't carry .22s because they need quick stopping power. They need to be certain that an advancing criminal does not keep advancing. They don't fire "to kill" even though they are trained to fire at the center of mass which typically means killshot. They fire to "stop" somebody in their tracks. Police also do not carry 9 mm any longer, because of the risks of pass through, ricochet, and not enough stopping power. I'm not advocating 22s, I like my .45 1911 the best, but I carry my .380 and my wife carries a .25. I am only saying that we cannot use the caliber of the gun as a defense for the old man. Obviously the 22 was enough to kill the teenager.

The moral of this story is that if you don't want to get shot, don't intentionally mess with people. You simply don't know what they are capable of or what they might have already gone through in their lives. Maybe this old guy was victimized previously, we just don't know.

If you are a rational adult and you don't want to get shot, then don't intentionally mess with people. If you are a stupid teenager, you do not fully understand consequences yet. You still feel invincible, and you are more interested in impressing your peers than your parents. You are more worried about your "cool" status than your resume. If this was a 30 year old man harassing his neighbor repeatedly, then maybe you shoot him, but you don't shoot a kid!

reply to post by getreadyalready


His actions make him one, in a gorup/gang, terrorizing an old man, throwing potentially deadly weapons at him en mass, that is thug behavior not the behvior of a good kid.

reply to post by hotbakedtater

And when one of them gets shot, does society say well, you should not have been throwing rocks at an old man?

No my city rewards the punk behavior with our illustrious coach Pitino gifting the mom with a basketball!!

That is disturbing.

I agree 1 million % with that. I think Pitino's involvement cheapened the whole thing. It almost seems like it is more of a tragedy because he was a basketball player. It reinforces the stereotype of the thug basketball player from the inner city.

In my opinion, this probably would never have hit the news or been prosecuted if it had not been an aspiring basketball player. That is a whole other story and thread that should be addressed. I wonder how many other 15 year olds were shot and killed on that same day across the cities and nobody noticed because they weren't being recruited to play ball somewhere!

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

His actions make him one, in a gorup/gang, terrorizing an old man, throwing potentially deadly weapons at him en mass, that is thug behavior not the behvior of a good kid.

It's the behavior of a bad kid -- bad kids deserve to live and regret their bad decisions that were made in their adolescence, not be shot by a reckless 62 year old vigilante for pelting his car and front door with rocks.